Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109

[Yellow14150]

I haven't read the entire thread, but did anyone test out the airspeeds at sea level? I know the 109 E-4 tops out at 460km/h in level flight on the deck with afterburner. That's optimal prop pitch of 10:25-10:30, and a trimmed radiator. In small dives I can hit 470 for 30 secs.

The G.50 hits 390-410 km/h as indicated on the deck. That's with the prop pitch set correctly (around 60-70%) and the radiator closed down 50%. You can also fully trim the G.50

Has anyone speed tested the Spits and Hurris?

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Yellow14150

I haven't read the entire thread, but did anyone test out the airspeeds at sea level? I know the 109 E-4 tops out at 460km/h in level flight on the deck with afterburner. That's optimal prop pitch of 10:25-10:30, and a trimmed radiator. In small dives I can hit 470 for 30 secs.

The G.50 hits 390-410 km/h as indicated on the deck. That's with the prop pitch set correctly (around 60-70%) and the radiator closed down 50%. You can also fully trim the G.50

Has anyone speed tested the Spits and Hurris?

Unfortunately yes - only sea level result:


Hurricane MK 1 Rotol

238 mph /383 kph at the deck at +6 1/2 boost ------ should be 262-265 mph /420-426 kph !!!!

So it is 24-27mph/ 38-43 kph too slow at + 6 1/2 boost power !!!!

There is no WEP - so no 100 octan fuel performacne - which should give ab. 25 mph/ 40 kph extra speed at low alts

Spitfire MK1a

255 mph/410 kph at the deck at 6 1/2 boost ---------should be 283 mph/455 kph !!!!

So it is 28 mph/45 kph too slow at 6 1/2 boost.

No 100 Octan fuel performance at all - boost cut out doesnt rise power at all.

Spitfire MK II

268 mph/431 kph at deck at 6 1/2 lbs
285 mph/458 kph at deck at 9 lbs ------ should be 286-290 mph so it is quite accurate result!!!!

No emergency take off power +12 lbs included.


So actually with present FM and performacne of planes there is no sense to flying Hurricane MK1 and Spitfire MK1 against 109 casue their performacne is way off comparing to RL data even for only 87 octan fuel not mention absense of 100 Octan fuel performacne.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

What sort of problems would you expect to happen?

Well probably the same problems like other planes could have with engine which is using in emergency power settings for too long time. In Clod 109 E could fly all time at 1.35 Ata 5-minutes emergency power without any problems other hand something is not correct if Spit Mk II have unexpected engine faluires flying even only at continous power ( + 6lbs 2850 RPMs).

Im sure you dont want Spitfires flying at emergency power +12 lbs all day long without any problems but fuel?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Well probably the same problems like other planes could have with engine which is using in emergency power settings for too long time. In Clod 109 E could fly all time at 1.35 Ata 5-minutes emergency power without any problems other hand something is not correct if Spit Mk II have unexpected engine faluires flying even only at continous power ( + 6lbs 2850 RPMs).

Im sure you dont want Spitfires flying at emergency power +12 lbs all day long without any problems but fuel?

Theoretically planes CAN flew at emergency power for extended periods, but wear will be high on the components. It was not set in concrete, and the reason of failure is always down to failure in one component. If the coolant (indicating the engine block itself is at optimum temperature) and oil temperatures (indicating the proper lubrication is provided) are all right within limits, and other components do not fail, it should be possible. Bench tests often exposed engines to very long during duration at maximum power, so it was possible. Of course during bench tests optimum oiling and cooling is provided.

I guess the frequent failure you have experienced on Spits is down to a failure of a specific component, or improper operation like too rich mixture leading to excessive local temperatures, burning out of exhausts etc. which is the reason I ask what kind of component you expect to fail on the 109 or any other plane. Knowing this would let us understand if the model is correct.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

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.

The V15a figures depicted in the William's graph are showing the aircraft down on power. As per the report the aircraft engine was down on power (by 45 PS), and the results were corrected to the nominal engine outputs. With the corrected output, speeds were 498 km/h (309 mph) on the deck and 574 km/h at 4800 m (356 mph at 15750 feet). See:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

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

6 1/2 lbs at 3000 rpm was 5 minute power, not 30 min on the Spitfire. 6 1/2 at 3000 lbs was a "climb" power but only with the rpm reduced to 2800.

This one is more realistics, with some of the 'accidentally omitted' added.

[bugmenot]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The V15a figures depicted in the William's graph are showing the aircraft down on power. As per the report the aircraft engine was down on power (by 45 PS), and the results were corrected to the nominal engine outputs. With the corrected output, speeds were 498 km/h (309 mph) on the deck and 574 km/h at 4800 m (356 mph at 15750 feet). See:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html



6 1/2 lbs at 3000 rpm was 5 minute power, not 30 min on the Spitfire. 6 1/2 at 3000 lbs was a "climb" power but only with the rpm reduced to 2800.

This one is more realistics, with some of the 'accidentally omitted' added.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst;

Kurfürst, can you add speed increasing with "overrev the engine above FTH" that you have mentioned here.. ?
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...postcount=1606