SPIT MK I/II and over boost

[Faustnik]

Osprey,

I think I am wrighting poorly.

I am only interested in the history. I am not arguening that Spits and Hurris in BoB used 100 octain and +12 boost. Me question was did all Spits and Hurris use 100 oct. I think that many 87 oct where used early in the battle and more 100 oct were used as the battle progresed.

I will be happy to fly with the work red of blue plane. If I see a Spit that getting short changed I will whine it FM thread.

(What IL-2 Mod are you talking about?)

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I don't either tbh. And about 1946 being 'ruined'. This is what I mean:

Check the data on this page for performance.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that the Spitfire outperforms the 109 on the graphs. Now take a look at the same aircraft in IL2 compare UP2.01 (maybe there's a later version, I gave it up). You'll see the 109's outperform the IX Spitfires.

I'm not biased toward the RAF, I've been ground down over the years. I want the FM's and DM's to be correct and let the pieces fall where they may. If the same happens again I've already decided to confront it or the whiners will turn a sim into a game and I'll put it in the bin.

To digress,

There is a certain irony about the 109's performance vs Spitfires compared to the Fw190's in il21946. Guess the 109 has more louder whiners!

I presume your familiar with the SpitV and Spit IX tests vs the FW. The acceleration part is most illuminating, i can post if you've never seen it.

I do find it frustrating myself where people focus on red or blue, i want them all to be accurate, even if it does mean such as in 1942 the 190 was leap years ahead of the spit. I want to Simulate the Rl experiences, good or bad, the ebb and flow of development. Not just to fly around in the best plane all the time.

[Faustnik]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

A lot of people think that adding 100 octane fuel instead of 87 octane will magically make their aircraft perform better.

Merlins from 87 oct to 100 oct as small modification?

[Osprey]

I don't understand your argument. You are saying that it doesn't do anything unless the engine is modified to use the higher grade, which it was. So we agree.

I bothered with some screenies to show what I meant with 1946 though.



This is what IL2 compare has it at

Please tell me IL2 compare doesn't actually work.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Faustnik

Merlins from 87 oct to 100 oct as small modification?

modifications needed can be found here,

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

To digress,

There is a certain irony about the 109's performance vs Spitfires compared to the Fw190's in il21946. Guess the 109 has more louder whiners!

I presume your familiar with the SpitV and Spit IX tests vs the FW. The acceleration part is most illuminating, i can post if you've never seen it.

I do find it frustrating myself where people focus on red or blue, i want them all to be accurate, even if it does mean such as in 1942 the 190 was leap years ahead of the spit. I want to Simulate the Rl experiences, good or bad, the ebb and flow of development. Not just to fly around in the best plane all the time.

Indeed. The acceleration and climb rate difference is remarkable. Having seen the Flugwerk 190 climb @ Duxford with my own eyes, well, that was stunning!
I don't think you got too many whiners on FW though because, frankly, if you follow some simple rules the 190 is a doddle. I flew it in 1946 a lot and found it 'unchallenging'

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

This is a pretty dumb argument, guys. First of all, higher octane number doesn't actually DO anything unless your engine is boosted high enough. A lot of people think that adding 100 octane fuel instead of 87 octane will magically make their aircraft perform better.

That is false.

But regardless of this fact, in game there should be a spitfire with 100 octane, and a spitfire with 87 octane. There should be 109s with C3 and B4. There should be spits with +9 and +12 lbs boost. etc etc etc.

Then the mission builders can decide what is appropriate.

Exactly. Instead of having constant argumentation on the forums and taking up valuable development time just formalizing the decision, the developer would be better off just giving us the available variants (same 3d model and DM, slightly altered FM, so it shouldn't be a terrible amount of work) and let us decide how to use them while they focus on something else.
This not only saves time in the long run for a small initial time investment on their part, it also makes the sim more accurate and complete.

Then, if i don't like the variants used in a certain server i just fly on a different server, everyone is happy and the avenue of communication to the developer team is decluttered for discussion of other features, etc.

I don't want to fly the best aircraft all the time either, even if it's a good one that i like i will often fly it in a regime where it's at a disadvantage: when i was flying 190s back in IL2 '46 i was mostly taking on high flying 51s and 47s in Antons (instead of Doras), not bouncing Spits that crawled on the deck

I think most people here are like that, they fly not only for the win but for the overall experience and just want an accurate ride, no matter how overpowered or underpowered it was in comparison to its contemporaries. Let's just have the "tools" to recreate air combat scenarios accurately and then each one of us can decide what to with them, instead of one group trying to shoe-horn a different group within their preference limits. Options are always good to have

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I don't understand your argument. You are saying that it doesn't do anything unless the engine is modified to use the higher grade, which it was. So we agree.

I don't think we agree. Do you even know what the octane number measures? I'll give you a hint: It's not related to the energy density of the fuel. If you had an engine that was designed for 87 octane and put 100 octane in it instead, nothing would happen. 100 octane fuel does not give you more power or fuel efficiency than 87 octane does.

I bothered with some screenies to show what I meant with 1946 though.

What does any of this have to do with 1946? Are you trying to show that the G-2 was overmodeled? Congratulations! Nobody's ever suggested that was the case before!

Please tell me IL2 compare doesn't actually work.

Why would I do that? AFAIK you're the only one who's mentioned IL2 compare.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I don't understand your argument. You are saying that it doesn't do anything unless the engine is modified to use the higher grade, which it was. So we agree.

I bothered with some screenies to show what I meant with 1946 though.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...v109gspeed.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...v109gclimb.jpg

This is what IL2 compare has it at
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...reSpitv109.png
Please tell me IL2 compare doesn't actually work.

Hi. You wrote that there is a big difference in the reality vs "compare" graphs. It's true, but remember that these original graphs are not flying the 109 full power! The difference between 1:35 ata (Steig-und Kampfleistung) and 1:45 ata (start-und notleistung) is 150-200 PS, which is approx. 15-20% extra power. This is true for DB601 and 605 too.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I don't think we agree. Do you even know what the octane number measures? I'll give you a hint: It's not related to the energy density of the fuel. If you had an engine that was designed for 87 octane and put 100 octane in it instead, nothing would happen. 100 octane fuel does not give you more power or fuel efficiency than 87 octane does.

The point is the following: If you use 87 octane fuel you are not allowed to apply a higher boost than +6.25, if 100 octane fuel is used the maximum allowed boost is +12.

Thus 100 octane fuel doesn't give you more power directly, however it allows you to apply more boost - which will give you more power.