Spit IIA Speed in game test

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Robo.

You might be wrong though... +9 without BCC-O. What happened if you used boost override in a Mk.II? +12lbs. happened. Was it used? Yes indeed.

Yes, I might be. Thing is though we do not know how the Mk. II engine controls were set up in 1940. The throttle lever is just, a lever giving any kind of boost it is set to give.

How did the Boost cut-out worked on the Mk. II? Was it the original boost cut-out (override for fully manual boost control in case of failure), was it giving +9 or +12?

We know the take off gate gave +12 but it fell of quickly and was basically only good for take off or very, very low altitudes. This should be definietely modelled.

The summer 1940 Mark II manual gives the maximum combat boost as +9. It does not list anything else, like the Mk I manual listing (+12) with the boost cut-out. The later, amended (1941?) Mark II manual gives the maximum combat boost as +7 (+12). This may point to that the throttle was setup to give +7 normal, and (+12) with the BCC-O.

Personally, I think the summer 1940 setup may well gave similar boost, with +7 w/o the cutout and +9 with the BCC-O.

It does not make sense because if Mk.III has been modified to be able to withstand higher pressures and +12lbs. has been authorised and widely used, the Merlin XII was basically next step of these original modifications + some other things that helped with durability and cooling etc. It was certainly capable to withstand the +12 boost which has been also authorised AND used in real life. +9 for Merlin XII was what was +6.25 for Merlin III.

Maybe, but we need solid evidence for that. We do not have it in the moment. On the other hand, it begs the question why the summer 1940 (unamended) spitfire II manual only gives +12 for take off, but does not clear it for normal flight (giving +9 for that without any higher figures in paranthesis).

Anyway, how important is this issue? There were marginal numbers of Mk II in the Battle. One Squadron in the summer, three in September, a couple more by November. Essentially the same numbers as 109E-x/N types, which we do not have modelled yet. 110C-x/Ns are also missing. But the developers need to take priorities, fixing the engine and existing FM is way more important IMHO than adding new planes.

I see, I do remember you from Il-2. I was wondering about Cliffs of Dover as I've never seen you flying anywhere. There is nothing wrong with that, I understand your reasons. The thing is although you're trying to help and perhaps to create some balance so the arguments would not become biased on the RAF for example... But you sort of miss the touch with the acual sim reality, in my opinion of course. That's why you probably don't see how ridiculously big and unrealistic the gap between the FMs is at the moment and the sheer frustration of anyone who tries to fly for the RAF. Even the LW guys see there is no fun in it now. It would be okay if that would be what it was during the actual Battle of Britain. But it was not.

FM is broken all the way around. 109Es were too slow, they have ridiculus stalling, 110s had too low dive limits, they miss Mine shells, 601N powered versions, Spit IIs were too good, then nerfed too bad, now hopefully correct, both Spitfires and probably 109s roll way too well at high speed, radiator drag was missing, 100 octane versions missing on both sides, German bomb sights are broken and so on. I am very doubtful that the FM bugs are biased towards any side, its broken all over the place. I get their frustration, recent FM changes were not kind. But they also need to come to terms with the fact that Blue has the 109s, and its excellent machine which held most of the aces up its sleeve even historically. Speed, firepower, good handling. They capitalize on that well. Sorry to say that, Red pilots were always the more whiney bunch, if you were too back with Il-2 you know that yourself.. and Il-2 history is so full of Red whining for new aircraft.

The real problem of Red side is that they are trying to master dozens of different types and the relevant tactics, and somehow always put their hope in the addition of more powerful aircraft, some of them were really really atypical (Mustang IIIs, 1944 Spit +25s - eh, two Sqns on operational trials IRL). There was whining about adding the P-40 and high hopes were placed that it will squash the 109F. It did not. Same thing with adding the P-47, and then the horror when they realized that 7-ton aircraft don't turn or climb too well. Then extreme hopes put in for the P-51, only to realize six brownings are not the same thing as a pack of 20mms, the plane itself is pretty avarage for climb and turn and that you have to learn capitlize on that its fast. In short, Blue players are bit weary of Red whining for the newest and "bestest" variants, and that Red often wants to have the highest performing variants and none of the also historical worser variants. How much whining have you seen for 100 octane Hurricanes, seriously? All they want is the best one, the 100 octane Spits, and I believe the reasoning behind is all too obvious - everybody knows new Hurris won't change a thing. And yes, I do see need to balance some noisy Red's rather selective offering of evidence. You will not find me knocking heads with IvanK or 41 Banks and there's a reason to that - they do not reach further than what their evidence is actually good for. I can, did and will support any Red suggestion that is underline with evidence. If someone posts some hard evidence that +12 was cleared for combat Spitfire II during BoB, I will change my position right away.

