Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109

[tools4fools]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Even flight tests are not representing the final truth as they only represent one individual plane and not average performance.

As Kur already has presented the specs for the 109 which had a guaranteed performance inside a +/-5% bandwidth which is a lot. This however is of course theoretical tolerance. It may have been that the delivered aircrafts were +/-2% from an average somewhere inside the +/-5% (we do not know where this average was and probably the Luftwaffe did not know either).

This should be always kept in mind. Unfortunately this is a big headache for any flight sim developer.

Personally if we could have all flight data of a good statistical probe for each plane I would like to have statistically scattered performances of planes in the game. But this will never happen as we never will have that data.

Yes, I would love this!

First of all it would be a much more correct representation of all planes.

The even just 2-3% would mean +/- 10-15km/h difference, so folks could not build their fights on tiny speed advantages at certain height levels.

But then I guess that those crying for 'historical' performance now would turn that 'variable performance' off for their dogfight servers...
+++++

[Crumpp]

I don't know why Crumpp came up with "climb rating for cruising" as no would call it "cruising" when you apply "climb rating".

Exactly...think about it.

You have it right here:

Everything setting above that shortens the engine life at a higher rate. Everything below that setting will lengthen the engine life.

It is not a matter of just shortening engine life, it is a matter of reliablity.

It would be more accurate to say:

Everything setting above that is an overload condition which can cause the engine to fail. Everything below that setting is the stress conditions the motor was built to withstand continuously.

[Ataros]

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. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...2&d=1336899153

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

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.

Could you please add above data to appropriate bugtracker issues.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Ataros

Could you please add above data to appropriate bugtracker issues.

If you could do it casue im not familiar with bugracker too much

[palker4]

You people should finally learn that Kurfürst is always right and 109 is best and it is properly represented in the game while spitfire is also properly represented because it performs worse than 109.
I just wonder what would happen if 109 would perform worse than spitfire.

[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.