Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109

[Flanker35M]

S!

As said by all here, we just want to have correct performance and now we do not have it, be it either side of the channel Kwiatek, would it be hard to produce a graph about speeds with different power settings? For example some old graphs fro TsAGI I have had the WEP value colored and only up to 2km on Russian fighters for example.

Making graphs of speeds as they are now would help to get a better picture where the sim is at it's current state. And far easier to compare against RL values I think.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Well probably the same problems like other planes could have with engine which is using in emergency power settings for too long time. In Clod 109 E could fly all time at 1.35 Ata 5-minutes emergency power without any problems other hand something is not correct if Spit Mk II have unexpected engine faluires flying even only at continous power ( + 6lbs 2850 RPMs).

Im sure you dont want Spitfires flying at emergency power +12 lbs all day long without any problems but fuel?

Theoretically planes CAN flew at emergency power for extended periods, but wear will be high on the components. It was not set in concrete, and the reason of failure is always down to failure in one component. If the coolant (indicating the engine block itself is at optimum temperature) and oil temperatures (indicating the proper lubrication is provided) are all right within limits, and other components do not fail, it should be possible. Bench tests often exposed engines to very long during duration at maximum power, so it was possible. Of course during bench tests optimum oiling and cooling is provided.

I guess the frequent failure you have experienced on Spits is down to a failure of a specific component, or improper operation like too rich mixture leading to excessive local temperatures, burning out of exhausts etc. which is the reason I ask what kind of component you expect to fail on the 109 or any other plane. Knowing this would let us understand if the model is correct.

[Yellow14150]

Thanks for reply on the airspeeds. That's interesting that the mkI spit is that slow. The Hurricane matters less because the British historically pulled the Hurricane from the front because of appalling losses.

From a historical point of a view there are a lot of things to take into account. The manufactures did their tests without armor or guns in most cases, so a lot of the data about both aircraft shows them going way faster then in combat.

I think it all comes down to a balance. A faster plane, that's also more maneuverable then the enemy, breaks the game for playability. I like flying the G.50. It's my favorite by far. I flew it when it was way underpowered. It was far slower, but turned almost as well as a spit, and better than a hurricane. I got a lot of kills in it because I learned its weaknesses and advantages.

If I came down from 12,000 ft onto an unsuspecting Spit IIa I could shoot him down in a lot of cases.

I've read historical accounts about the spitfire that put it as being faster than the 109 in real life. I think as far as the game goes each side should either have maneuverablity or speed. The 109 is faster, in the game, because it's far less maneuverable than the spit. In order to keep the balance a plane needs one or the other. If we want the spit to be faster then the 109 then, out of thinking about playability, we would need to make the 109 more maneuverable then the spit. That notion seems silly.

I think as far as fixing the Spit Ia, the FM should be brought closer to reality. I think if the IIa was within 10 kmh of the e-4 it would break the game.

I fly on both red and blue, but I fly the G.50 because I think it's the best dog fighter. The spit is by no means outmatched by the 109 because it's slower. It can out dogfight the 109 any day of the week. What spit pilots have to do, as I do in G.50, is learn how to use a slower more maneuverable aircraft to it's advantages.

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The V15a figures depicted in the William's graph are showing the aircraft down on power. As per the report the aircraft engine was down on power (by 45 PS), and the results were corrected to the nominal engine outputs. With the corrected output, speeds were 498 km/h (309 mph) on the deck and 574 km/h at 4800 m (356 mph at 15750 feet). See:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html

6 1/2 lbs at 3000 rpm was 5 minute power, not 30 min on the Spitfire. 6 1/2 at 3000 lbs was a "climb" power but only with the rpm reduced to 2800.

This one is more realistics, with some of the 'accidentally omitted' added. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...2&d=1336899153

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Unfortunately yes - only sea level result:


Hurricane MK 1 Rotol

238 mph /383 kph at the deck at +6 1/2 boost ------ should be 262-265 mph /420-426 kph !!!!

So it is 24-27mph/ 38-43 kph too slow at + 6 1/2 boost power !!!!

There is no WEP - so no 100 octan fuel performacne - which should give ab. 25 mph/ 40 kph extra speed at low alts

Spitfire MK1a

255 mph/410 kph at the deck at 6 1/2 boost ---------should be 283 mph/455 kph !!!!

So it is 28 mph/45 kph too slow at 6 1/2 boost.

No 100 Octan fuel performance at all - boost cut out doesnt rise power at all.

