Spitfire makes only 300 mph?

I fly the Spit 2a frequently and did some tests. With max boost without cut out and max rpm I get about 290- mph (about 6kft) and almost 300 mph with all out. Radiators fully open as to avoid water overheating.

10 mph win for all out? That's quite little I'd say ...

[ICDP]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I fly the Spit 2a frequently and did some tests. With max boost without cut out and max rpm I get about 290- mph (about 6kft) and almost 300 mph with all out. Radiators fully open as to avoid water overheating.

10 mph win for all out? That's quite little I'd say ...

Make sure to go to no cockpit view for a much more accurate reading. The little info bar on the IAS inside the cockpit only reads in increments of 10. So 315 will still read 310 for example.

[ICDP]

I just checked again and the MkII does only show 8lbs boost according to the no cockpit guages. It does however get 311-315 MPH at sea level, so it is getting 100 octane 12+Lbs boost SL speeds.

The MkI is woefully underperforming right now, 260MPH at sea level.

The Me109 is also getting way less speed than it could in reality at SL. I can get 450kph, this is 40-50kph too slow.

It seems that the poor performance is not just limited to the graphics engine. In all honesty the fact that people are getting stutters and poor FPS has deflected away from the fact that there is a lot more wrong with CoD. People are only just starting to notice the other serious issues.

It is a good sim, it just needs a lot of work... to be continued.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

the Mk Is are with two pitch props and 87 octane. Good choice IMHO.

lol, would have to seriously disagree with this, one of them yes but both is stupid imo, since the mkI was the mainstay of the battle and theres so much evidence of lots (note not all) of them on 100 octane fuel, which even you have to admit.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

lol, would have to seriously disagree with this, one of them yes but both is stupid imo, since the mkI was the mainstay of the battle and theres so much evidence of lots (note not all) of them on 100 octane fuel, which even you have to admit.

You are right (posting from an iPhone was pain.. ). There should be be a 2-pitch version, and a CSP with armor, both 87 octane. The Mk. II could then be used as a stand in for Mk. Is with 100 octane as well. Of course a third Mark I with 100 octane and CSP would be great as well, but IMHO redundant as its the same thing really as the current Mk. II performance wise.

I was just testing one Mk I (dunno Mk I or Mk Ia so I am not sure, but evidently at least one of them is with 2 pitch screws), as I was curious about how the CSP works in COD.

Il-2 was a serious disappointban the way it modelled CSP. Still is.. you don't seem to select RPM with it, as you should, you select "relative to maximum allowed rpm for given boost".

Speaking of which, "Mk Ia" is also a bit weird. AFAIK there was no such actual designation, it was Mk I. Mk IA is an ex post facto "designation", maybe born in post-war literature, like "Erla G-10". Hell some books even state the "Mk. I" was with four guns only..

[fruitbat]

disagree with the mkII and mkI being the same performance.

mkI is marginally faster down low, mkII quicker up high, and more importantly, a higher service ceiling, which put them 3000ft above the 109's, at least according to one German fighter pilots book i've read (Spitfire on my tail). In October he described it 'as regular as the German railway' for spits to be waiting for them well above there service ceiling.

figures i have list service ceiling for mkII as 37,600ft (P7280), vs 34,700ft for mkI (N3171), figures i have for E3 34,550ft.

Thats why it makes much more sense to me to have one spit MkI at 9lbs, one at 12lbs and the spit MkII at 12lbs, along with an E1 and E4 of course. Then we can actually start having a Battle of Britain.

agree re the mkIa thing, its just plain weird!

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

You are right (posting from an iPhone was pain.. ). There should be be a 2-pitch version, and a CSP with armor, both 87 octane. The Mk. II could then be used as a stand in for Mk. Is with 100 octane as well. Of course a third Mark I with 100 octane and CSP would be great as well, but IMHO redundant as its the same thing really as the current Mk. II performance wise.

I was just testing one Mk I (dunno Mk I or Mk Ia so I am not sure, but evidently at least one of them is with 2 pitch screws), as I was curious about how the CSP works in COD.

