Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-21-2011, 10:02 PM
seiseki seiseki is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellbender View Post
In that documentary they say the 109 could out-turn and out-run ("They could hit us as they wanted and get away with it every time they wanted") the Spitfire. That doesn´t somehow match with my experience in the game.
I didn't hear anything about out turning..

But the facts were, it could out dive out run and out gun the spitfire..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-21-2011, 10:10 PM
617Squadron 617Squadron is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 47
Default

The ME 109 had one major advantage over the Spitfire and Hurricane; it could 'bunt' and pull negative G without the engine stalling. A Spitfire or Hurricane had to roll inverted before diving, to maintain positive G on the carburettors and keep fuel flowing to prevent the engine from starving and stalling.

Rolls-Royce did produce a modification (Mrs. Cottle's Orifice I believe it was called) that went some way to helping the problem, however, they were never able to eliminate it as the Merlin didn't have fuel injection, as per the 109's Daimler Benz engine.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-21-2011, 10:27 PM
Doc_uk Doc_uk is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK, Alton, Hampshire
Posts: 722
Default

400, of theres, only 12 of us
i like that
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-21-2011, 10:39 PM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 617Squadron View Post
The ME 109 had one major advantage over the Spitfire and Hurricane; it could 'bunt' and pull negative G without the engine stalling. A Spitfire or Hurricane had to roll inverted before diving, to maintain positive G on the carburettors and keep fuel flowing to prevent the engine from starving and stalling.

Rolls-Royce did produce a modification (Mrs. Cottle's Orifice I believe it was called) that went some way to helping the problem, however, they were never able to eliminate it as the Merlin didn't have fuel injection, as per the 109's Daimler Benz engine.
Her name is Tilley and Merlin it did get fuel injection. The injection was single point, not multi point as on the DBs.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-21-2011, 10:45 PM
617Squadron 617Squadron is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 47
Default

As far as I am aware, the early Spitfires (as depicted in CoD) weren't fitted with the modification, so that's why all Battle of Britain era film of Spitfires and Hurricanes shows them rolling onto their backs before diving, to prevent fuel starvation.

It may have been a fuel pump issue rather than carbs, you could be right; to be honest, I'm not that much of an anorak about the RR Merlin engine.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-21-2011, 11:14 PM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 617Squadron View Post
As far as I am aware, the early Spitfires (as depicted in CoD) weren't fitted with the modification, so that's why all Battle of Britain era film of Spitfires and Hurricanes shows them rolling onto their backs before diving, to prevent fuel starvation.

It may have been a fuel pump issue rather than carbs, you could be right; to be honest, I'm not that much of an anorak about the RR Merlin engine.
Tilley's Orifice was introduced after the BoB. Sixty series and later Merlins got the fuel injection.

It was a combination of carb and fuel pump. The lean mixture cut out was a minor issue. What was the major issue was the rich mixture that flooded the engine. This was because the fuel flowed into the card unrestricted. Tilley's Orifice restricted this flow of fuel.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-21-2011, 11:20 PM
Rattlehead Rattlehead is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 617Squadron View Post
The ME 109
Sorry to be a pendantic pain in the rear, but the 'Me' designation is a misnomer. It was always called the Bf 109.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-21-2011, 11:38 PM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattlehead View Post
Sorry to be a pendantic pain in the rear, but the 'Me' designation is a misnomer. It was always called the Bf 109.
Is that so. Then why do I have a factory drawing for the 109 wing that is titled 'Flugel Me109F, Me109K' and another factory drawing that is titled 'Flugel Me109F, Me109G'?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-22-2011, 01:19 PM
Rattlehead Rattlehead is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Schlageter View Post
Is that so. Then why do I have a factory drawing for the 109 wing that is titled 'Flugel Me109F, Me109K' and another factory drawing that is titled 'Flugel Me109F, Me109G'?
It seems the 'me' designation is acceptable after all. I just did a fair bit of research and it seems either the 'bf' or 'me' designation is acceptable.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-22-2011, 01:33 PM
617Squadron 617Squadron is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattlehead View Post
It seems the 'me' designation is acceptable after all. I just did a fair bit of research and it seems either the 'bf' or 'me' designation is acceptable.
Me is shorthand for Messerschmitt as Do is to Dornier, Ju to Junkers, FW to Focke-Wulf and BV to Blohm & Voss, etc. They were (and still are) valid shorthand for the German manufacturer's names.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.