Spitfire MK II

268 mph/431 kph at deck at 6 1/2 lbs
285 mph/458 kph at deck at 9 lbs ------ should be 286-290 mph so it is quite accurate result!!!!

No emergency take off power +12 lbs included.


So actually with present FM and performacne of planes there is no sense to flying Hurricane MK1 and Spitfire MK1 against 109 casue their performacne is way off comparing to RL data even for only 87 octan fuel not mention absense of 100 Octan fuel performacne.

Could you please add above data to appropriate bugtracker issues.

Originally Posted by Yellow14150

Thanks for reply on the airspeeds. That's interesting that the mkI spit is that slow. The Hurricane matters less because the British historically pulled the Hurricane from the front because of appalling losses.

From a historical point of a view there are a lot of things to take into account. The manufactures did their tests without armor or guns in most cases, so a lot of the data about both aircraft shows them going way faster then in combat.

I think it all comes down to a balance. A faster plane, that's also more maneuverable then the enemy, breaks the game for playability. I like flying the G.50. It's my favorite by far. I flew it when it was way underpowered. It was far slower, but turned almost as well as a spit, and better than a hurricane. I got a lot of kills in it because I learned its weaknesses and advantages.

If I came down from 12,000 ft onto an unsuspecting Spit IIa I could shoot him down in a lot of cases.

I've read historical accounts about the spitfire that put it as being faster than the 109 in real life. I think as far as the game goes each side should either have maneuverablity or speed. The 109 is faster, in the game, because it's far less maneuverable than the spit. In order to keep the balance a plane needs one or the other. If we want the spit to be faster then the 109 then, out of thinking about playability, we would need to make the 109 more maneuverable then the spit. That notion seems silly.

I think as far as fixing the Spit Ia, the FM should be brought closer to reality. I think if the IIa was within 10 kmh of the e-4 it would break the game.

I fly on both red and blue, but I fly the G.50 because I think it's the best dog fighter. The spit is by no means outmatched by the 109 because it's slower. It can out dogfight the 109 any day of the week. What spit pilots have to do, as I do in G.50, is learn how to use a slower more maneuverable aircraft to it's advantages.

I think if the spit was faster in RL it should be made faster. If it was slower it should be slower. The quarrel is here which was faster. This question seems to be difficult to answer. Both sides have and still claim that their ride was faster. Probably because both were so close and the perception which one was faster depended on some other conditions (using emergency power, being slightly higher initially, having a well performing individual plane over a badly performing individual plane, being in the altitude range that provided performance advantage for own plane, ...).

[Bokononist]

Originally Posted by Yellow14150

Thanks for reply on the airspeeds. That's interesting that the mkI spit is that slow. The Hurricane matters less because the British historically pulled the Hurricane from the front because of appalling losses.

The Hurricane was indeed pulled from the front after the Battle of Britain. But in the battle itself it is arguably more important than the spit as it recorded many more kills, and was present in greater numbers. Lets try to get all of these planes FM's as close as we can. Fingers crossed.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Yellow14150

Thanks for reply on the airspeeds. That's interesting that the mkI spit is that slow. The Hurricane matters less because the British historically pulled the Hurricane from the front because of appalling losses.

Polish pilots from 303SQN taking part in BOB from 31 august 1940 was flying Hurricanes MK1 of course using 100 Octan fuel ( i read their combat raports) and they were the highest score RAF SQN during BOB time. They got also the best kill to death ratio so in experience hand Hurricane was still good fighter plane in BOB time. Expecially when it could use +12 emergency power which make huge difference in low level combats.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Ataros

Could you please add above data to appropriate bugtracker issues.

If you could do it casue im not familiar with bugracker too much

[palker4]

You people should finally learn that Kurfürst is always right and 109 is best and it is properly represented in the game while spitfire is also properly represented because it performs worse than 109.
I just wonder what would happen if 109 would perform worse than spitfire.

[bugmenot]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The V15a figures depicted in the William's graph are showing the aircraft down on power. As per the report the aircraft engine was down on power (by 45 PS), and the results were corrected to the nominal engine outputs. With the corrected output, speeds were 498 km/h (309 mph) on the deck and 574 km/h at 4800 m (356 mph at 15750 feet). See:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html



6 1/2 lbs at 3000 rpm was 5 minute power, not 30 min on the Spitfire. 6 1/2 at 3000 lbs was a "climb" power but only with the rpm reduced to 2800.

This one is more realistics, with some of the 'accidentally omitted' added.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst;

Kurfürst, can you add speed increasing with "overrev the engine above FTH" that you have mentioned here.. ?
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...postcount=1606