Huricane Mk I 100 Octane perormance tests 1.07.18301

[klem]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

When was that admitted that the Merlin delivered 12lb boost in 1940 ?

lol

Ok let me try your scientific sense of history....

I dated Jenny Lopez... I dated Jenny Lopez... I dated Jenny Lopez... I dated Jenny Lopez... I dated Jenny Lopez...

Don't start trolling that old argument in this thread too. You know it has been done to death elswhere.

Originally Posted by Crump

When was it approved for sustained climbs?????

I did not use Boost Cutout Override in my tests, it does not work, see attached.

[klem]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Please explain the chart building and how to do this. I would not mind doing this for the 109, cheers.

Farber, there is an explanation in the .doc file in the zip file in my OP. Its basically chart building from the output data using Excel or OpenOffice. Let me know if there's anything that isn't clear or needs expanding.

EDIT: I just updated my OP as I saw I had not attached the zip file and then I replaced it with a few corrections to the instructions.

[gimpy117]

I would also like to see ME-109 climb and performance tests. I bet it's borked too

[Bounder!]

Thanks for posting Klem

[klem]

Just did a quick comparison of Hurricane Mk I 87 Octane vs 100 octane at 1000, 5000 and 10000 feet.

Seems the old 87 octane is faster than the 100 octane

Would appreciate it if anyone else would like to check that.

[=AN=Felipe]

[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

But Seadog, Crumpp says the Pilot's handbook says nothing about 12lb boost.

Merlin II and III got 12lb boost in WEP settings with 100oct fuel...

Spitfire IIa ALL them got 100oct engines (Merlin III or Merlin XII), so... hurricanes too

[=AN=Felipe]

Originally Posted by klem

Just did a quick comparison of Hurricane Mk I 87 Octane vs 100 octane at 1000, 5000 and 10000 feet.

Seems the old 87 octane is faster than the 100 octane

Would appreciate it if anyone else would like to check that.

We will test all them again =) its no problem ok?

cya

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by klem

Just did a quick comparison of Hurricane Mk I 87 Octane vs 100 octane at 1000, 5000 and 10000 feet.

Seems the old 87 octane is faster than the 100 octane

Your figures are without boost. The difference was AIUI (which may or may not be correct ) that 100 octane allowed more boost at low level. So figures without boost shouldn't show a difference, and with boost only up to FTH.

[Bounder!]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

Your figures are without boost. The difference was AIUI (which may or may not be correct ) that 100 octane allowed more boost at low level. So figures without boost shouldn't show a difference, and with boost only up to FTH.

I think that's precisely the point (or problem) that there shouldn't be a difference ingame between the 87 and 100 octane without boost but there is. All I hope is that the devs had said that the FM were still WOP and so data like this is good as it can highlight problems with the current ingame FMs.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Bounder!

there shouldn't be a difference ingame between the 87 and 100 octane without boost but there is.

There will be variations between runs at exactly the same settings (unless they are flown by utterly flawless autopilots). If the variation between runs with different settings is in about the same range as the difference between runs with the same settings, then that's the best that can be expected, and that graph looks as if it might be the case. If more tests show similar variations between runs at the same settings, it's probably alright, if with the same settings you come up with identical numbers time after time, and there is a significant (in the technical statistical sense) difference between settings, then there might be a cause for concern.

I shan't bother to do any testing myself.