Updated it.

OK, so you cannot apply wep? What happens then? (I understand the wep limit should be 1 minute correct?)

Speed is just one part of the puzzle anyway, ROC, turn stall etc etc....... We need some sort of IL2COD_Compare

Looking for 109 speed graph for patch i think speed is quite accurate modeled - max speed 500 km/h at the deck and 580? km/h at FTH, without 'WEP?" it looks like about 460-470 km/h which is accurate for RL serial test 109 with 1.3 Ata power ( 5-minutes WEP power).

But looking at patch speed graph for british fighters there is really big joke for me.
Hurricane MK1 with CSP at 6 1.2 lbs power should reach ab. 260 mph ( 420 kph) at the deck and some raported after patch it could reach only 230 mph (370 kph)???? WTF???
50 km/h difference? And these is without 100 octan fuel performance.


Strange that 1C FM engeneer could achived very accurate results for 109 E in game ( beta patch) but srew a lot with british fighters performacne ?!

If the Hurri slower 30 mph, and the 109 slower 10-20 mph, then the difference is 20-10 mph... not 60.

The WEP have limits, we didn't testing with the new engine, but we notice, the cooling leak causes engine failure. It should testing the other systems before I say anything.

We notice a huge difference the old and the new FM. Have to learn to fly with all planes.The stall characterics changed drastically (the 109's too). Far worse agile, and far less stability on slow speed (and i like it. I just flew gliders, but the high AoA flight, the stall, spin and the wing flaps looks more real now). The spin is stronger, and hard to recover. No more tight turn with open flap (you dorp your speed quickly, and fall like a rock - particularly the Spit/Hurri's Split-Flap).

I've only just flown the Hurricane and the SPIT IIa briefly today, well frankly on first impressions its not much fun. I wouldn't be confident taking either into a dogfight against a 109.
Flying the Spit didn't feel like a plane that struck fear into the Lufwaffe.
Is there some kind of agenda from 1C? I can't imagine what it is, but it seems that for flight sim enthusiasts they have no love for two of the most famous planes in history. Ho Hum.

Tom, this is @ 10kft and with any 12lbs boost. You are talking about SL where the 109 difference is greatest, the difference there for the 109 is about 15-20kmph? I think its a big difference. When the Spitfire II was 30mph too fast the LW complained so much it was banned, suddenly there are few on the LW fighting the cause for the RAF types which run way too slow now.

Interesting what you say about coolant now causing engine failure - that's a big fix and will be interesting to see the behaviour.

I'm not say, the small difference is OK, I also want that the graphs become accurate. I'm just say, the difference isn't 60-80mph (as the IIa was).

Yesterday one of my mate notice this coolant leak, but need further testing - or ask Luthier the detailed change list...

One of you is talking 50mph and the other 50km/h.

Lack of 50 km/h is at only 6 1/2 lbs power settings for beta patch Hurricane but when you know that BOB Hurricane MK1 was flying with 100 Octan fuel at +12 lbs emergency power the difference - lack of speed would be 50 mph at the deck.

Hi Tom, I know that 1C has stated the IIa was 60 mph faster than the RL Spitfire IIa, but my tests to 10,000 feet (where the majority of ATAG combat takes place) seems to place it within 20 mph (too fast). Have you seen the chart(s) that 1C has used? IC has adjusted the RAF fighter FM's downwards accordingly and I'm frankly puzzled by this turn of events and the reasoning or logic behind it.

Hi. No, I didn't see the 1C measurement results, but i don't understand, B6 why would say this, if it's not true.
ps. Some kind of Clod-compare would be the best. Everyone would be happy if we can get accurate and detailed performance graphs.