Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

Originally Posted by Biggs

i have a feeling as well that we will not have correct speed performance for these engines for a while.

I applaud the efforts of you and others to try and keep this issue near the forefront... 1C needs to get it right.

Same feeling. The tendency of the last beta patch is clear. Instead of improving the performance of all planes minus the spit 2 they degrade the spit 2 and the hurri. Even though now relative performance is restored historic wise we are now further from historic absolute values. I wonder if this is an integral part of the strategy in the light of the upcoming sequel.

(ok, I may be simplifying a bit but overall this is the tendency how I see it)

[Glider]

I am more than a little concerned at the thought of a sequal built on sand.

[IvanK]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Just had a speed test in the Rotol Hurricane. Couldn't get more than 230mph ASi out of it, trimmed, level flight, at various RPm (best 2650). According to this:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html

I should get 261mph with the Rotol which is 290mph TAS.

261 IAS converting to 291TAS is a huge difference at sea level. 30 Mph diff is not feasible.

[Osprey]

Apologies IvanK, I missed you off the list to review my OP, please advise anything you think is incorrect.

Regarding your comment though, what do you mean by 'not feasible' in this context? You mean it just shouldn't happen because it is a lot? Trouble is it is actually worse than just 30mph because this is WITHOUT 12lbs boost, so you can add another 25mph to that figure. Essentially the Hurricane is 50-60mph too slow. When I looked at the graphs too the 109 is faster than RL up to 6km too, so we have an inaccuracy of around 80mph!!

[IvanK]

No probs. Regarding the comment on speeds I am only referring to getting 291MPH TAS from an IAS of 261MPH. At Sea Level IAS is going to be pretty close to TAS +- a nanofart.

I agree just about every RAF fighter is too slow in the patch at sea level.

(Check PM in about 10 mins)

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

When I looked at the graphs too the 109 is faster than RL up to 6km too, so we have an inaccuracy of around 80mph!!

On the graphs posted by BlackSix the 109 is actually a hair bit slower than real life specs.

[Osprey]

Not with WEP on it isn't.

[CaptainDoggles]

Spitfire 1a is faster than 109 with or without WEP above 6000m after the patch.

What exactly is the problem?

To my understanding the 109 is definitely very much slower than RL at altitudes above 5500m, at 7000m by 30-40 kph. That is a huge discrepancy. As far as I can read kyrillic letters (I am learning Russian a little bit) the blue curve shows RLE values (so flight tests by the British), the purple one says something like "igra forsash" (= game XYZ?) and the grey "igra bez forsasha" (= game ....?)

My guess is that the purple line is post patch the grey pre patch. the purple line is following the grey line (just beneath it) from alt 5200m.

[CaptainDoggles]

Purple line is with WEP. Форсаж (Forsazh) translates roughly to "boost". Без Форсаж (Bez forsazh) translates to "without boost" therefore grey line is without WEP.