Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[CWMV]

I personally don't buy into the 100 octane argument, for the simple reason that neither side has been able to act like G.D. adults with the data. Every time its brought up both sides, blue and red pilots, fly off the handle and act worse than children-so you know what, for me default to 87.

Regardless of that, this kinda sucks. I'm a 109 driver, for now and for all time, but that doesn't mean I want to see everyone else cut off at the knees. I'm sure most of the blue pilots feel the same way.
Sadly the charts really don't match even 87 octane. I found that really hard to believe until I checked. Even Wiki has the MkI doing about 591kph at 18K feet...not in that graph. And that's just the first place I looked. I'm sure further searching would yield similar results.

Do I believe that the 109 was the best fighter of the period in question? Without a doubt. But I know that the Spit was a really, REALLY close second.
If these graphs are going to really be what we see in game, that will not be the case at all.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by CWMV

I personally don't buy into the 100 octane argument.........................I'm a 109 driver, for now and for all time

I removed the BS so we can be clear about your position.

[macro]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I removed the BS so we can be clear about your position.

lmfao

i was gonna write that

is there a performance chart like the ones BS posted for the IIa?

all this arguments and the spit IIa may become the "default" red fighter for a more even fight on most servers?

[bongodriver]

until they pork that one too.

[Insuber]

It is interesting to see the wide tolerance of the contractual performance of the Bf-109. The error of +/-5% on the top speed of 500 km/h translates into 10% or 50 km/h of allowed error in absolute figures. Add to that the wear of operations and you can easily have poor performers.
It would be equally interesting to know the tolerance of the British types, I would not be surprised to see higher tolerance values for the Spitfire, given the poor status of the Supermarine rigs and tools at the beginning of production (see the Leo McKinstry book on the Spitfire to have an idea about the mess of the Supermarine works in 1938-39).

PS: how nice if this variability is modeled ... it shouldn't be that difficult ...

[Insuber]

Look at the Spitfire II (a and b) Pilot Notes, page 13 (unbiased, first hand info):

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...pit2Manual.pdf

100 octanes appear as a standard, 87 as the exception, 12 lbs boost allowed up to 5 minutes, but effective only up to 10'500 ft. At least for the Spitfire IIa and IIb. The source doesn't indicate the revision date though.

I didn't find the Spifire I Pilot Notes, unfortunately. I'll check my CoD collector's edition ...

[ramstein]

Originally Posted by Insuber

It is interesting to see the wide tolerance of the contractual performance of the Bf-109. The error of +/-5% on the top speed of 500 km/h translates into 10% or 50 km/h of allowed error in absolute figures. Add to that the wear of operations and you can easily have poor performers.
It would be equally interesting to know the tolerance of the British types, I would not be surprised to see higher tolerance values for the Spitfire, given the poor status of the Supermarine rigs and tools at the beginning of production (see the Leo McKinstry book on the Spitfire to have an idea about the mess of the Supermarine works in 1938-39).

PS: how nice if this variability is modeled ... it shouldn't be that difficult ...

speaking tolerances..., in piston engines, I learned while attending a college in auto mechanics.. and engine rebuilding, that the tolerance for engine pistons in cylinders was purposely set a bit loose like .004 of an inch for faster break ins for engines that needed less break in times from the factory... , though you could set the tolerance down to .003 inch clearance of the pistons and cylinder for a much tighter fit, but slower break in times..

I would bore the cylinder and put a .003 inch clearance in the cylinder of v8 engines.
I also cut valves, rods, etc, on machining equipment.

Taking into account this was a long time ago in engines from the 1960's. the engine parts from the 1930's and 40's were still much older and had much different metal properties that the engines I worked on... and now they are completely different metal properties and break in periods..

the differences are the metals, and cast and forged engine components.. and the rings are totally different too... The oils were absolutely different back then, they were non detergent oils...

I was thinking the tolerances must have been much looser, as they really didn't have time to run long break ins to get performance.

The altitude difference and the condensation from going up and coming down in altitude is considerable and must have introduced a lot more water into the engines and oil, from more open breathing designs of engines...

The condensation buildup or moisture in aircraft (of any age) is significant from the changes in altitude and humidity, inside and outside of aircraft, and even more so when pressurized. Those engines must have been through hell to go into war when new, and no time to break in parts..

I could see how there could be large differences in the performance of the same type aircraft... as the first few hours of engine running made a lot of difference in the life of the aircraft parts.. so a 50-100 kmh difference makes sense..

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I removed the BS so we can be clear about your position.

If you are trying to say that his arguments are foul because he does fly blue, then the same applies to red pilots.

Ergo, nobody flying red or blue only may argue.

I don´t think you want to say that, do you?

[335th_GRAthos]

We all took a concious decision, to have 1C concentrate their ressources to make a better graphics model.
It is therefore beyond doubt that we will have to wait for the graphics model to get finalised and afterwards, the long, hard discussion about the flight models will start.

I have always avoided discussions because speed is only one parameter; There is a lot more which plays a role in a dogfight.

What I would really like to see is that somebody downloads the CoD plane parameters and creates an IL2Compare like we had for IL2!





If we have that, we will have the required transparency to start discussions.

As I had commented in the improvements thread months ago, watching the "wing load" responsiveness of the airplanes (can be seen by the planes flying reasonably well with half-wing sawn off) makes me believe that, as far as the FM of COD is concerned, "speed" is one small piece of the puzzle.

~S~