On pg 91 of the book Messerschmitt Bf109A-E by Radinger/Schick

Performance:

@
0km - 460kph
1km - 480kph
2km - 500kph
3km - 520kph
4km - 540kph
5km - 555kph
6km - 555kph
7km - 550kph

Other data is also shown, ie Flight Limits, Range, Engine Performance at ground level and at altitude.

On the Inet,

Auszüge aus Flugzeugdatenblatt Bf 109 E-1, E-3 nach L.Dv.556/3
http://www.rolfwolf.de/daten/E4/Emil.html

I've not really studied the 109 very much but I am confused. This isn't meant to be a provocative post, I'm just wondering what it is we are supposed to have in CoD.

Where in that Spitfire Performance chart does it say the 109 does 560kph at S.L. (350 mph) and which 109 variant?
I see:-
BF109E Hochste Waagerechte geschwindingkeit, Flugzeughandbuchn 16 December 1939: 287mph/459kph
Bf109-E1 Nr 1774, 1.3ata, Bayerische Flugzeugwerk, 26.4.38: 302mph/483kph
Bf109-E3 Nr 1792, 1.3kg/cm2, Messprotocoll vom 16.2.39, Mtt A.G. Augsburg:290mph/464kph

500kph according to the Kurfurst site text is the E-3 (Spitfire performance gives the E-3 as 290mph/464kph). The Blatt 6 for E-3 actually shows a corrected 487kph after the test result of 485 using an underperforming engine. The Swiss result for the E-3 is around 470kph and the Kurfurst site uses the assumption that the appropriate supercharger gear was not used to suggest that the result was lower than it should be. The French result shows approximately 487 at ~250m.

My only point is that the specific E model/Engine/Propeller etc should be clear along with the most important question - just which 109E-1 and 109E-3 configurations is CoD supposed to be giving us?

If weather is included with BoM it will be available for CoD.

Wait - your'e calling me a sucker? What! ;)

Seriously - let's face the fact that the project got too long, they restarted it too many times and then the people funding it forced it out on the market a year before the developers where ready... So what do we as the small simulation community earn by "punishing" the team for that? Sure, they have probably made a lot of bad decisions to end up with a half finished product when the publisher pulled the blanket - but really, I spent $50 yesterday buying iRacing just to try it. That kind of money is not the end of the world, it it? It would be another thing if my new Audi would just break down and Audi said: "Sorry, we where forced to release it before it was done...". In this case let's be a bit forgiving with the poor sods over there in Russia working their asses of to continue delivering WWII simulators. How many others are there?

True, we've got the Aa version in game.

British document states following numbers (quoted as German sources) - mph at SL:

Bf109 283 (465kph)
Hurricane I 246
Hurricane II 268
Spitfire I 282

Not sure how accurate and helpful they are as no information about engine version / MFP and rpm is provided other than corrected BHP at FT height which is 950 for the 601, 965 for Merlin III and 1075 for Merlin XX.

Sounds about right for A-1 at SL, 1.35ata at 2400 rpm though.

At what engine rating?

Issue!
 

The only thing I would like to see with all the great data is that they create all the possible variants in development so that us dedicated server creators can progress an awesome online conflict. Also one twin engine fighter bomber would have been ideal. So I am hoping that they are reading this thread because it connects 90% of what this community saw in the pre-production of Cliffs of Dover and I would hope that in the patch they fix all the major graphics issues.

If it is dead on arrival then release the SDK so that this strong community can fix it and make this game and era one of the best. I am sorry I bought the game for the BoB not BoM. However if they keep patching and fixing up until the release and they fix FM and DM and also finish 2 more RAF planes like wellington and beaufighter Then I will be happy and purchase another game for them. If they don't that would really STINK!:confused:

If you had read the link, Steig/Kampfleistung.

Says the guy who lives in a rich country. ROFL. 50 bucks for some is like 500 for you, mate. Wake up. And no, its surely not the end of the world. But If you ask me its not the money. Its the game. I want to play it without performance issues. Hopefully I will, after next update.

skål

:-P I love these "the machine is underpowered" seances. :razz:.

Rumors not have to be true. They must be precise.

Regards Varrattu

Well, that GPU you have costs the same as 60 copies of CloD so... ;)

Anyway - I agree that I could have chosen my words a bit better - but do you agree on the rest of my post?

