BoB Spitfire 100 Octane fuel

[Talisman]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Sry Talisman but posted data used by A2Asimulations for Spitfire MK1 are totaly wrong expecially with Emergency Power. Even Spitfire MKIX wasn't such fast

Hi Kwiatek,

Thank you for your post. I was not asking for exactly the same as the A2A Spit as I said:

"Is there any chance that we could have the Spit represented 'something like' this, as it was in the battle with 100 Octane fuel in CloD too?"

My point is that CloD appears not to have made any attempt to give us the correct Battle of Brittain Spitfire, or Hurricane for that matter. This is very dissapointing to so many flight sim enthusiasts, as 100 Octane fuel was a long term plan that the British arranged and put into action specially in time for the BoB. As I understand it, along with the Rotal prop and the way radar, air observations and intelligence was used to inform strategy and tactics, 100 Octane fuel was one of the fundamental reasons for RAF success in the air, when so much was against them.

At least on the axis side, CloD appears to have attempted to provide aircraft to the correct specification (if not actuauly achieved flight performance) and does not appear to have missed something so fundamental; of course I stand to be corrected on that as I am no expert and I must say that I have enjoyed being educated by my involvement with this sim and the community. Infact, I have found IL-2 to be a great history lesson for me, particularly on the Eastern front.

Happy landings and 'Salute' all,

Talisman

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by klem

As you know Kwiatek, A2A simulations state that their Spitfire MkI is of a particular period March-May 1940 with 2-pitch props, and claim they were light enough to achieve these speeds although they do admit the 410mph in the handbook is a typo, their model doesn't actually achieve that speed. If I can quote them:
"The majority of Spitfire I testing at RAE etc was done pre 12 lb boost.You need to be very careful when analysing tests to match conditions to dates. Most tests done early were only at 6 1/4 and LOW weights, making those aircraft (March 1940) much faster. There was a steady drop off in speed as the marque progressed and the Mk II was slower again. What changed (and what was MUCH more important) was the climb rate.

2 pitch airscrews gave faster speeds than ROTOL (much lighter) but the climb was inferior. Given that climb to altitude was the main problem, the heavier props won out even though they delivered lower speeds. "

As you also know, they do not take the Spitfire MkIX max 335mph max as an indication that their lower powered MkI is incorrect because the MkIX was much heavier and therefore presumably slower.

To me its just more examples of just how complex these issues become without reference to specific configurations and perhaps the A2A configuration and results aren't relevant to what we are trying to get hold of: 100 octane CSP Spitfire Ia's of the BoB period July-October 1940.

I think its best to leave it to the devs to come up with the correct data for the given configuration and loadouts from everything that is available 'out there', or more likely an amalgam of it.

BlackSix has already said that the whole 100 octane/boost matter has been referred to Luthier for consideration.

Dont belive that 2-pitch prop cause such huge difference like in data tou posted.


Here is RL analys between Spitfire MK1 with 2-pitch metal prop DH ( plane without aditional armour - so much lighter) and with Rotol constant speed prop ( plane with aditional armour, armoured windshield etc - so much heaveir)

" Conclusions.

1. This aeroplane has a much better take-off and climbs faster than other Spitfires fitted with wooden fixed pitch or metal two pitch airscrews.

2. There is a drop of 13 m.p.h in maximum level speed compared with the 2-pitch airscrew aeroplane but of this, 8 m.p.h. can be attributed to sources other than the airscrew.

3. Below full throttle height an increase in speed of about 4 m.p.h. can be attained by controlling the engine R.P.M. at 2800 instead of 3000.

4. The limiting diving speed can be reached much more rapidly with this aeroplane than with Spitfires fitted with fixed pitch wooden and 2-pitch metal airscrews. "

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171.html


Spitfire MK1 with 2-stage DH prop (without addition armour) reachedmaximum speed - 367 mph ( 590 kph) at 18 600fy

Spitfire MK1 with Rotol ( with aditional armour) reached maximum speed - 354 mph ( 570 kph) at 18 900 ft.

So in level speed it would be only a few mph difference if both would have the same aditional armour.


In CLOD now only biritish fighters have huge performacne error but German ones too - 109 is also too slow plane according to RL data.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Kudos on your post, Talisman.

