Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

...............
The ones i feared the most when i was flying blue were the ones that flew at altitude and used it like a BnZ plane. It might not be that fast compared to the 51s and 47s, but it was nimbler and climbed very well, allowing it to constantly evade and follow it up with aggressive climbing, retaining its advantage. These pilots didn't score 5+ kills per sortie, but they usually scored 10-15 kills for every time they were shot down, they would very often go in with a disadvantage of 3vs1 and win because they were flying their brains instead of flying only the FM.

For God's shake, don't give them ideas!!!!!

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

...............
The easiest way to capture some of what we read in the books is to fix the bombers first. No, i'm not kidding. With the latest testing patches a lot of people can now fly bombers in formation online.

Fixing the rest of the bombers' bugs (they have a few remaining issues with their bombsights) will take things to the next level: more people will fly bombers, which makes fighters have a reason to fly high and stay high.

Amen


~S~

[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.

[Crumpp]

date of publishing? NM, I found it July 1940.

Those notes look fishy.....my copy of the July 1940 notes clearly states 30 Minutes for climb rating at +9lbs @ 2850 rpm.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Those notes look fishy.....my copy of the July 1940 notes clearly states 30 Minutes for climb rating at +9lbs @ 2850 rpm.

Pilot's Notes General 2nd Edition from 1943 states that the time limit for climb rating was increased from 30 minutes to 1 hour.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Umm! Most civil operating handbooks will denote a normal climb speed which is also known as Cruise Climb speed. The Cruise climb speed is the airspeed that you can climb for extended peiods without over heating the engine. Cruise climb is used in cross country flight where rate of climb is not an issue.

[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.

[JG52Krupi]

Every book/article I have read points towards the 109 being slightly faster and better at diving and the spit being a slightly better turner.