Which is, according to the link you provided, 1,23 ata @ 2300 rpm. Not quite the 1,3 ata Kurfürst was talking about. :)

Robo,

I am no expert, so please go easy with me as I try to clear the fog in my head over all this, but I assume that the above speeds for the Hurricane and Spitfire would be increased at low level with operation of the emergency boost cut-out with 100 Octane fuel (by approx 30 mph)? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Happy landings,

Talisman

How many Kms slower is a 109 speedometer at sea level than actual true airspeed?

Dude I won't blaming anyone if they fix CoD. If they take my money and move on after promising a fixed product, its a disgrace. It is actually false advertising. It was promised to be fixed. I just hope they fix it. No excuses.

I didn't buy CoD to get BoM. I'm not buying BoM to get CoD either. I want CoD as advertised (or even in the ballpark). Then I 'll consider buying BoM. There are a lot of CoD owners who feel the same way. And yes if you buy BoM and they don't fix CoD you are asking to get ripped off a second time and that would be a sucker.

If they fix CoD, then no worries.

It depends on ...

True airspeed, or TAS, is a measure of the physical speed of the aircraft in relation to the air around it. Just as differences in wind velocity affect groundspeed, differences in air density affect true airspeed. At the same engine power setting, e.g., 75 percent power, an airplane can move faster through air that is less dense. That’s why higher altitudes can
translate to higher true airspeeds.
Like aircraft groundspeed, TAS cannot be measured directly. Rather, the pilot uses outside air temperature (OAT), pressure altitude, and calibrated airspeed CAS to calculate
this value.

Regards Varrattu

On a 'standard day' they should be virtually identical providing the CoD ASI is actually showing the 'Calibrated' airspeed. Calibrated airspeed is the airspeed that an ASI usually shows corrected for errors caused by the position of the sensor or pitot tube but I don't know if position error is modelled in CoD. If you want a headache see:-
http://www.tscm.com/mach-as.pdf

The complexities gather......

Assume its a standard day and the ASI reading = 'calibrated' = True Airspeed at sea level. You'll lose less sleep.

Anyone know what kind of day we have in CoD?

You are right about actual T/P vs. standard atmosphere influencing the speed of the plane. As you will know however the eventual decrease in resistance due to lower air density affects not only the plane drag, but also the engine performance and the measure of the pitot tube. For the pitot tube, the ASI will indicate a lower speed than TAS for density lower than the standard atmosphere … in practice, the IAS reported by the ASI during tests must always be corrected for non-standard atmospheric conditions.

Cheers.

To have some (nerd's) fun:

http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx#TrueAirspeed

Cheers,
Ins

Everyone has there knickers in a knot about max speed but what speeds are obtained at lower the ata. Hense what I posted. :)

If the 1.23 ata speeds can't be met, then there is something definitely wrong with the FM.

With Kurfurst's track record I take anything he publishes with a large pinch of salt.

Are you taking the spitfireperformance.com site with a pinch of salt, too? Cause that webmaster is under similar suspicions (spit-polishing the Spitfire's halo by posting selected data).

Every coin has two sides. ;)

Depends who is suspicious doesn't it?

I'm happy to go with results data from wartime testing though, I don't think you'll get more believable than that, and if that is still something we cannot believe to be true then forget any progress in WW2 flight simming forever.

Problem is too many people take such websites and the tests they publish as eternal truth and ignore that circumstances have to be taken into consideration. I, personally, take any website with a pinch of salt because you never know who made it and what motives that person has. I mean it's so damn easy to leave out data that doesn't fit an agenda ... :-|

So very true about the Hungarian's site.:)

Careful or we're going to fall into a "topic pit" which we wouldn't want. Okay? ;)

I agree that the developers probably won't make a dynamic campaign for COD, but I'm sure other talented people in the community, and third party groups will. COD isn't dead and far from it.

Currently the developers are reworking atleast the graphic engine, and fixing bugs in other features.

Aircraft made for the other theaters, will include some that were used over England and France.

The Dynamic Weather feature will be available to all theaters when implemented.
There is no reason that any feature built for the series can't be applied to COD if its applicable. ie DX11 water etc etc etc

The SDK will be released to the community. This will mean every aspect of COD could change and evolve over the next ten years.

You are right that COD financed BOM........... then BOM will finance The Med, then The Med will finance The Pacific, then The Pacific will finance Europe, etc etc etc etc

Right now, I'm hoping the series will survive long enough for the SDK to be released so that the community can get their hands on what the developer couldn't afford to continue work on.

