Suddenly Spit IIa on all the servers?

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by IvanK

Something to try, A relative Performance test On line.

Start On line with a mate. Spit II and 109E4 Level flight close formation at 250Kmh in the weeds. Then Go max power (non WEP non Boost Cutout) at the same time. Keep it going until you max out. Control Eng temps as required with the Rad/s. You might be surprised just how close you still are at the end point. The 109 driver will need to control prop pitch/RPM actively (2300rpm seems to be a good value) and what IAS you both end up with.

Then do the same in a climb test. Start out the same in close formation on the deck, reset altimeters so both of you are using the same setting. In the climb Spit climb at 160MPH, E4 at 250Kmh as these are the respective best ROC speeds for each aircraft. Post results here.

Hi. I made a small test, straight flying, sea level.
Spit IIa top speed without boost: 280 mph (450.6 km/h), with boost (no time limit) 310 mph (498.9 km/h)
109 E-4 top speed with 1.32 ata: 430 km/h, with (afterburner) 1.42 ata (1 min limit) 440 km/h*
109 E-3 top speed with 1.35 ata: 430 km/h, with (afterburner) 1.45 ata (1 min limit) 450 km/h* (E3 is faster )

I don't understand why would it necessary to do the test without a boost, when i flew more than half hour (Spit IIa, full throttle, half open radiator, sea level) without an any kind of trouble.

Please open this page, look at the first chart:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
E-1 should reach the 300 mph (482.8 km/h) on sea level. The E-3 were being built with stronger engine already. DB 601 Aa (+72HP) instead DB 601 A-1.
This according to you surprisingly nearly?

*
Another thing: Please look at this chart:
The "start und notleistung" (call it "afterburner" in CloD) increase the performance with 200 PS (this considerable plus 20% performance the reason of the time limitation), but in CloD it causes only 3% speed acceleration. Compared to Spitfire: Boost causes 10.7% acceleration (30 mph). I do not know the correct values of the Merlin engines, but looking at the proportions... well... what do you think?

(source: www.enginehistory.org)