Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by camber

* First, the CoD 109 has access to it's historical 1 min takeoff only boost (1.45ata), and can use it (unhistorically) practically continuously with no engine problems. This allows it to go 20kmh faster than the CoD Spit all out at +12psi.

Actually it can't just be used willy nilly. Activating it at the top of a "zoom" climb when pitch is at 12:00 and your hanging on the prop will blow the engine. I'd also like to add pressing wep at SL when already going all out throttle, pitch and speed at 460 (rarley 480) doesnt add any more speed. The wep seems to add more power at lower sppeds to me.


The graphs having different scales makes it very hard to compare, any chance of putting it all on one graph? - Or at least the same scaled graph?

FT = Full Throttle? I think nearly all the speed tests on the 109 were done at 1.3 or 1.35 Ata were they not? Not full throttle...

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Actually it can't just be used willy nilly. Activating it at the top of a "zoom" climb when pitch is at 12:00 and your hanging on the prop will blow the engine. I'd also like to add pressing wep at SL when already going all out throttle, pitch and speed at 460 (rarley 480) doesnt add any more speed. The wep seems to add more power at lower sppeds to me.

Your correct on WEP having no effect at higher ALT IMO..

Climbing yes but all out power no.

And I agree also about boost being used as often as you like in the 109...not true and I think this cones from pilots that don't fly it, do it high Altitude continuously and see what happens, so it continuously on max pitch and full throttle with low speed and your kill it too..

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

Your correct on WEP having no effect at higher ALT IMO..

Climbing yes but all out power no.

And I agree also about boost being used as often as you like in the 109...not true and I think this cones from pilots that don't fly it, do it high Altitude continuously and see what happens, so it continuously on max pitch and full throttle with low speed and your kill it too..

Yep and long periods over 1.3 and deffinatley over 1.4 (usually cos of wep) will destroy the engine even though temps and RPM are normal.

[camber]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Actually it can't just be used willy nilly. Activating it at the top of a "zoom" climb when pitch is at 12:00 and your hanging on the prop will blow the engine. I'd also like to add pressing wep at SL when already going all out throttle, pitch and speed at 460 (rarley 480) doesnt add any more speed. The wep seems to add more power at lower sppeds to me.


The graphs having different scales makes it very hard to compare, any chance of putting it all on one graph? - Or at least the same scaled graph?

FT = Full Throttle? I think nearly all the speed tests on the 109 were done at 1.3 or 1.35 Ata were they not? Not full throttle...

Hi Farber,

Sounds like I may be overstating the ease and safety of 1.45ata use in the 109. In my speed tests I tried restarting it a few times at SL and didn't see engine problems but didn't try many variations. I got 450kmh without and 470 kmh with it on, is that consistent with you?. The 1.45ata in combat makes it harder to work out how best to configure the 109 in CoD, if you gave the 109 500kmh at around 1.3ata and combat access to 1.45ata, you have a VERY fast bird indeed in CoD considering historical information.

For the 109 tests I left auto prop pitch on and had the throttle fully open, with the boost regulation giving 1.35ata or 1.45ata. FT is full throttle as you surmise.

I scaled the plots seperately because I wanted to talk about relative speeds in real life and game. Both plots have a 120kmh range on the y axis, the CoD one starts 50kmh lower because all speeds in CoD are roughly 50kmh low. These tests are really a bit basic..only sea level max speeds done singly offline.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by camber

Sounds like I may be overstating the ease and safety of 1.45ata use in the 109.

I guess that is because this is a fairly new feature in recent beta patches (1.07 onwards afik). It used to be just as you described it...

I haven't got enough hours in 109 in 1.08 to comment on that to be honest. I managed to damage the engine when I forgot to open the water rad, but I never damaged it by using the WEP as long as my rpm weren't too high.

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by Robo.

I guess that is because this is a fairly new feature in recent beta patches (1.07 onwards afik). It used to be just as you described it...

I haven't got enough hours in 109 in 1.08 to comment on that to be honest. I managed to damage the engine when I forgot to open the water rad, but I never damaged it by using the WEP as long as my rpm weren't too high.