Agreed 100%

Even when the whole report is provided (read not just the cherry picked data) little things can be missed that can make a big difference in the results. Things like ballest to simulate ammo loads, fuel loads, fuel type, carb jetting, etc just to name a few.

Therefore when the website does not provide the whole report for review, these little things will surly be missed

The problem is the Il-2/COD engine seem to just state the max. power, and max. speed at max power. The engine calculates the rest. And then engine power calculations are again relate only to max power, and a generic formula takes care of the rest for lower powers.

I guess , so you probably won't get exact speed results for lower RPM/MAP combinations, for example you probably won't get the exact cruise speed at ~1 ata cruise settings as in real life.

Well its a good thing then that it was Messerschmitt AG that published these papers, so you can trust them with your life for authenticy. :D

Anyone wishing to check the original Me 109E specs paper should check here - there is not much to add except that this is the official performance guaranteed by manufacturer within +/- 5% in speed (ie. 475 - 525 km/h at SL) and +/- 8% in climb.

http://www.2shared.com/document/-XYw...chreibung.html

This tended to be an average of performance - any plane that did not meet the above specs within tolerance was rejected by the LW's quality control group, abbreviated BAL.

Here is how the speed scatter works - the following is a test result compilation of thirteen 109G machines tested at ERLA producer. The thick line in the middle is the nominal (guaranteed) speed performance at altitude, the two other thinner lines are the +/- 3% tolerance on speed. The small dots are the speeds achieved by individual planes. The box is the nominal performance - 660 km/h at 7000m. Most flew quite close, but there were three that didnt match the specs and were rejected, while three were a bit faster than the nominal. The thick box is the median of the non-rejected planes. A small note that the speed runs were flown with the radiators 120 mm open, whereas nominal speed was understood with 50mm open radiators, so the tested planes should be a bit slower than the nominal speed anyway (more drag in tested condition than in standard condition).

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...catter_web.jpg

I admire your optimism Chivas I really do, If only it was all that simple. Approaching a year after release and I still have a broken game, lets hope Luthier can afford to fix it for me.

+1

The next update should be ready in 2 weeks. Problem solved.

Eh?? Source please?

ROFL:grin:

2 weeks was a joke, but the update is coming. Be sure. Problem solved.

didn't take long did it.......

I'm sure he just wasn't aware of the pending update. :)

Be sure! ;)

I for one agree 100%

Your post, like others wrt the cost of the software (game) relative to the hardware puts it into perspective

And your example only touches on the GPU..

Less not forget the PC itself.. An easy $1000.00+, nor should we forget about all the 'other' items people spend their money on.. Like $150 TrackIR, $300 Joystick; Rudders; Throttle, $200 speakers, etc.. etc..

And of all those expenses the game is the least expensive!

So I always get a good laugh at the people with the $2500+ plus list of hardware in their sig complaining about the $50 game as if their kids are now going to have to go hungry because their 'investment' in their game purchase didn't provide the returns they were expecting.. It just does not ring true!

Flight simming is an expensive 'hobby'! Which requires cutting edge hardware! Allways has been allways will be!

I agree 100%, but another perspective might be that sim enthusiasts invest that amount of money because they want to play the particular flight sim. If there was no interest in CoD/IL2/BoB:WoV/RoF/Black Shark et al, there wouldn't be purchases toward higher end systems.

It's not like someone went out and spent $2,500.00 on a PC and then went out to find a game to play on it. People have always been upgrading PCs for particular games and interests. Since Id software creating Wolfenstein people have upgraded to play at the highest resolutions and smoothness.

S!

Agree.....

So if you took that $50 and spent it at the movie theatre for you and your kids and the film broke 1/3rd of the way through the movie, you wouldn't complain? You wouldn't ask for your money back?

Bad example

Seriously - how about a patch that fixes the AI?

Nothing else - just the AI? surely they don't need programmers to fix that?

Sick of seeing Sunderlands doing barrel rolls.

Well I guess they figured it wouldn't matter, as even if the AI worked it would only be good until the launcher crashed.

So why bother?! Ha!

Who should fix AI if not a programmer?

Russian AI in BoM will fly drunk. ;)

Im russian, but its really funny:grin:

Is that how you percieve some of the negative posts? Some of the negativity has gone way past normal human interaction and dissatisfaction into the realm of petulent childishness. You wouldn't petition outside the theatre for 9 months would you?

