Aircraft peformances, is this joke ?

[Welshman]

15.4:1 at full power / boost would melt the pistons in seconds

egt would be too high plus would det itself to bits.

14.7 is storch ( best air/fuel ratio ) but only for none charged engines or cruising .

12.6 is a very good AFR for a forced induction engine and with a bit of water methanol to cool the charge for the extra boost

[jf1981]

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

[MadTommy]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

Yes, that is the way is should be, no question. However, the Flight Models have repeatedly been wrong with each retail and beta release, so clearly this is not the case.

I am confident that IvanK supplied the devs with the correct Flight Model data, as Ilya has gratefully acknowledged in this forum. However, not only did Ilya choose not to implement this FM data in the public release back in March, 2011....he has chosen to diverge further from the correct Flight Model data further and further with each successive retail and beta release.

Prior to the second-to-last 1.06 beta release, Ilya released through Black Six some selected RAF FM charts that were clearly incorrect, yet despite a collective outcry from this 1C community he opted to implement them anyway. At the time, those of us that voiced our concerns were told by other members of this forum "to stop complaining; it's a WIP -- the beta hadn't been released yet, so how do you know it will be wrong?" As if we can't read a flawed chart. True to form, beta (alpha?) was released -- it was a disaster. A "Hotfix" was quicky issued which made it a launchable disaster.

Now we have beta 1.07. Hurricanes don't start. Spitfire Mark I's don't start. Go to 12 lbs boost and you get less-than-87 octane performance for less than 2 minutes before the engine blows -- and remember to go to Full Lean Mixture while you do it. Ilya released this nonsense??? No mention in the beta readme notes. Oops.....no readme notes.

This is why I fully support anyone such as the OP who takes the trouble to do the testing that the devs SHOULD be doing -- while the rest of the 1C "community" sit on the sidelines at snipe at the effort.

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

Per Redroach's post above, the Spitfires have the mixture control incorrectly reversed in Cliffs of Dover. The Hurricanes have the mixture control modelled correctly: Pull backwards for Rich, push forward (toward the instrument panel) for Lean. When CoD was first released last year, a lot of Merlins got destroyed over this confusion until it got sorted out. Surprisingly, this seemingly easy fix was never rectified so newcomers are still frying Merlins as a result.

To confuse the issue further, when flying a Spitfire IIa at low level you go "through the gate" with your throttle and hit 12 lbs of boost at 3000 rpm with your lever in Rich position your aircraft begins to shake, throwing your aim off. Pull the mixture lever back to lean and your aircraft smooths right out -- until it blows a head gasket after about 2 minutes (on a good day).

So, you have a choice at 12 lbs boost, 3000 rpm low level in a IIa: strong shaking (rich mixture) for 2 minutes before you kill your engine, or silky smooth (lean mixture) for two minutes before you kill your engine. Or push your WEP button for 1.33 ata repeatedly with no ill effects at all for a whole tankful of gas. Oops - sorry, the Spits and Hurries don't have that feature.....

Its all these issues combined with a non existent flight manual is why i rarely fly CloD.. i simply don't know what the hell the correct way to do something is and if i do think i know it does not work in game.. leading to much annoyance & frustration.

The lack of flight manual is simply shocking.. when i've complained in the past i've been accused of being lazy, and the info is on the web. To me that is not acceptable, CloD is the 1st of the IL2 series I've really flown.. and it will be the last due to the lack of quality that MG have applied to it in regards to documentation and info.

My flight manual for my DCS P51 is hundreds of pages, and covers everything , the section covering each plane in Clod is about 2 pages and generally worthless.

I would just love to know how something is meant to work in the sim/game and have it work like that and it clearly documented so i can understand it. Then i could enjoy this game.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by MadTommy

Its all these issues combined with a non existent flight manual is why i rarely fly CloD.. i simply don't know what the hell the correct way to do something is and if i do think i know it does not work in game.. leading to much annoyance & frustration.

The lack of flight manual is simply shocking.. when i've complained in the past i've been accused of being lazy, and the info is on the web. To me that is not acceptable, CloD is the 1st of the IL2 series I've really flown.. and it will be the last due to the lack of quality that MG have applied to it in regards to documentation and info.

My flight manual for my DCS P51 is hundreds of pages, and covers everything , the section covering each plane in Clod is about 2 pages and generally worthless.

