Spit1a > SpitII

[TomcatViP]

Intersesting reading.

At least I found here again what I hve read for years in UK/US books and not such upside down history account. I guess I am not the only one here with such a feeling.

Regarding the merlin power, may I suggest we give enough details giving perf to determine if the it was a static test run or an in flight measure (typically corrected to 10kft with RAE formula).

Engine data in RAF at the time depict performances WITHOUT Supercharger or being corrected with pre-war formula (hence the the extra 15/30% power) - RR heritage trust / The perf of aero eng / pg 5.


This illustrate why with all the raw data that are now available on the web (but with sometime questionable sources) giving any interpretations or deductions without taking into account years of research from historians is somewhat hazardous.

Usually it ends up like this : all before me was wrong listen what I have to say... Man shld be cautious when entering such a buffer zone

I have in mind that latter analysis in war corrected the early data with the new state of the Art resulting in the normal linear improvement curves we have all in mind of teh Marlin during WWII.

Interestingly I found the related article in Wiki really good. Have a look !

[lane]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Intersesting reading.

At least I found here again what I hve read for years in UK/US books and not such upside down history account. I guess I am not the only one here with such a feeling.

Regarding the merlin power, may I suggest we give enough details giving perf to determine if the it was a static test run or an in flight measure (typically corrected to 10kft with RAE formula).

Engine data in RAF at the time depict performances WITHOUT Supercharger or being corrected with pre-war formula (hence the the extra 15/30% power) - RR heritage trust / The perf of aero eng / pg 5.


This illustrate why with all the raw data that are now available on the web (but with sometime questionable sources) giving any interpretations or deductions without taking into account years of research from historians is somewhat hazardous.

Usually it ends up like this : all before me was wrong listen what I have to say... Man shld be cautious when entering such a buffer zone

I have in mind that latter analysis in war corrected the early data with the new state of the Art resulting in the normal linear improvement curves we have all in mind of teh Marlin during WWII.

Interestingly I found the related article in Wiki really good. Have a look !

Perhaps you are looking for conspiracies that aren’t there? Have a closer look at Hooker, Reed and Yarker's The Performance of a Supercharged Aero Engine, first published in March 1941. I believe you are barking up the wrong tree See attached for an example of calculated versus tested & measured engine power.

Also see Bailey's The Merlin in Perspective first published in 1983 by the Rolls Royce Heritage Trust. Bailey worked for Rolls for over 40 years and has some knowledge of the subject. See relevant pages attached.

[Ze-Jamz]

RAFfanboys and luftwiners...

Gota love em

oh wait..i started this

[pupo162]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

RAFfanboys and luftwiners...

Gota love em

oh wait..i started this

so... we meet again....

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by pupo162

so... we meet again....

[whoarmongar]

BLAH, blah, blah,

ENOUGH for Gods sake.

All I can say is.

Do you really think, with Britain in a crucial battle for its life and existence, a fact fully recognised by its political leadership and the leadership of fighter command and having made strenuous efforts to get high octane fuel it would then deny that very fuel to the crucial fighter units in eleven and twelve group ? Well do you really ?

To be honest I have no axe to grind here, I really couldnt care if the flight models are correct, I dont even care very much if the spit has the wrong prop, fuel, performance.Or if the 109 is the wrong model, wrong speed or poor prop control or that the blenny struggles to make it off the runway let alone to France and back.

To be honest this game is neither fish nor fowl,
It clearly isnt a proper sim, how could it be ? It cant even get the most basic issues like fuel mix or aircraft ceiling correct
It clearly isnt a game, the campaign gameplay and missions are terrible, the multiplayer is poor.

The sound of you all argueing with real life data for this game is pathetic really
Venturi effects, drag coefficients,air compressability,fuel octane etc etc etc it has no meaning, I very much doubt this game models any of it.
For example I always fly at 22000 feet in a spit canopy open for better view,
I suffer no aerodynamic loss, no wind noise or buffeting, no adverse effects whatsoever. I always use lean mix in a spit coz the engine runs better even for take off, if I switch to lean the engine revs pick up, rich mix is not of any use whatsoever, so much for being a sim.