Red's real problem is that Blue side only flew the 109 all that time, and become so familiar with it, that it is operated at maximum efficiency and with deadly results. No new plane addition will make up for that. When +12 lbs Spits will be added, it will be a match for performance, but it won't make up for well developed and perfected tactics and routine. And seriously, anyone who expects the Hurris to be competitive against well flown 109s is kidding himself. Experienced Blue won't go on the deck and turn with you, it will employ team tactics and hit-and-run attacks, where only speed matters, even in maneuvering fights.

[bongodriver]

While an entertaining little distraction it has been very telling on how the attempt to derail an important issue came down to insulting British women and boasting of their own and for good measure insulting the England football team, Women are wonderfull things the world over, but for us the Brits and for the USA there is a dispropotionate amount of 'porkers' with no personality, it's just lucky for us British men that Eastern european women seem to be quite keen

Back on topic, +12lbs boost was real, evidence of it 'will' surface eventually, I think the 109 'magic' rudder will need some investigation.

And Crumpp.....license and registration please.....Sir!

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Robo.

Ahh you don't call them Pakistani people like that, that's very very rude.

Oh. Sorry for that then, I did not mean it in a wrong way.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

When are Hungary playing their match?

Thankfully we did not make it and so made sure to avoid the emberassment.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Personally, I think the summer 1940 setup may well gave similar boost, with +7 w/o the cutout and +9 with the BCC-O.

As pointed out in this post: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=370

The throttle lever at "rated position" (this is the position before/at the gate) gave +9 boost.

[Kurfürst]

Banks, what is the date of this manual? I see it has been amended so its contents are at a later date than the original. When did this amendment came into force?

Secondly, then how did the boost override work on the Mk II in 1940?

Did it overode automatic boost control and the pilot had to adjust boos manually, according to altitude?

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Banks, what is the date of this manual? I see it has been amended so its contents are at a later date than the original. When did this amendment came into force?

It's from the same manual where the unamended engine limitations page from you is taken, i.e. the "unamended" version (though as can be seen there is an amendment included). If you have a really unamended version maybe you can show the corresponding pages.

Secondly, then how did the boost override work on the Mk II in 1940?

Did it overode automatic boost control and the pilot had to adjust boos manually, according to altitude?

Of course, the cut-out did disable the boost control, thus the pilot had to adjust boost with altitude. The only question that remains is if it maximum boost was limited (like modified Merlin III) or not (like unmodified Merlin III).

Also note this post: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=365

It shows that there were two different "All out" boost limits for Merlin 45, one regular rating (+9) and one for emergency (+12, later +16).

I just want to remind you that I was on your side in this case until there the combat reports were discovered that show the use of emergency boost/cut-out. I don't see a definite proof so far that the emergency boost was +12, however it's the only plausible value, everything below or above would be very very unlikely.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Yes, I might be. Thing is though we do not know how the Mk. II engine controls were set up in 1940. The throttle lever is just, a lever giving any kind of boost it is set to give.

How did the Boost cut-out worked on the Mk. II? Was it the original boost cut-out (override for fully manual boost control in case of failure), was it giving +9 or +12?

We know the take off gate gave +12 but it fell of quickly and was basically only good for take off or very, very low altitudes. This should be definietely modelled.

The summer 1940 Mark II manual gives the maximum combat boost as +9. It does not list anything else, like the Mk I manual listing (+12) with the boost cut-out. The later, amended (1941?) Mark II manual gives the maximum combat boost as +7 (+12). This may point to that the throttle was setup to give +7 normal, and (+12) with the BCC-O.

Personally, I think the summer 1940 setup may well gave similar boost, with +7 w/o the cutout and +9 with the BCC-O.

Maybe, but we need solid evidence for that. We do not have it in the moment. On the other hand, it begs the question why the summer 1940 (unamended) spitfire II manual only gives +12 for take off, but does not clear it for normal flight (giving +9 for that without any higher figures in paranthesis).

Anyway, how important is this issue? There were marginal numbers of Mk II in the Battle. One Squadron in the summer, three in September, a couple more by November. Essentially the same numbers as 109E-x/N types, which we do not have modelled yet. 110C-x/Ns are also missing. But the developers need to take priorities, fixing the engine and existing FM is way more important IMHO than adding new planes.