I DO understand the frustration. Though I agree with Ace's comments regarding the purchase of hardware, I also see there's more to it than that. I've witnessed the same names here as I have at UBI for ten years now. We've all waited for this game for quite a while. CoD being put on the shelves in the state it is IS disappointing. I get that.

To be fair the arguing goes both ways. There's been immaturity on both sides. Niether side has been immune to it. I'm sure I've been part of it. Obviously it hasn't solved anything. At what point do we pick up the placcards and end the protesting of the theatre? It's been almost ten months. Heck, some have worn the placcard of discontent for almost five years.

This going back and forth makes what should be a great forum with intelligent, knowlegable people into a place that's no longer an enjoyment.

The cost of something is irrelevant. If something costs $5 or $5,000, if it doesn't work as it should then it's broken and you're entitled to complain.

What you also forget is that some people spent $2,500 for the sole reason of playing that $50 game, only to find out it was a steaming pile of faeces (albeit faeces with prospects). I'd say they're entitled to be a bit upset.

Hood

True. But Im using my PC for work (at home) too (apart from the mac Im working on, In my office). And I have above average salary for our standards. Still when I pay a big loan (monthly rate) for my apartment (I have two kids), all the bills....not that I have much left...BTW, average salary is only 929 bucks here....So like I said, 50 bucks for you 500 bucks for someone else....thers a reason why the game was much cheaper in Russia...
BTW I was clear earlier that the money spent on this game wasnt my main concern....performance issues....I want to play this badly...I mean I do but with some serious performance issues in some occasions. Thats why Im so eager to try the upcoming update..

Yes. They are the only one making "serious" ww2 combat sims...

Doesn't my ask even deserve a reply? Is it a unwise question or I missed something?
No harm trying again....cheers

[QUOTE=335th_GRAthos;389592]

PS. I am waiting for the day the Spitfire will run with 120octane fuel (or anything that makes it faster than my Bf109). Then, I will bring up the technical papers up to prove that the size of the turbine in my Bf109-E4 was larger than the one modelled by the 1C team therefore the 1,2ata (turbine pressure) gives a much lower performance than the one my engine in real life would bring... And since I am sure they never modelled the size of the turbine exactly (why should they) I am sure to be on the winning side ;)
Crazy world...

Hi Grathos,

You made me smile when I read your post above. Then I found this on the web:

When 150 octane fuel was introduced in mid-1944 the "boost" of the Griffon engine was able to be increased to +25 lbs, allowing the top speed to be increased by about 30 mph (26 kn; 48 km/h) to 400 mph (350 kn; 640 km/h) at 2,000 ft (610 m).[32]
The Mk XIV was used by the 2nd Tactical Air Force as their main high-altitude air superiority fighter in northern Europe with six squadrons operational by December 1944.[33]

PS. I have not seen you up on the ATAG server lately, but hope to meet up with you again soon.

Happy landings,

Talisman

I did test with the E3 and could reach 470 kph "on the deck". It really should be faster than SpitIa. And it isnt, in the game. So, you was right.

Both should be able to do ab. 500 km/h at the deck, RL Spitfire MK1 at 12 lbs (100 Octan) reached 500-505 km/h at the deck

You won't get an answer. Maddox Games has stopped giving any kind of timeframe estimates because of the flak they caught when the last estimates turned out to have been overly optimistic.

The cost is irrelevant, what is relevant is that excepting the Russian's, we all knew the state it was in upon release and yet still chose to purchase it. If you did no research into it's condition then more fool you. The anger displayed here is absolutely typical of people who will not accept any responsibility for their own actions and thus are always looking off load the blame onto somebody or something else.

Either the money is worth something to you in which case you damn well should have checked the condition of it before purchase or it's not worth anything to you in which case you're not whining. It's not like the issues started appearing days or weeks after launch, they were immediate and well publicised.

No one forced you into your purchase.

An unthinking opinion. Most of us pre-ordered it expecting a relatively finished product. I'd say peoples' expectations were for a playable game that needed polishing - similar to the original IL2. How that transfers into not taking responsibility etc I really don't know.

It's like anything you'll ever buy. If your expectations are reasonable and the product/service doesn't match those expectations, then complain away.

If you're responsible for that product/service then public relations is absolutely critical and that is in my opinion where the whole thing has fallen apart.

Personally I am very glad that updates have resumed even if the information is not provided direct but via Black6. It gives us hope.