So cite your sources,gather your eye witness accounts, collate your historical documents, do your web searches to prove that your particular viewpoint is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. It means nothing I doubt the devs even look on this site, I very much doubt any of your arguements will have any effect whatsoever on the future development of this game.

[winny]

Originally Posted by whoarmongar

BLAH, blah, blah,

ENOUGH for Gods sake.

All I can say is.

Do you really think, with Britain in a crucial battle for its life and existence, a fact fully recognised by its political leadership and the leadership of fighter command and having made strenuous efforts to get high octane fuel it would then deny that very fuel to the crucial fighter units in eleven and twelve group ? Well do you really ?

To be honest I have no axe to grind here, I really couldnt care if the flight models are correct, I dont even care very much if the spit has the wrong prop, fuel, performance.Or if the 109 is the wrong model, wrong speed or poor prop control or that the blenny struggles to make it off the runway let alone to France and back.

To be honest this game is neither fish nor fowl,
It clearly isnt a proper sim, how could it be ? It cant even get the most basic issues like fuel mix or aircraft ceiling correct
It clearly isnt a game, the campaign gameplay and missions are terrible, the multiplayer is poor.

The sound of you all argueing with real life data for this game is pathetic really
Venturi effects, drag coefficients,air compressability,fuel octane etc etc etc it has no meaning, I very much doubt this game models any of it.
For example I always fly at 22000 feet in a spit canopy open for better view,
I suffer no aerodynamic loss, no wind noise or buffeting, no adverse effects whatsoever. I always use lean mix in a spit coz the engine runs better even for take off, if I switch to lean the engine revs pick up, rich mix is not of any use whatsoever, so much for being a sim.

So cite your sources,gather your eye witness accounts, collate your historical documents, do your web searches to prove that your particular viewpoint is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. It means nothing I doubt the devs even look on this site, I very much doubt any of your arguements will have any effect whatsoever on the future development of this game.

Awesome, thanks for that I'll take your advice and shut up then, I really really don't want to upset you more than you are already.

No more chatting XXXX about 109's and Spits because CoD is broken.
Whoarmonger has spoken.

How I pass my time has **** all to do with you.

[Danelov]

Yes, that´s right. Finally is only a game. If the idea is to find and flight a good Spitifire with good aerodynamics, taking in count all the variables, try FS2004 and FSX. There are very good stuff there and quite well simulated. And also as option, if you are not happy , the flight models can be edit and changed.Parameters like, power, prop type, engine gear ratio, props diameter, power absorved, coefficients, drag, fuel,fuel pressure, oil pressure, etc,etc.

[Kwiatek]

Sry but Fs2004 and FSX are really off in terms of realisitc flight models and performacne of planes.

Good combat flight simulator requires such things like realistic flight models and peformacne of planes beacuse if it doesnt have it would be only arcadish shooter like many others.

If i would like to play arcade flight shooter i will play WOP and there would be nonsense to make such game like ROF, A-10, Black Shark or even COD lol

[EAF331 Starfire]

Originally Posted by Danelov

Yes, that´s right. Finally is only a game.

To you it might be, but some of us would not fly sim if it was not for closeness to the real thing. Just as so many other around here, I don't fly the a/c becaurse of their performance. I simply adjust my combat style to get the most of the idividual a/c.
I am not only a virtual combat pilot but also a history buff, and only by discussing in a correct scientific way will we be able to get closer to a more data and with a bit of hope, a more accurate sim.

If you don't like the such discussion you are free to avoid them and go somwere else. Please don't discurage us from getting to the scientic trueth.

This have been one of the most exiting threads I have read for a long time. The discussion have been good a true. With points and counterpoints. Semantics can be irritating, but are none the less important for the outcome.

What we want is a little interpretation as possible. Just facts.

"Assumption is the Mother of All f...ups"!

1. Question everything
2. Particularly the most important assumptions
3. Accept nothing as true
4. Unless you have drilled down to bedrock
5. Blind faith is religion