Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

NOTE: Anyone actually measure the air speed indicator for accuracy? I did! It is. (IMHO). Methodology: Used google maps to get geographical distance between the tip of "The English Point" (Dungeness) and the tip of "The French Point" (Point Gris Nez). Flew over Dungeness at treetop level and trimmed to a set speed for level flight, then headed towards France. Hit the stopwatch as I flashed over the tip going feet wet, then held steady speed and course at wavetop level. Hit the stopwatch as I flashed over the surf at the tip of Point Gris Nez. The elapsed time agreed within seconds of what simple arithmetic said it should've been. Good enough for me for sea level measurements, at least.

You are a great man Snapper ! I always wanted to do that myself!!!

[Insuber]

We are focusing on the Spit II which IMO is fine online, except maybe for the climb rate and the 12 lbs takeoff boost. The other Spit types and the Hurricane have been excessively penalized according to people who flies them, I believe that the devs must have a second look at their FM's for the red pilots peace of mind. Speed/alt curves must be consistent.
In the long term all the FM engine must be revised to fix the bigger inconsistencies - G-stall lack, dive speeds, G damage, accelerations, ceiling >7000 etc.

Cheers!

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

But I see the problem right there. Now people look at that graph and see thick blue line faster than Bf109E. But forget to check a "minor" thing..it is with 12lbs boost not the lower continuous power. And on that the Spitfire is slower than Bf109E. And it seems, according to that graph, that Spitfire and Bf109E were quite evenly matched regarding speed on power settings below WEP or overboost. But again can not stress enough that should not take the 12lbs curve as the absolute speed of Spitfire as it could not run that setting indefinitely but for a limited time like Bf109E it's WEP.

Flanker you should notice that speed curves for 109 are for 5-minutes emergency power not for nominal power. So it should be checked speed at 1.23 Ata for 109 (30-minut power) vs 6 1/2 lbs for Spitfire - both continous power.

We should note that power settings for 109 E was ( Db 601A/Db601Aa):

1.4/1.45 Ata - 1 minut take off emergency power
1.3/1.35 Ata - 5 minut emergency power
1.23/1.27 Ata - 30 minut continous power

For Spitfire we have:
12lbs - 5 minutes emergency power
6 1/2 lbs - 30 minutes continous power

The problem is beside that Spitfire MK II dont have emergency +12 lbs at low level that its engine is very ofen broken without seriously reason. Yestarday i flew SPit MK II at 6 1/2 lbs and reduced RPMs for 2800 RPMs radiator open (temps normal) and after some time flying ( ab. 10-15 min) my engine broken. Flying at + 9 lbs broke engine much more faster.

Other hand if i not execed 2400 RPMs in 109 i could fly at 1.35 Ata power all time without any problems - when it should be only 5 minut emergency power.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

The source for each line is given and all of them are available in the internet. So it shouldn't be a problem for you to check the values and report any anomalies.

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

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

For Spitfire we have:
12lbs - 5 minutes emergency power
6 1/2 lbs - 30 minutes continous power

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.

[robtek]

Regarding to the topic,
yesterday i flew the spit 2 on the ATAG server and it was absolutely no problem for me to follow a few 109's across the channel and to get into firing range (150 yds) as soon as they left the straight flight path.

My IAS was 280 to 290 mph with +8 lbs boost at 2650 rpm at a altitude around 1000 ft.

It was also no problem in the dogfight to turn behind a 109 coming from above, attacking another plane, follow in a shallow dive and to intercept and follow it on its way back up and getting a firing solution on the apogee.

My summary is, that even with the less then perfect FM's the spitfire 2 is a matching adversary for the BF109E4 (which the majority of the enemy was flying)

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Other hand if i not execed 2400 RPMs in 109 i could fly at 1.35 Ata power all time without any problems

What sort of problems would you expect to happen?

[Yellow14150]

I haven't read the entire thread, but did anyone test out the airspeeds at sea level? I know the 109 E-4 tops out at 460km/h in level flight on the deck with afterburner. That's optimal prop pitch of 10:25-10:30, and a trimmed radiator. In small dives I can hit 470 for 30 secs.

The G.50 hits 390-410 km/h as indicated on the deck. That's with the prop pitch set correctly (around 60-70%) and the radiator closed down 50%. You can also fully trim the G.50

Has anyone speed tested the Spits and Hurris?

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

What sort of problems would you expect to happen?

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?

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Yellow14150

I haven't read the entire thread, but did anyone test out the airspeeds at sea level? I know the 109 E-4 tops out at 460km/h in level flight on the deck with afterburner. That's optimal prop pitch of 10:25-10:30, and a trimmed radiator. In small dives I can hit 470 for 30 secs.

The G.50 hits 390-410 km/h as indicated on the deck. That's with the prop pitch set correctly (around 60-70%) and the radiator closed down 50%. You can also fully trim the G.50

Has anyone speed tested the Spits and Hurris?

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.

The thick pink line is from handbook. I do not know what these values represent though. Prudence with data whatever source is always prime.

Even flight tests are not representing the final truth as they only represent one individual plane and not average performance.

As Kur already has presented the specs for the 109 which had a guaranteed performance inside a +/-5% bandwidth which is a lot. This however is of course theoretical tolerance. It may have been that the delivered aircrafts were +/-2% from an average somewhere inside the +/-5% (we do not know where this average was and probably the Luftwaffe did not know either).

This should be always kept in mind. Unfortunately this is a big headache for any flight sim developer.

Personally if we could have all flight data of a good statistical probe for each plane I would like to have statistically scattered performances of planes in the game. But this will never happen as we never will have that data.