I agree. I suppose Banks or someone with more technical evidence would answer your questions. What I wrote before was just an assumption based on what I know from Merlin engine history, mainly 'The Merlin in perspective: the combat years.' I agree that evidence should be a base for any changes in game. I only have the ameded Mk.II Pilot's notes, but knowing a2a FSX sim for example, with their amount of knoweledge and research, they probably got it right and they have +12lbs modelled. We'll see.

Also agreed on the N 601 engines.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

FM is broken all the way around. 109Es were too slow, they have ridiculus stalling, 110s had too low dive limits, they miss Mine shells, 601N powered versions, Spit IIs were too good, then nerfed too bad, now hopefully correct, both Spitfires and probably 109s roll way too well at high speed, radiator drag was missing, 100 octane versions missing on both sides, German bomb sights are broken and so on. I am very doubtful that the FM bugs are biased towards any side, its broken all over the place. I get their frustration, recent FM changes were not kind. But they also need to come to terms with the fact that Blue has the 109s, and its excellent machine which held most of the aces up its sleeve even historically. Speed, firepower, good handling. They capitalize on that well.

Yeah no doubt about it.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Sorry to say that, Red pilots were always the more whiney bunch, if you were too back with Il-2 you know that yourself.. and Il-2 history is so full of Red whining for new aircraft.

I would say it's pretty much even on both sides. That's of my experience with Il-2 from day 1 pretty much. I do remember those never ending stories like .50 cal effectivity etc etc. But same goes for blue side, too. People are people. Same goes for what you describe below - every side wants the best for themselves and the worse for the other side. Funny. I am not biased, I fly just anything and I see the same stuff everywhere.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Red's real problem is that Blue side only flew the 109 all that time, and become so familiar with it, that it is operated at maximum efficiency and with deadly results. No new plane addition will make up for that. When +12 lbs Spits will be added, it will be a match for performance, but it won't make up for well developed and perfected tactics and routine. And seriously, anyone who expects the Hurris to be competitive against well flown 109s is kidding himself. Experienced Blue won't go on the deck and turn with you, it will employ team tactics and hit-and-run attacks, where only speed matters, even in maneuvering fights.

Never had a problem fighting the 109s myself. I agree it's down to tactics and teamwork. The problem at the moment is, and that's where the frustration is coming from, that the current beta patch FMs are too wrong. It's getting better though, let's see what the new patch will bring us.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Oh. Sorry for that then, I did not mean it in a wrong way.

I know you didn't, I was not offended obviously, that was just FYI. I didn't know that either before I got here.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

I just want to remind you that I was on your side in this case until there the combat reports were discovered that show the use of emergency boost/cut-out. I don't see a definite proof so far that the emergency boost was +12, however it's the only plausible value, everything below or above would be very very unlikely.

I have reviewed the paper and the manual again.

My conclusion, based on the July 1940 Spitfire II manual is that the references to emergency boost simply refer to +9 lbs, which was the all out limit to be used "in emergency". See attached manual. Therefore, early references from August 1940 to emergency boost refer to +9 lbs / 3000 rpm.

Controlled +12 lbs could be obtained by pushing through the gate for take off purposes only, and would fall off quickly with altitude. Boost graphs indicate it would be back to +9 by 3-4000 feet.

The Boost-cut out emergency control is simply an override for the automatic boost control. It should be noted that references to use of boost cut out do not appear until November 1940. Pilot can then control boost manually, and should be careful not to overstep the limitation of +9 lbs. He may choose to go over +9, as the Boost-cut out emergency control system technically permits it.

If doing so, great engine wear and risk of engine failure is risked. The officially sanctioned use of +12 with a limitation of 3 minutes or 1000 feet, whichever was shorter, was there for a reason.

He also has to manually adjust boost according for changes in altitude (at low altitude, extreme over-boost may occur as the throttle fully forward would result in about +17 lbs boost, and likely immediate destruction of the engine). Decrease of altitude will result in boost increase, increase in altitude will result in boost decrease. I am looking forward to Spitfire II pilots trying to get this right in a fight...

In short, its somewhat similar to manual overrevving practice on the DB 601 on 109/110.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Banks, what is the date of this manual? I see it has been amended so its contents are at a later date than the original. When did this amendment came into force?

I did check, A.L.3 was issued August 1940.