Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

But I see the problem right there. Now people look at that graph and see thick blue line faster than Bf109E. But forget to check a "minor" thing..it is with 12lbs boost not the lower continuous power. And on that the Spitfire is slower than Bf109E. And it seems, according to that graph, that Spitfire and Bf109E were quite evenly matched regarding speed on power settings below WEP or overboost. But again can not stress enough that should not take the 12lbs curve as the absolute speed of Spitfire as it could not run that setting indefinitely but for a limited time like Bf109E it's WEP.

Flanker you should notice that speed curves for 109 are for 5-minutes emergency power not for nominal power. So it should be checked speed at 1.23 Ata for 109 (30-minut power) vs 6 1/2 lbs for Spitfire - both continous power.

We should note that power settings for 109 E was ( Db 601A/Db601Aa):

1.4/1.45 Ata - 1 minut take off emergency power
1.3/1.35 Ata - 5 minut emergency power
1.23/1.27 Ata - 30 minut continous power

For Spitfire we have:
12lbs - 5 minutes emergency power
6 1/2 lbs - 30 minutes continous power

The problem is beside that Spitfire MK II dont have emergency +12 lbs at low level that its engine is very ofen broken without seriously reason. Yestarday i flew SPit MK II at 6 1/2 lbs and reduced RPMs for 2800 RPMs radiator open (temps normal) and after some time flying ( ab. 10-15 min) my engine broken. Flying at + 9 lbs broke engine much more faster.

Other hand if i not execed 2400 RPMs in 109 i could fly at 1.35 Ata power all time without any problems - when it should be only 5 minut emergency power.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Other hand if i not execed 2400 RPMs in 109 i could fly at 1.35 Ata power all time without any problems

What sort of problems would you expect to happen?

[Yellow14150]

I haven't read the entire thread, but did anyone test out the airspeeds at sea level? I know the 109 E-4 tops out at 460km/h in level flight on the deck with afterburner. That's optimal prop pitch of 10:25-10:30, and a trimmed radiator. In small dives I can hit 470 for 30 secs.

The G.50 hits 390-410 km/h as indicated on the deck. That's with the prop pitch set correctly (around 60-70%) and the radiator closed down 50%. You can also fully trim the G.50

Has anyone speed tested the Spits and Hurris?

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Yellow14150

I haven't read the entire thread, but did anyone test out the airspeeds at sea level? I know the 109 E-4 tops out at 460km/h in level flight on the deck with afterburner. That's optimal prop pitch of 10:25-10:30, and a trimmed radiator. In small dives I can hit 470 for 30 secs.

The G.50 hits 390-410 km/h as indicated on the deck. That's with the prop pitch set correctly (around 60-70%) and the radiator closed down 50%. You can also fully trim the G.50

Has anyone speed tested the Spits and Hurris?

Unfortunately yes - only sea level result:


Hurricane MK 1 Rotol

238 mph /383 kph at the deck at +6 1/2 boost ------ should be 262-265 mph /420-426 kph !!!!

So it is 24-27mph/ 38-43 kph too slow at + 6 1/2 boost power !!!!

There is no WEP - so no 100 octan fuel performacne - which should give ab. 25 mph/ 40 kph extra speed at low alts

Spitfire MK1a

255 mph/410 kph at the deck at 6 1/2 boost ---------should be 283 mph/455 kph !!!!

So it is 28 mph/45 kph too slow at 6 1/2 boost.

No 100 Octan fuel performance at all - boost cut out doesnt rise power at all.

Spitfire MK II

268 mph/431 kph at deck at 6 1/2 lbs
285 mph/458 kph at deck at 9 lbs ------ should be 286-290 mph so it is quite accurate result!!!!

No emergency take off power +12 lbs included.


So actually with present FM and performacne of planes there is no sense to flying Hurricane MK1 and Spitfire MK1 against 109 casue their performacne is way off comparing to RL data even for only 87 octan fuel not mention absense of 100 Octan fuel performacne.

The thick pink line is from handbook. I do not know what these values represent though. Prudence with data whatever source is always prime.

Even flight tests are not representing the final truth as they only represent one individual plane and not average performance.

As Kur already has presented the specs for the 109 which had a guaranteed performance inside a +/-5% bandwidth which is a lot. This however is of course theoretical tolerance. It may have been that the delivered aircrafts were +/-2% from an average somewhere inside the +/-5% (we do not know where this average was and probably the Luftwaffe did not know either).

This should be always kept in mind. Unfortunately this is a big headache for any flight sim developer.

Personally if we could have all flight data of a good statistical probe for each plane I would like to have statistically scattered performances of planes in the game. But this will never happen as we never will have that data.

[Flanker35M]

S!

As said by all here, we just want to have correct performance and now we do not have it, be it either side of the channel Kwiatek, would it be hard to produce a graph about speeds with different power settings? For example some old graphs fro TsAGI I have had the WEP value colored and only up to 2km on Russian fighters for example.