Il-2 was a serious disappointban the way it modelled CSP. Still is.. you don't seem to select RPM with it, as you should, you select "relative to maximum allowed rpm for given boost".

Speaking of which, "Mk Ia" is also a bit weird. AFAIK there was no such actual designation, it was Mk I. Mk IA is an ex post facto "designation", maybe born in post-war literature, like "Erla G-10". Hell some books even state the "Mk. I" was with four guns only..

All 8 gun RAF fighters were retrospectivley given the A suffix sometime in late 1940. Up till then they were just Mk 1s.

I'm wondering if the 'Early' Mk1 is just exactly that, early (Pre June '40). More of a Battle of France Spitfire, 2 speed De Hav and 87 octane. That would make more sense.

Here's an interesting pont. The first Modified (ie the cannons worked) Mk IB into action in the BoB was R6889, 19 Sqn . It was, to quote Spitfire, The History "Not an outstanding sucess, it was underpowered, even with the Merlin III and had to be flown at maximum power just to keep up with the browning armed Spitfires"

[b101uk]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The thing about rpm is odd though. I believe you have to fly 3000/+12 to get max speed, less rpm should yield less power..

max RPM would have more power but less torque, a slightly lower RPM e.g. 2600 to 2800 rpm would have less power but more torque.

Engines are at there happiest when ran ~2/3rd & 4/5th of the way between peak torque RPM and rated power RPM, so for the sake of maths lets say rated power is 3000rpm and peak torque is 2000 rpm then 2/3rd would be 2666rpm and 4/5th would be 2800rpm, as this is ware you get a good balance of actual torque and notional power.

You did now that power is a notional figure derived from force vs. speed so e.g. 1HP = 550lbft/sec or 33000lbft/min or anything that amount to the same, so both 1lb @ 550ft/sec & 550lb @ 1ft/sec are equal to 1HP.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Looks like it's only a faulty boost gauge Than..

Anyway it seemed to me that Oleg modelled the MkII as CSP+100 octane, the Mk Is are with two pitch props and 87 octane. Good choice IMHO.

Good choice for those who want the British to have aircraft with 1938 performance.

The facts are out there, despite the disinformation you post, and it is clear 100 octane was in predominant use, with 100% of the sector airfields in No. 10, 11 and 12 Group, showing clear use of 100 octane during the battle.

It is also very clear the two pitch De Havilland props in the Spitfire I were upgraded to constant speed in early July. In addition, all new Spitfires, (which were 50% of the aircraft on strength by September) coming off the production lines had constant speed props.

The facts have been shown on posts on this board, you have provided ZERO proof to the contrary.

By the way, the Spit 1A in the game is modelled graphically with a CSP Rotol prop, as historically it was, who knows why Luthier suddenly reversed the Flight Model. Who knows what false information was directed his way.

[lane]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Good choice for those who want the British to have aircraft with 1938 performance.

The facts are out there, despite the disinformation you post, and it is clear 100 octane was in predominant use, with 100% of the sector airfields in No. 10, 11 and 12 Group, showing clear use of 100 octane during the battle.

It is also very clear the two pitch De Havilland props in the Spitfire I were upgraded to constant speed in early July. In addition, all new Spitfires, (which were 50% of the aircraft on strength by September) coming off the production lines had constant speed props.

The facts have been shown on posts on this board, you have provided ZERO proof to the contrary.

By the way, the Spit 1A in the game is modelled graphically with a CSP Rotol prop, as historically it was, who knows why Luthier suddenly reversed the Flight Model. Who knows what false information was directed his way.
-----
The graphics model is of a Spit II. It has the six exhaust stubs per side instead of three, and there are other elements.

Good posts. Two minor quibbles though; I've seen late June into early July for DH conversions (earlier for Rotol) and what photos I have of Spitfire IIs shows 3 exhaust stubs per side. Nice photo attached of a No. 19 Squadron Spitfire II at Fowlmere during September 1940.