109 e3b against spitfire II - Page 18

CaptainDoggles · #**171** 08-09-2011, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

I think that we're faster at sea-level too, I have yet to be caught when running for home at wave-top height. Or maybe I am just lucky enough to not have run into someone with a better grasp of CEM on the Spits yet.

You're probably right, I've never really tried it so I didn't want to say one way or the other.

Talisman · #**172** 08-09-2011, 07:28 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraf...n#cite_note-27

The above is a link to a source that has something to say under the heading of 100 octane fuel. Below is an extract. Is this seen as a reliable source?

A meeting was held on 16 March 1939 to consider the question of when the 100 octane fuel should be introduced to general use for all RAF aircraft, and what squadrons, number and type, were to be supplied. The decision taken was that there would be an initial delivery to 16 fighter and two twin-engined bomber squadrons by September 1940.[27] However, this was based on a pre-war assumption that US supplies would be denied to Britain in wartime, which would limit the numbers of front-line units able to use the fuel. On the outbreak of war this problem disappeared; production of the new fuel in the US, and in other parts of the world, increased more quickly than expected with the adoption of new refining techniques. As a result 100 octane fuel was able to be issued to all front-line Fighter Command aircraft from early 1940.[28] [nb 1]

Happy landings,

Talisman

CaptainDoggles · #**173** 08-09-2011, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talisman

Is this seen as a reliable source?

You're not seriously asking if wikipedia is a reliable source are you?

TomcatViP · #**174** 08-09-2011, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I actually have no idea what any of that means. But I don't have trouble shooting down spitfires online unless it's the MkII variant which outclasses the 109 quite easily in almost every aspect.

As for the MkI and MkIa, the 109 can outclimb them at almost any altitude, and is faster in level flight at high altitudes.

Witch one inspire you most in term of agility ?

Note that IMHO the 109's FM are great as are those of the Hurri.

CaptainDoggles · #**175** 08-09-2011, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Witch one inspire you most in term of agility ?

Are you asking which RAF fighter I feel is more agile? Hard to say, probably the spitfire.

Quote:

Note that IMHO the 109's FM are great as are those of the Hurri.

The 109 FM is not particularly accurate IMO. It's undermodeled (probably the RAF fighters are as well, and yes that includes the spit)

TomcatViP · #**176** 08-09-2011, 08:50 PM

Humm did you not see the pictures of the ballerina (aka the spit) and the iron (aka the 109) ?

Regarding the 109 FM it's not under modeled. I feel them like perfect (ok ok it lack a lot of buffeting, dyn stalls etc ..) but those are way ahead of the previous IL2 series.

If you take any IL2 moded FM as a reference of course CoD planes have lower perfs but ... it's not related anyway to the CoD devs.

They hve done a tremendous work .

CaptainDoggles · #**177** 08-09-2011, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Humm did you not see the pictures of the ballerina (aka the spit) and the iron (aka the 109) ?

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

Regarding the 109 FM it's not under modeled. I feel them like perfect (ok ok it lack a lot of buffeting, dyn stalls etc ..) but those are way ahead of the previous IL2 series.

If you take any IL2 moded FM as a reference of course CoD planes have lower perfs but ... it's not related anyway to the CoD devs.

They hve done a tremendous work .

The 109 and early spits don't get their historical performances. That is undermodeled. I'm not comparing it to IL2 or mods or anything.

TomcatViP · #**178** 08-09-2011, 10:40 PM

Rgr that. No jokes btw cats and dogs

But I hve no prob with the 109 perfs. Perhaps at alt but there is no one flying there most of the time.

Hurri is just perfect.

Spits can still out turn a hurri (in fact it seems as it can turn inside the cockpit of the hawker, raise her nose faster than a 109 at any sped and stall only for a microsecond before being given back a positive vario. Oh and the max available power is always linked to max revs low pitch making that pit awfully noisy (I wld prefer rather be on the mower for an entire day than behind that propeller for an hour

).

Frankly everyone will gain having a more realistic Spit model with contested dogfights instead of this.

CaptainDoggles · #**179** 08-09-2011, 11:19 PM

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I don't find the spitfire Mk1 and 1a to be uber.

VO101_Tom · #**180** 08-10-2011, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

One thing missing from at least the Spits, is the Negative G cutout. Historically, I've read that the engine would completely shut off if held in neg-G, but I just did 2 negative G loops with the Spit, and while it sputters, it absolutely does not shut off. Full forward on the stick.

I remember, this an old story, it was changed in the first patch Il-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover: Patch 1.00.14072 -ARIL 15. "Completely removed overload assessment from carburetters. Rolls-Royce engines will now cut if overload is negative, and will not cut if it is positive. (old values were sneezing at .5G, and cut-out at .25 which we felt were dead on, but this apparently confused most of the players)".

They may not have written, that simply made the RAF planes easier

I don't know, how much this value now. Some topics started, but without a result.
Please keep the realism!
Realism or accessibility, what decision should be made?