The effect you get from execissve use at certain instances of Boost is not the same as cooking your engine throuh heat, I'm not sure what damage is modeled in game but you suffer with lack of power and can't seem to get your rpm as high as normal..can't remember the exact figure as I try not to do it often

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by camber

Hi Farber,

Sounds like I may be overstating the ease and safety of 1.45ata use in the 109. In my speed tests I tried restarting it a few times at SL and didn't see engine problems but didn't try many variations. I got 450kmh without and 470 kmh with it on, is that consistent with you?. The 1.45ata in combat makes it harder to work out how best to configure the 109 in CoD, if you gave the 109 500kmh at around 1.3ata and combat access to 1.45ata, you have a VERY fast bird indeed in CoD considering historical information.

For the 109 tests I left auto prop pitch on and had the throttle fully open, with the boost regulation giving 1.35ata or 1.45ata. FT is full throttle as you surmise.

I scaled the plots seperately because I wanted to talk about relative speeds in real life and game. Both plots have a 120kmh range on the y axis, the CoD one starts 50kmh lower because all speeds in CoD are roughly 50kmh low. These tests are really a bit basic..only sea level max speeds done singly offline.

Thank you for you intelligent and polite reply. Hopefully it can be an example for this thread so it doesnt get locked.

My squad mates and I have been discussing the difference between the E4 auto pitch and the E1 and E3 manual pitch which is quite different. I would also go as far to say when your using autopitch your almost using the AI FM in some respects. The exact difference is hard to describe and establish exactly... The auto pitch also runs at a lower RPM than I would manually, although it gets more acceleration, better fuel economy and is overall superior except when you rapidly climb and dive continiously and it cannot keep up with you. 5./JG27Gruber could explain more on this than I think, I will see if he wants to contribute.

I can achieve 460kmh sea level with out any wep during the acceleration... Occasionally if I have my aircraft trimmed perfectly and the planets align I can get a steady 480 kmh... At 5km altitude its more like 420kmh.

Klem started a thread about speed and the 109 was discussed also. I made some quick tracks [Strike]which I will attempt to attach here.[/Strike] (they are messed up, I will fraps it and upload to youtube...) Close to sea level tests and 5km level flight speed tests 1.3 Ata and 2350 U/pm if I recall. I think these runs were made in 1.07. As far as I am aware the only difference to the 109 FM is the rad drag... - Which is neglible to a degree.

-Ultimatley, I am only Human. I'm proberbly not the best at flying straight and level and maybe I am even doing it wrong? I will let others be the judge of it.


EDIT1: WOW was I wrong?! 100% Fuel gave some interesting results but I need to test 50% also for comparison. There have been changes to Bf109 FM in 1.08.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Interesting .... http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171-cooling.jpg

From: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171.html

[TomcatViP]

I agree there is some drag effect with the rads.

However, do you realize guys that there was no 100oct fuel during BoB ?

Wonder what you are looking after here?!!

Regarding the speed achieved by the tester, isn't it the same one that wasn't able to achieve 270 in a hurri ? I mean teh kind of guy taking off with a cold engine, flying hood open, at 400kph cruise speed and complaining about overheating in combat ?

I think it says it all...

I am sory but when I read "real life MkI 100oct" it really push me out of my brain.

[camber]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Regarding the speed achieved by the tester, isn't it the same one that wasn't able to achieve 270 in a hurri ? I mean teh kind of guy taking off with a cold engine, flying hood open, at 400kph cruise speed and complaining about overheating in combat ?

I think it says it all...

I am sory but when I read "real life MkI 100oct" it really push me out of my brain.

Hi Tomcat

Er, not sure if it is an English issue, but that reads like a hilarious insult so I will reply as such.

Maybe I (it) WAS the kind of tester that wasn't able to achieve 270 (mph?) in a Hurri while complaining. But what would you say if it got back to the airfield, abducted Spitgirl from the officer's mess, and took her to the nightspots of Picadilly in an open top Lagonda?

Looking back the only flight test of a Hurri I remember was 240-245mph on the deck in the first beta patch with FM revision (slowing Hurris down). I think it was a fair bit faster in the previous retail patch 1.05.

Will not comment on the fuel with high round number
in case the padlock gods are roused from fitful slumber.

Cheers M8