SPIT MK I/II and over boost

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Faustnik

You are claiming that all Spits in 1940 use 100 Octane and 12 lb boost?

I claim that only some of the Bf109's had propellers in the BoB. Prove that they all did by showing me evidence that every one of them did.

[Faustnik]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I claim that only some of the Bf109's had propellers in the BoB. Prove that they all did by showing me evidence that every one of them did.

?

I do not this that all 109 used the same propeller.

[Osprey]

I was being sarcastic.

The point is that there are quite a few on here who have an agenda which appears to be based around making it easier for them to score kills online rather than historical accuracy. There is a huge amount of evidence showing that the RAF had and used 100 octane for it's fighter force from May 1940 yet people are still arguing otherwise.
We have a saying in the English speaking World. "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and moves like a duck then it's probably a duck". This means that we have a load of evidence so it's probably true, this isn't a court of law where absolute proof of everything is needed.

IL2 1946 FM was ruined by Luftwaffe drivers attacking the Spitfire FM and bigging up their own FM. I am terribly worried that the same will happen again. Presently, pre-patch, the 109 has HUGE advantages and yet we still hear whining about a handful of Spitfire IIa's online. I dread to think what whining is due to come when the Spitfire become at least equal to the 109 and the 109 DM is implemented - I fear that they may complain so hard they actually spoil history.

Here's a snippet of evidence from the time. Britain was on the brink, do you honestly think we weren't using this fuel to try and win with it?

[Faustnik]

Osprey,

I think I am wrighting poorly.

I am only interested in the history. I am not arguening that Spits and Hurris in BoB used 100 octain and +12 boost. Me question was did all Spits and Hurris use 100 oct. I think that many 87 oct where used early in the battle and more 100 oct were used as the battle progresed.

I will be happy to fly with the work red of blue plane. If I see a Spit that getting short changed I will whine it FM thread.

(What IL-2 Mod are you talking about?)

[Osprey]

I don't either tbh. And about 1946 being 'ruined'. This is what I mean:

Check the data on this page for performance.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that the Spitfire outperforms the 109 on the graphs. Now take a look at the same aircraft in IL2 compare UP2.01 (maybe there's a later version, I gave it up). You'll see the 109's outperform the IX Spitfires.

I'm not biased toward the RAF, I've been ground down over the years. I want the FM's and DM's to be correct and let the pieces fall where they may. If the same happens again I've already decided to confront it or the whiners will turn a sim into a game and I'll put it in the bin.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I don't either tbh. And about 1946 being 'ruined'. This is what I mean:

Check the data on this page for performance.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that the Spitfire outperforms the 109 on the graphs. Now take a look at the same aircraft in IL2 compare UP2.01 (maybe there's a later version, I gave it up). You'll see the 109's outperform the IX Spitfires.

I'm not biased toward the RAF, I've been ground down over the years. I want the FM's and DM's to be correct and let the pieces fall where they may. If the same happens again I've already decided to confront it or the whiners will turn a sim into a game and I'll put it in the bin.

To digress,

There is a certain irony about the 109's performance vs Spitfires compared to the Fw190's in il21946. Guess the 109 has more louder whiners!

I presume your familiar with the SpitV and Spit IX tests vs the FW. The acceleration part is most illuminating, i can post if you've never seen it.

I do find it frustrating myself where people focus on red or blue, i want them all to be accurate, even if it does mean such as in 1942 the 190 was leap years ahead of the spit. I want to Simulate the Rl experiences, good or bad, the ebb and flow of development. Not just to fly around in the best plane all the time.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

To digress,

There is a certain irony about the 109's performance vs Spitfires compared to the Fw190's in il21946. Guess the 109 has more louder whiners!

I presume your familiar with the SpitV and Spit IX tests vs the FW. The acceleration part is most illuminating, i can post if you've never seen it.

I do find it frustrating myself where people focus on red or blue, i want them all to be accurate, even if it does mean such as in 1942 the 190 was leap years ahead of the spit. I want to Simulate the Rl experiences, good or bad, the ebb and flow of development. Not just to fly around in the best plane all the time.

Indeed. The acceleration and climb rate difference is remarkable. Having seen the Flugwerk 190 climb @ Duxford with my own eyes, well, that was stunning!
I don't think you got too many whiners on FW though because, frankly, if you follow some simple rules the 190 is a doddle. I flew it in 1946 a lot and found it 'unchallenging'

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

This is a pretty dumb argument, guys. First of all, higher octane number doesn't actually DO anything unless your engine is boosted high enough. A lot of people think that adding 100 octane fuel instead of 87 octane will magically make their aircraft perform better.

That is false.

But regardless of this fact, in game there should be a spitfire with 100 octane, and a spitfire with 87 octane. There should be 109s with C3 and B4. There should be spits with +9 and +12 lbs boost. etc etc etc.

Then the mission builders can decide what is appropriate.

Exactly. Instead of having constant argumentation on the forums and taking up valuable development time just formalizing the decision, the developer would be better off just giving us the available variants (same 3d model and DM, slightly altered FM, so it shouldn't be a terrible amount of work) and let us decide how to use them while they focus on something else.
This not only saves time in the long run for a small initial time investment on their part, it also makes the sim more accurate and complete.

Then, if i don't like the variants used in a certain server i just fly on a different server, everyone is happy and the avenue of communication to the developer team is decluttered for discussion of other features, etc.

I don't want to fly the best aircraft all the time either, even if it's a good one that i like i will often fly it in a regime where it's at a disadvantage: when i was flying 190s back in IL2 '46 i was mostly taking on high flying 51s and 47s in Antons (instead of Doras), not bouncing Spits that crawled on the deck

I think most people here are like that, they fly not only for the win but for the overall experience and just want an accurate ride, no matter how overpowered or underpowered it was in comparison to its contemporaries. Let's just have the "tools" to recreate air combat scenarios accurately and then each one of us can decide what to with them, instead of one group trying to shoe-horn a different group within their preference limits. Options are always good to have

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Check the data on this page for performance.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that the Spitfire outperforms the 109 on the graphs. Now take a look at the same aircraft in IL2 compare UP2.01 (maybe there's a later version, I gave it up). You'll see the 109's outperform the IX Spitfires.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know why on the most biased spit dweeb's home-made graphs the performance tests are cheery picked in such way that that it would show the most poorer performing 109s tested against the best performing Spits tested, and omitting the poorer performing Spits and better performing 109s. Come on, the credibility of that site's fan articles have been discussed in lenght already.

The 109G-2 was imho one of the most accurately modelled aircraft in the old Il-2. And it did historically outperform the early Mark IXFs with the Merlin 61, up to about 8000 meter.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The 109G-2 was imho one of the most accurately modelled aircraft in the old Il-2.

That does not surprise me at all, your opinion that is.