Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109

[von Brühl]

Originally Posted by ReconNZ

The 109's are the only planes that didnt get spanked in the new patch, what the hell is that all about???

They also did not get the speed increase they were stated to receive.

[Seadog]

Spit I and Me 109 performance:

[theOden]

Originally Posted by Seadog

Spit I and Me 109 performance:
..

It's a graph from internet so it must be the truth.

[JG5_emil]

Originally Posted by theOden

It's a graph from internet so it must be the truth.

Indeed ha ha!

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by theOden

It's a graph from internet so it must be the truth.

The source for each line is given and all of them are available in the internet. So it shouldn't be a problem for you to check the values and report any anomalies.

[Flanker35M]

S!

But I see the problem right there. Now people look at that graph and see thick blue line faster than Bf109E. But forget to check a "minor" thing..it is with 12lbs boost not the lower continuous power. And on that the Spitfire is slower than Bf109E. And it seems, according to that graph, that Spitfire and Bf109E were quite evenly matched regarding speed on power settings below WEP or overboost. But again can not stress enough that should not take the 12lbs curve as the absolute speed of Spitfire as it could not run that setting indefinitely but for a limited time like Bf109E it's WEP.

[von Brühl]

If those are taken from spitfireperformance.org, weren't those papers proven to be photoshopped a while ago?

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by von Brühl

If those are taken from spitfireperformance.org, weren't those papers proven to be photoshopped a while ago?

If it was proven, you certainly can present the proof for this claim.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

But I see the problem right there. Now people look at that graph and see thick blue line faster than Bf109E. But forget to check a "minor" thing..it is with 12lbs boost not the lower continuous power. And on that the Spitfire is slower than Bf109E. And it seems, according to that graph, that Spitfire and Bf109E were quite evenly matched regarding speed on power settings below WEP or overboost. But again can not stress enough that should not take the 12lbs curve as the absolute speed of Spitfire as it could not run that setting indefinitely but for a limited time like Bf109E it's WEP.

Flanker you should notice that speed curves for 109 are for 5-minutes emergency power not for nominal power. So it should be checked speed at 1.23 Ata for 109 (30-minut power) vs 6 1/2 lbs for Spitfire - both continous power.

We should note that power settings for 109 E was ( Db 601A/Db601Aa):

1.4/1.45 Ata - 1 minut take off emergency power
1.3/1.35 Ata - 5 minut emergency power
1.23/1.27 Ata - 30 minut continous power

For Spitfire we have:
12lbs - 5 minutes emergency power
6 1/2 lbs - 30 minutes continous power

The problem is beside that Spitfire MK II dont have emergency +12 lbs at low level that its engine is very ofen broken without seriously reason. Yestarday i flew SPit MK II at 6 1/2 lbs and reduced RPMs for 2800 RPMs radiator open (temps normal) and after some time flying ( ab. 10-15 min) my engine broken. Flying at + 9 lbs broke engine much more faster.

Other hand if i not execed 2400 RPMs in 109 i could fly at 1.35 Ata power all time without any problems - when it should be only 5 minut emergency power.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Other hand if i not execed 2400 RPMs in 109 i could fly at 1.35 Ata power all time without any problems

What sort of problems would you expect to happen?