Hood

some peole got exactly that....a playable game that needs polishing, theres no statistics on how many got what level of playable but for some unknown reason a certain number feel what they have experienced is far more important than everybody else has, they should just be facing the fact they were the 'unlucky' ones and taking it like grown ups.
the devs are working on it, yes it's taking some time.

Too many "unluckies" owning rig like mine....If your a lucky camper good for you...just dont pope...fingers crossed for the update

S!

Well, I can wait for the patch. Gives AMD some time to work on the drivers too for 7900-series :D So far the card runs CoD very nicely, better than the 6900-series did. This friday's update should bring something new again..so we will see :)

Until then have time to play other games, flight simming is not anymore everthing for me..even tanks can be fun! :D

It is strange that my rig seems a bit less powerfull but I am in the 'lucky' camp, all I can say is the game was unplayable for me on release but the patches improved things, this gives me hope the devs know what they are dealing with, my main prospect to look forward to is what 'Laurel and Hardy' will be able to say when it's fixed.

You know you can cancel preorders right? Unthinking, lmao. Utter tripe. Sorry, was somebody else in control of your wallet?

And why would you cancel a pre-order when you don't know what the product is like until you receive it? I don't speak Russian so could not access their forums, and there wasn't enough information available on these forums to allow anyone to make a decision one way or the other.

Your point really doesn't hold up, does it?

Over and out.

Hood

i've said it before. i ahd to buy it at release date it was a risk i ahd to take, the game want going to last 2 days in stores, and it wouldnt be replaced one it was gone.


and i was right, 2 games showed up in lisbon that ive saught ( believe me i went to a LOT of stores) and dissapeared in a matter of days, and never were sawn again.

if i knew that 8 months later i wouldnt have played it nice still, probably woulnt bought it. but i didnt

Ah I also noticed big improvement after few last patches. Maybe you are more tolerable performance wise....you dont have big slowdowns when looking at dust (lets say on takeoff), when fire is near, and sometimes ,when more planes are on the deck??? Otherwise is pretty smooth for me specialy if Im on Islands map....channel map is bigger and more demanding..

Of course they need a programmer to work in the AI. AI programming is actually very difficult.

1. Emotional Insuber :
“Go on chaps, have faith and work hard, I will back you till the end and purchase whatever stuff you will sell. This game is the only modern WWII flight sim and we won’t likely see another one for the next century”

2. Rational Insuber :
“One year after its launch this game has still too many issues, and they are so serious that Luthier decided a complete overhaul of the gfx engine. All planned dates have not been met so far, and instead of ironing out the bugs and missing features, the team is merrily pooping out useless gizmos such as the operable flak. We need revised FMs, working comms with AI, improved AI behaviour, no flickering shadows just to name few.”

3. Mixed Insuber :
“Well who cares, it’s just a game. But what a pity …”


Cheers!

Insuber! My brother in arms! (I hope you fly blue m8) ;)

1. Emotional Athos :
“Go on chaps, have faith and work hard, I will back you till the end and purchase whatever stuff you will sell. This game is the only modern WWII flight sim and we won’t likely see another one for the next century”

2. Rational Athos :
“One year after its launch this game has still too many issues, and they are so serious that Luthier decided a complete overhaul of the gfx engine. All planned dates have not been met so far, and instead of ironing out the bugs and missing features, the team is merrily pooping out useless gizmos such as the operable flak. We need revised FMs, working comms with AI, improved AI behaviour, no flickering shadows just to name few.”

3. Mixed Athos :
“Well who cares, it’s just a game. But what a pity … that they are so slow coming up with hard deliverables while at the same time NV & ATI betray our hopes for faster and cheaper HW in order to enjoy this game the way it deserves to be”


~S~

Great work! Where is the second part?

This friday perhaps?

yeah mate, blue is my field ... :-)

I m here to thank B6 and Luthier n devs, they are giving us updates. It's tough because this is a grand effort but patience and being thankful it's being worked on works wonders and having side hobbies

Your missing my point..

With regards to the 'degree' of complaining

If the film broke 1/3rd of the way into the movie, On my way out of the theater I would more than likely ask for my money back..

But..

When doing so I would NOT portray the situation as dire!

That is to say I would NOT portray myself as some sort of victim who will now have to choose between feeding my children tonight or paying to see another movie should the theater choose not to give me my money back

Why?