The objective is to have performance modelled accurately in ALL aircraft - Allies and Axis, fighters and bombers. Hopefully this thread can stay the course.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Just wait till the FM is addressed with one of the upcoming patches. Spit I doesn't match the performance of 87 octane nor of 100 octane so there is no way to determine what fuel so supposed to be modeled.

Until then just fly Spit IA vs. Bf 109, both don't match the historical performance but against each other they are a good match for entertaining dogfights.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Just wait till the FM is addressed with one of the upcoming patches. Spit I doesn't match the performance of 87 octane nor of 100 octane so there is no way to determine what fuel so supposed to be modeled..

Precisely my point.

But this thread was started after the release of v1.05.15950, and I hope that what's happening in picture number one didn't cease until they got it right.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27926

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Just wait till the FM is addressed with one of the upcoming patches. Spit I doesn't match the performance of 87 octane nor of 100 octane so there is no way to determine what fuel so supposed to be modeled.

Until then just fly Spit IA vs. Bf 109, both don't match the historical performance but against each other they are a good match for entertaining dogfights.

If 1C couldn't make accurate and realistic performance of well known BoB fighters i dont want to know what they could do with russian planes performance in BOM

Il2 deja vu?

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

Precisely my point.

But this thread was started after the release of v1.05.15950, and I hope that what's happening in picture number one didn't cease until they got it right.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27926

I'm under the impression that there was a "rush job" done on all the fighters (RAF and LW) re flight modelling. The Spitfire in particular seemed to have been pushed out the door too quickly. Aside from the hugely flawed flight model, other glaring indicators of hasty work are:

1) incorrect external sound. Spits & Hurries sound like diesel semi trucks. The 109's also sounded lame until corrected in later patch.
2) Spitfire mixture control animation reversed. Causes many an unnecessary blown Merlin to the unwary Hurricane pilot transitioning over to Spits.
3) Spit trim control animations (both rudder and elevator) non-functioning; although fortunately the actual trimming can be done by keyboard command.

The devil is in the detail, as they say, and it's significant that the three above dysfunctional features have not been corrected after 9 months of a series of patches. These would be simple fixes, I'm not confident that more complex flight modelling adjustments will be made in the much-anticipated upcoming patch.

I'm hoping threads such as this will be given enough serious consideration by the devs that these flaws will indeed be addressed in a straightforward, non-obfuscating, manner.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I know Snapper mate, I know!

My point is that whatever work resulted from them 'poring over Spit perf data' as in the link, hasn't been released yet. Nothing's been released since v1.05.15950.

Let's hope 'The Patch' sorts all this stuff out.

If it doesn't, well there'll be a bit of a 'stuffstorm'!

Unfortunately, this thread's already been 'pilot's lounged' so not likely the devs will look either!

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by klem

I can't really comment on the SpitII except to say that when I did some test runs it didn't achieve the max speeds I found on the web. It was quite close but slightly under but it was close enough for me to be happy.
Its probably the most accurately modelled a/c in there.

I wouldn't say it performs like an F16 but if you are comparing it with the 109s you don't, as I understand it, have an accurate 109 to compare it with (yet).

Klem my friend, we agree to disagree

The SpitII is the second most accurately modelled TIE fighter!
(The first one being the infamous LA5-FN Oleg gave us after a patch - which could perform continous loopings until it ran out of fuel).

Easy check: With a SpitII (Immelmann manouver): Full speed level, switch to vertical (3-5g), climb 200-400 meters, switch to level (3-5g) and roll back (head up). Check your speed.

Repeat this with a SpitI


~S~

[phoenix1963]

The good news for the devs ought to be that having a number of tests with different weights and engine outputs, but the same airframe ought to make the fms more accurate.

When in steady state flight like a speed test, the drag cancels the thrust and the lift cancels the weight. Obvious I know, but it makes it hard for the devs to know which bits are right, or whether errors are canceling.

If they match all the tests, they know they have a good model.

Sadly, I don't reckon this will happen in the next patch. Ilya mentioned something about FUTURE fm development as if the staff had left or were working on other things.

@Grathos - as Talisman says, we want accurate fms, not improvements for one side, and- yes- the 109s are too slow.

56RAF_phoenix