Spit IIa

[Whiski]

Originally Posted by jojovtx

There is your answer. Move on to new ground, this horse has suffered enough.

May have been beaten to death but still not proven to be over modeled. Nor have the 109's been proven to be under modeled. Have they been tested using specs gained from a well known sources with results to back either claim?


Whiskey

[310_cibule]

Originally Posted by Whiski

May have been beaten to death but still not proven to be over modeled. Nor have the 109's been proven to be under modeled. Have they been tested using specs gained from a well known sources with results to back either claim?
Whiskey

It was. By the Blues

Yesterday on Atag server I had a hurri on my tail which pursued me over the whole channel flying low (so not a hurri with energy advantage). I could not loose it in my 109 even though I was at its ingame max speed of something between 450-460 kph (at least my extensive offline tests yielded this as the implemented max speed for the 109 whatever type). Sorry, but this is definitely not historic right now.

But to my knowledge they will anyhow overhaul the FM completely so we simply have to wait with what they come up with in the future and then see again.

I just want historic performance. Old IL2 was not that bad - at least it got the overall tendencies right.

[310_cibule]

Blue guys, I am just teasing you Of course the Spit IIA is overmodelled by all means (überflugzeug) 'cause we would had no chance else. And Bf-109 is undermodelled (thanks God, well done luthier).

But it is a challenge for you, isn't it? You can beat reds flying much worse planes any time (or shall we switch to gladiators)?

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Sven

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=23994

&

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=25956


Have a good read, the search function is your friend too.

Two threads of opinions started by incredibly well balanced and tempered posts?

[jf1981]

Not sure which engine the Mark IIa in the available servers are fitted with but there's no sign of 4 kft/min in the website, but in the game you can get to such vertical speed.
I was expecting about 3 kft/min, not sure which is the realistic one for this Mark.
It climbs very fast at 170 mph.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by Whiski

So, I have read quite a few posts regarding this a/c.
One question. Why do most people think its over modeled/over powered?
...

Hi. What is relatively accurately be measured, is the speed at sea level. (mph) (RL datas from Spitperformance):

Hurri D-5-20. In the game 240 instead of 262. -8,4%
Hurri Rotol. In the game 260 instead of 265. -1,8%
Spit I. In the game 240 instead of 283. -15,9%
Spit Ia. In the game 240 instead of 283*. -15,9%
Spit IIa. In the game 300 instead of 290. +3,4%

Fiat G.50. In the game 223 instead of 248. -9,9%
Messer E-1. In the game 273 instead of 302**. -9,4%
Messer E-3, E-4. In the game 273 instead of 290***. -5,7%

* If I am wrong in this, then I apologize. I do not know well the Spit subtypes.
** (edit) The measurement of this ratio does not matter, but it's good to know: this is not the 109's top speed, is only 1.35 ata boost pressure, instead of 1.45 (this is called the "start und notleistung"). That would be 200 PS power (~ 20%), which increases the speed only 10 kph (~ 2%) in the game.
*** Performance tests in RL are possible margin of error of ±5%. Maybe this is why measure at slower than the E-1, despite the fact that the E-3 is more powerful engines were built. Or the E-1 graph is bad. Who knows?)

[Jugdriver]

That is the most concise description of what is going on with the FM’s with regards to sea level speeds yet. Nice Tom.

JD
AKA_MattE

[CWMV]

Agreed, but I'm interested in where you get your data on the 109's? All the original docs Ive read indicate the E-1 was +/- 310 at sea level, and subsequent tests indicated that there was no appreciable difference between wing cannon armed aircraft and those without.
Links please? Always interested in new data.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by CWMV

Agreed, but I'm interested in where you get your data on the 109's? All the original docs Ive read indicate the E-1 was +/- 310 at sea level, and subsequent tests indicated that there was no appreciable difference between wing cannon armed aircraft and those without.
Links please? Always interested in new data.

If you ask me, all data is from the Spitperformance.com:
Here is the E-1 Chart: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-1774chart.jpg