Because anyone would see that for what it is.. An disingenuous hyping of the situation

Now with regards to another analogy someone else provided

If my new car died 1/3 of a mile after leaving the dealership.. Than there is a good chance my kids would be eating top roman for a few weeks should the car dealer choose not to give me my money back.. And thus I would not be hyping the situation when I walk back to the car dealership and 'made a sceen' about it

See the difference?

If so than you can see why some like Hood who say the 'cost of something is irrelevant' is a silly argument

Granted the amount of disposable income is realitive

That is to say there is a chance that for some out there the cost of the $50 game to them equates to the cost of a 40,000 car to others

But if that was true, and the chance of you living on the street tonight depended on the outcome of a $50 game you bought this year..

Chances are you don't have a $2500 PC to play this or any other game on in the first place.

So again, a silly argument to say cost is irrelevant IMHO.

Put another way, some will pick up a quarter if they drop it, some wont pick up a penny if they drop it

Cost is relevant

You guys are highjacking this thread, why not take it to PM and spare the rest of us.:grin:

Problem with that is PM's don't show the entire world just how you feel about things.

I don´t want/care to know how you guys feel. For sure most of the entire world doesn´t either. I check this topic to see the updates and any relevance info that might come up. But have to dig in pages and pages of the same complaints over and over. Is very annoying.

We are in the same boat, I can't stand the constant negative whinging

I feel your pain..

Or should I say felt? Because I did find a way around it.. A filter if you will..

Simply goto page one, click on BlackSix's name, select Find all posts by BlackSix than click on his posts with the title of this thread..

That is the best way to see the updates and any relevance info that might come up with regards to the current thread..

Because honesly, the rest of the posts are just 'feelings'! ;)

Someone please just tell me the bofors wont be as hideous to aim as the aircraft gunnery positions

Maybe the update threads could be locked? Someone could always start a 30 plus page thread for the sky is falling complaints. Another could be started telling us it's all okay, don't worry. It would save time too. We'd only have to read the posts we agree with. The world would seem right then for each of us.

Someone already suggested that but it seems the idea was rejected

There was plenty enough information here and at SimHQ to know it was in a state, you didn't need to read or visit Russian forums, my point holds up perfectly well.

Its too bad as I think it would be great to have only four threads.

A locked Luthier/BS thread.

A constructive criticism thread.

A Debbie Downer thread.

A Fanboi thread.

I suppose it would be alot of work for the moderators moving posts, lol. The community would be a much happier place if we only read the applicable threads. Although the forums would be extremely quiet, when you separated the Debbie Downers, from the Fanboi's.

Well put sir!

What good is a skin pack if "Steam" has you ejected if you are flying with an altered one?

Or so, that's what I've read. ...or has this changed?

The document does not include any statement indicating that the datas are from a Bf109E. I am not convinced that this is the Bf109E as it went into serial production.

Regards Varrattu

Well, at least I do not know any other 109 variant with DB 601, with exactly the same weights and dimensions and specs as the Bf 109E... :D

Anyway, you can buy the full version at http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/. I do not have it, but they list it as for Bf 109E.

Its a bit like arguing that a British doc from 1940 mentioning "Spitfire" is unconvcing, because it does not say Spitfire I.

Last post OT: Please compare the different DB601 variants on DB601A-0, DB601A-1, DB601Aa etc.

Concerning the speed of the iLCoD-BF109E I see no need for any change.

Regards Varrattu

And what about the speed of the Fiat G.50? I believe it's the single largest FM issue in this game. Pretty much useless.

S!

Varrattu, why no change? The FMs on many if not all planes are screwed up or way off from being correct or even close to RL data. I do not fear online the Sissyfire Mk.I or Ia but the damned Rotol Hurricane that can CATCH a Bf109E when IRL could not etc. Good thing is that Luthier said in one of updates things are being worked one, so let's hope the FMs will be corrected to all planes needing it.

This is the second time this week I have had to do this, sigh :rolleyes:

From the Q&A of 23rd of December:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28633

8. Will the performances of the poor G.50 be upgraded to be closer to the real historical values? The G.50 maximum speed today is ~350 kmh at sea level against 407 kmh found in books and online references. The G.50 ceiling in game is some 5000 m, against 10500 m found in various sources.

Quote:
"Yes, it’s one of the things the new FM programmer will work on."

It's funny, that was one of my questions to B6. And Ilya's answer did not reassure me at all, given their poor record with Italian planes performances.

In reality my post was aimed at digging some historical test data from the passionate people here.

Cheers,
Ins