I would just love to know how something is meant to work in the sim/game and have it work like that and it clearly documented so i can understand it. Then i could enjoy this game.

DCS P51 includes exactly "1" plane. Imagine you have to do the research, the writing and the editing not for only one, but a good dozen aircraft. Not to take away from your critique, I agree that aircraft should have much better documentation. But then again Things change so quickly in this Sim that what you read today may be untrue tomorrow, so any documentation would have to be constantly updated.

As much as I wish for that, I can't see that happening currently, especially given the financial abilities of Maddox Games.

On the other hand, it is not that hard to learn to fly the fighters here propperly. If lack of documentation holds you off, you can always come here and ask. If you think that is too much of an effort for a Sim that should have worked from the start, well, you will be in great company by some of the more vocal members here, but I doubt it will be a satisfiying expirience.

When in doubt, just go to the ATAG servers, get on Teamspeak and most people will be very helpful in giving advise or explainations.

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by jf1981

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

jf1981,

That link (and in fact this whole argument about performance) have been debated ad inifnitum on these forums for months. There are those who quibble with the data on that page, so simply dropping the link doe not, unfortunately, really provide any impetus in any particular direction...

[Skoshi Tiger]

Of course EGT will only rise to the optimum Fuel air ratio and then start to decrease.

Google "lean of peak" and you will find quite a lot of arguments and discussions of the befits of "Lean of peak" opperation for enhanced fuel efficiency

Of cource this is all moot since the spitfire used an automatic mixture control and the pilot had limited control over the fuel air mixture. "Lean of peak" is more applicable to more modern airplaned with computer controlled direct fuel injection, ignition and engine monitoring.

[MadTommy]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

DCS P51 includes exactly "1" plane. Imagine you have to do the research, the writing and the editing not for only one, but a good dozen aircraft. Not to take away from your critique, I agree that aircraft should have much better documentation. But then again Things change so quickly in this Sim that what you read today may be untrue tomorrow, so any documentation would have to be constantly updated.

As much as I wish for that, I can't see that happening currently, especially given the financial abilities of Maddox Games.

On the other hand, it is not that hard to learn to fly the fighters here propperly. If lack of documentation holds you off, you can always come here and ask. If you think that is too much of an effort for a Sim that should have worked from the start, well, you will be in great company by some of the more vocal members here, but I doubt it will be a satisfiying expirience.

When in doubt, just go to the ATAG servers, get on Teamspeak and most people will be very helpful in giving advise or explainations.

I appreciate the difference.. and don't expect all the planes in CloD to be documented to the same level as the P51 in DCS.. but there is a compromise. And actually if you include Flaming Cliffs2 & DCS they have about 12 airframes..all very thoroughly documented. (Su 27/33, Mig 29/29a, F15c, A10a/c, Su25/25T, Ka-50, P51 off the top of my head)

I love detailed sims.. and am not sly of putting in the effort of learning and reading... but this in CloD has been a frustrating experience.

But i appreciate you advice on how best to learn this sim.

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

I agree that aircraft should have much better documentation. But then again Things change so quickly in this Sim that what you read today may be untrue tomorrow, so any documentation would have to be constantly updated.

As much as I wish for that, I can't see that happening currently, especially given the financial abilities of Maddox Games.

Good points.
For the moment, and thanks to a dedicated few, the community is doings its best to fill in the knowledge gaps, in some cases almost back engineering the FMs to try and get some idea of how the A/C perform. For the moment, his forum and the people on it are our best resource.

[senseispcc]

.
One point to make;

This is a GAME!

Have fun .

[jf1981]

Originally Posted by pstyle

jf1981,

That link (and in fact this whole argument about performance) have been debated ad inifnitum on these forums for months. There are those who quibble with the data on that page, so simply dropping the link doe not, unfortunately, really provide any impetus in any particular direction...

I'm conducting flight trials and will pursue that task, and report my findings, feed the bug thread.
And I'm relying on several specialized books available regarding the Spitfire.

The actual flight model is a nonsense.

I have to remind you that's I'm not debating anything.
The devs can do whatever goes through their mind. But I have to say how wrong this is, if it indeed is.
Note that I'm also working on the good side of that game when I can like tutorials, mission building.