Friday Update, February 10, 2012

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by BlackSix

I learned about the fuel from Ilya.
Now we have simulated the performance of engines taken from public test. What kind of fuel they used - such fuel in our game

I think I have to put it in bold:
Now we have simulated the performance of engines taken from public test. What kind of fuel they used - such fuel in our game

maybe and bold and bigger:
Now we have simulated the performance of engines taken from public test. What kind of fuel they used - such fuel in our game


Rarely has one sentence meant so much as this sentence!

Rarely have I seen so much whinning (actually I am lying, I have seen a lot of whinning here and in the Ubi-zoo and the "octane fuel" saga is is no more spectacular than the "FW190 gunsight view limitation", nor the "ammo belt loads", nor etc. etc. etc...ROFL)!

It becomes obvious that the Spit and Hurri pilots are getting so much annoyed having their sensitive parts kicked by the Bf109 that are looking for every possibility to say "Luthier, my plane was historicaly faster than it is in the game" maybe it was the octane fuel, maybe it was the landing gear wheels inflated with nitrogen instead of air...

Gents just get used to it:
#1. The flight model is not there where it should be.

#2. The Bf109s owned the air at that period (historicaly correct, if you do not believe me (and you shouldn't) watch the documentaries posted in the forum and the comments of the RAF pilots!). Yes! You won the battle of Britan! Because the Bf109s had to fly besides the bombers. In CoD they do not have to, and you feel the impact.

#3. Get used to appreciate the guy's work (Blacksix) and enjoy the moment that we get timely accurate updates and stop overtaking this thread with more questions to him than he can give answers!


~S~

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...

Disclaimer: I accept that my post may be deleted, re-phrased, moved out of this thread as per the will of the admins. I just felt I had to vent off some frustration because of this mess

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

It becomes obvious that the Spit and Hurri pilots are getting so much annoyed having their sensitive parts kicked by the Bf109 that are looking for every possibility to say "Luthier, my plane was historicaly faster than it is in the game" maybe it was the octane fuel, maybe it was the landing gear wheels inflated with nitrogen instead of air...

Negative GRAthos, I hope the actual performance ratio of RAF Fighters (Mk.Is) to the 109s remains the same, e.g. Emils will stay faster, better climbing etc.
I mean if RAF gets 100 octane performance and Emils will perform better as they should do. No one is expecting the Hurricane to outperfrom the Emil.

I am not annoyed by RAF performance, I quite enjoy it as it is and I hope we can get them all even closer to what they were (fuel is just one part of that), that's all.

[klem]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

I think I have to put it in bold:
Now we have simulated the performance of engines taken from public test. What kind of fuel they used - such fuel in our game
..............................

It becomes obvious that the Spit and Hurri pilots are getting so much annoyed having their sensitive parts kicked by the Bf109 ............

Gents just get used to it:
#1. The flight model is not there where it should be.

#2. The Bf109s owned the air at that period...........Yes! You won the battle of Britan! Because the Bf109s had to fly besides the bombers. In CoD they do not have to, and you feel the impact.

I didn't want to get into exchanges here - its breaking my own rules - but I would like to say...

Properly modelled engine performance (if it is properly modelled) doesn't necessarily translate into aircraft performance, there are other factors involved. Are the MkI/Ia aedrodynamics modelled very differently from the MkII? Is the Merlin MKIII modelling very different from the MkXII? Whichever, they are being looked at.

So, yes, the FMs aren't where they should be.


And yes we're fed up getting our parts kicked with a/c that are slower than they should be. Whether the 109s 'owned the sky' because of tactics or performance is dependent on those tactics and the actual a/c models. In level flight the +12lbs boosted Spitfire was faster than the 109E at medium and low altitudes according to
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
But 109 Tactics (not tied to bombers) generally seem to have prevented very effective RAF defence in the initial engagements as admitted by many of the veterans. But there are many BoB combat reports that said if the 109 simply dived and ran away the Spitfire (presumably 100 octane and boosted) could eventually catch it. And on co-E terms, apart from the Negative G problem, the Spitfire could outfight the 109. We would like those chances. The 109 did not 'own the sky' in all circumstances.

[SEE]

Thanks for the update BS.

I am more interested in the flight sim aspects and, along with others, would appreciate the relative FM of the current plane set corrected as a priority. At the moment we have a Rotol Hurricane that outperforms the Rotol Spitfire Mk1a and a Spitfire MK11 that outperforms everything else and is thus banned from most servers - and, still no definite response wether these glaring issues are to be addressed.

[jimbop]

Originally Posted by SEE

Thanks for the update BS.

I am more interested in the flight sim aspects and, along with others, would appreciate the relative FM of the current plane set corrected as a priority. At the moment we have a Rotol Hurricane that outperforms the Rotol Spitfire Mk1a and a Spitfire MK11 that outperforms everything else and is thus banned from most servers - and, still no definite response wether these glaring issues are to be addressed.

Spot on. TBH I don't know who's right about the 87 vs 100 octane fuel etc, I just want a reason to get back in the 1a instead of the Hurri (which seems about correct).

[king1hw]

Robo, Please list your publications own by you that are pilots manuals on the Merlin II and III production and list the fuels tested since the Battle of France where most RAF Hurricanes were being tested at 12lbs boost instead of 6.25 WHICH IS A JOKE. Most if not all front line fighter air bases received 100 octane fuel. Douglas Bader Biography wrote about the main issues as well as many RAf fighter pilots documented the configuration.

You come on here and post no actual documentation owned by you proving that everything you say is right about the engine power plants in the spitfire MKIa and Hurricane. Can you agree that the Spit MkIa is a joke and that major fixes in both allied and axis planes need fixed.

Again Post your scanned in data that you have purchased to prove to us you are not full of hot air and that the only fuel produced in Britain was 87 and that this was the only fuel available and no planes in the historical record of the BoB did not reach 12lbs boost and that the LW won the war because it had the superior aircraft. So I guess your the only one supplying 1c with your data which I have never seen.

Since Forgotten battles we have had these issues and the allowing of 25lb spit on servers with that game and everyone WHINEDDDD!

So same BS! So just give us all the possible variants for both LW and RAF and allow the servers to design the WAR.

My final

[Talisman]

[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