Making graphs of speeds as they are now would help to get a better picture where the sim is at it's current state. And far easier to compare against RL values I think.

[Yellow14150]

Thanks for reply on the airspeeds. That's interesting that the mkI spit is that slow. The Hurricane matters less because the British historically pulled the Hurricane from the front because of appalling losses.

From a historical point of a view there are a lot of things to take into account. The manufactures did their tests without armor or guns in most cases, so a lot of the data about both aircraft shows them going way faster then in combat.

I think it all comes down to a balance. A faster plane, that's also more maneuverable then the enemy, breaks the game for playability. I like flying the G.50. It's my favorite by far. I flew it when it was way underpowered. It was far slower, but turned almost as well as a spit, and better than a hurricane. I got a lot of kills in it because I learned its weaknesses and advantages.

If I came down from 12,000 ft onto an unsuspecting Spit IIa I could shoot him down in a lot of cases.

I've read historical accounts about the spitfire that put it as being faster than the 109 in real life. I think as far as the game goes each side should either have maneuverablity or speed. The 109 is faster, in the game, because it's far less maneuverable than the spit. In order to keep the balance a plane needs one or the other. If we want the spit to be faster then the 109 then, out of thinking about playability, we would need to make the 109 more maneuverable then the spit. That notion seems silly.

I think as far as fixing the Spit Ia, the FM should be brought closer to reality. I think if the IIa was within 10 kmh of the e-4 it would break the game.

I fly on both red and blue, but I fly the G.50 because I think it's the best dog fighter. The spit is by no means outmatched by the 109 because it's slower. It can out dogfight the 109 any day of the week. What spit pilots have to do, as I do in G.50, is learn how to use a slower more maneuverable aircraft to it's advantages.

Originally Posted by Yellow14150

Thanks for reply on the airspeeds. That's interesting that the mkI spit is that slow. The Hurricane matters less because the British historically pulled the Hurricane from the front because of appalling losses.

From a historical point of a view there are a lot of things to take into account. The manufactures did their tests without armor or guns in most cases, so a lot of the data about both aircraft shows them going way faster then in combat.

I think it all comes down to a balance. A faster plane, that's also more maneuverable then the enemy, breaks the game for playability. I like flying the G.50. It's my favorite by far. I flew it when it was way underpowered. It was far slower, but turned almost as well as a spit, and better than a hurricane. I got a lot of kills in it because I learned its weaknesses and advantages.

If I came down from 12,000 ft onto an unsuspecting Spit IIa I could shoot him down in a lot of cases.

I've read historical accounts about the spitfire that put it as being faster than the 109 in real life. I think as far as the game goes each side should either have maneuverablity or speed. The 109 is faster, in the game, because it's far less maneuverable than the spit. In order to keep the balance a plane needs one or the other. If we want the spit to be faster then the 109 then, out of thinking about playability, we would need to make the 109 more maneuverable then the spit. That notion seems silly.

I think as far as fixing the Spit Ia, the FM should be brought closer to reality. I think if the IIa was within 10 kmh of the e-4 it would break the game.

I fly on both red and blue, but I fly the G.50 because I think it's the best dog fighter. The spit is by no means outmatched by the 109 because it's slower. It can out dogfight the 109 any day of the week. What spit pilots have to do, as I do in G.50, is learn how to use a slower more maneuverable aircraft to it's advantages.

I think if the spit was faster in RL it should be made faster. If it was slower it should be slower. The quarrel is here which was faster. This question seems to be difficult to answer. Both sides have and still claim that their ride was faster. Probably because both were so close and the perception which one was faster depended on some other conditions (using emergency power, being slightly higher initially, having a well performing individual plane over a badly performing individual plane, being in the altitude range that provided performance advantage for own plane, ...).

[Bokononist]

Originally Posted by Yellow14150

Thanks for reply on the airspeeds. That's interesting that the mkI spit is that slow. The Hurricane matters less because the British historically pulled the Hurricane from the front because of appalling losses.

The Hurricane was indeed pulled from the front after the Battle of Britain. But in the battle itself it is arguably more important than the spit as it recorded many more kills, and was present in greater numbers. Lets try to get all of these planes FM's as close as we can. Fingers crossed.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Yellow14150

Thanks for reply on the airspeeds. That's interesting that the mkI spit is that slow. The Hurricane matters less because the British historically pulled the Hurricane from the front because of appalling losses.

Polish pilots from 303SQN taking part in BOB from 31 august 1940 was flying Hurricanes MK1 of course using 100 Octan fuel ( i read their combat raports) and they were the highest score RAF SQN during BOB time. They got also the best kill to death ratio so in experience hand Hurricane was still good fighter plane in BOB time. Expecially when it could use +12 emergency power which make huge difference in low level combats.