Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Thank you klem. This is so far the best post in this thread.

Banks, could you see PM please? Thx.

[Buchon]

This whole thing of Reds and Blues and the sides are getting my nerves

I´m a happy camper single-player of awesome historical custom missions made by the community mostly.

I don't care about Reds and Blues as I don't play online but I care about historical accuracy.

The B6 Spitfire graph (for example) is showing a really accurate performance line, Knowing a few things as the problems of the FM at high altitudes, the boost is not modeled well into the game (but will be later), and that it´s 87 octanes (obviously).

That´s pretty good results.

In fact is the most accurate performance line in-game now, because there planes with real problems there, the 109 performance line is a roller coaster compared to this for example.

But you guys are arguing and twisting this over for Red or blue sake ? really ?

Also ... conspiracy theory ? really ??!!

Get a grip for everyone's sake pls.


This is a really good post, providing performance data for historical sake, watch and learn :

Originally Posted by klem

BlackSix

This page gives sea level to 29,000 feet figures for the Spitfire with Merlin III @ 6.25lbs boost:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
and this gives it for the Hurricane:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html

I've placed your Patch Data on top of these and projected the sea level speeds (see attached) and both are looking too slow from sea level to 20k and 16k respectively. At sea level the Spitfire is looking to be 255mph instead of 283mph (28mph slow) and the Hurricane 240mph instead of 262mph (22mph slow).

Can you please confirm that the patch FM is still being adjusted to RL data (or that it will be)?

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Buchon

This whole thing of Reds and Blues and the sides are getting my nerves

I´m a happy camper single-player of awesome historical custom missions made by the community mostly.

I don't care about Reds and Blues as I don't play online but I care about historical accuracy.

The B6 Spitfire graph (for example) is showing a really accurate performance line, Knowing a few things as the problems of the FM at high altitudes, the boost is not modeled well into the game (but will be later), and that it´s 87 octanes (obviously).

That´s pretty good results.

In fact is the most accurate performance line in-game now, because there planes with real problems there, the 109 performance line is a roller coaster compared to this for example.

But you guys are arguing and twisting this over for Red or blue sake ? really ?

Also ... conspiracy theory ? really ??!!

This is a really good post, providing performance data for historical sake, watch and learn :



Get a grip for everyone's sake pls.

This IS about being accurate. You can't say you want it accurate and then on the other hand imply that klem is being pedantic. 28mph is a lot of speed.

[Buchon]

Originally Posted by Osprey

You can't say you want it accurate and then on the other hand imply that klem is being pedantic. 28mph is a lot of speed.

I did not, maybe you need read my post again.


Edit:

I did a edit for better compression.

[Buchon]

Originally Posted by Osprey

28mph is a lot of speed.

28mph is a lot of speed, yes, but that´s with Boost.

The performance line posted by B6 is the base performance line, meaning without Boost.

If you make a base performance line with the performance of Boost line then you will have a aircraft with the Boost on all the time, and that´s obviously unrealistic.

You should make the base line performance and then model a Boost behavior that provides the performance of Boost performance line.

And that mean model a high altitude, overheating and damage behavior for Boost too, that´s not easy but they are on it.

I´m full for historic accuracy and for the correct Boost implementation, of course.

[Osprey]

I love how Kurfurst posts data with 'calculated' and 'estimate' figures but no actual flight tests. This would be fair enough but for the fact that it's the opposite stance he takes when dealing with RAF data.

Just thought I'd throw that out there before people start to actually believe this guy, just in case you aren't aware of his reputation.

Originally Posted by Buchon

28mph is a lot of speed, yes, but that´s with Boost.

The performance line posted by B6 is the base performance line, meaning without Boost.

If you make a base performance line with the performance of Boost line then you will have a aircraft with the Boost on all the time, and that´s obviously unrealistic.

You should make the base line performance and then model a Boost behavior that provides the performance of Boost performance line.

And that mean model a high altitude, overheating and damage behavior for Boost too, that´s not easy but they are on it.

I´m full for historic accuracy and for the correct Boost implementation, of course.

At present the 12lbs boost is simply not modeled, so even applying it is not possible. Nobody here is suggesting that 12lbs needs to be available for unlimited times, but for the historically accurate times. Please see bug 174 in my sig......and vote for it

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I love how Kurfurst posts data with 'calculated' and 'estimate' figures but no actual flight tests. This would be fair enough but for the fact that it's the opposite stance he takes when dealing with RAF data.

Just thought I'd throw that out there before people start to actually believe this guy, just in case you aren't aware of his reputation.

Most know German data for test of serial production 109 E-1/E-3 claimed for 1.3 Ata (5-minutes emergency power) with 1/4 radiator open: 467-475 km/h.





And serial Swiss 109 E-3 corensponded very well with German charts above:



Hmm even with US test ( 290 mph at the deck)




So for serial 109 E-1/ E-3 speed at the deck for 1.3 Ata (5 minut emergency power) should be between 467-475 km/h

So i think 500 km/h would be really absolutly limit for serial 109 E version - if so it could be do at 1.45 Ata (1-minut emergency power) and radiator close for very short time ( below 1 minut).

Actually we will have it in incoming beta patch.

But looking at British fighters speed polars in beta patch there is not acurrate speed drop at lower alts even for 6 1/2 lbs power settings. Not mention there is lack of +12 lbs emergency boost which was significant adventage in low alts fights.

I read 303 Sqn pilots combat raports from Battle of Britain day's when they wrote about using +12 lbs boost in their Hurricanes MK1. It really make a difference at low alts fights.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Most know German data for test of serial production 109 E-1/E-3 claimed for 1.3 Ata (5-minutes emergency power) with 1/4 radiator open: 467-475 km/h.

Unfortunately, no. The papers you have posted clearly state that the results were not adjusted to the nominal engine outputs. They are not performance test but comparison flights with various installations (guns present/not present, slats sealed/unsealed).

And in all likelyhood, they are all done using the high altitude blower (FS gear in English terms) for the trial.

The flight test results. I see a trend here. The three test you have posted we know that they were done at a lower boost setting, with the results not having been corrected to guaranteed engine outputs, and we do not know if, during the tests, they used MS or FS gear.

We do know however that they all match the results obtained in the most detailed test, that was corrected for guaranteed output, and when during the trials the the supercharger in FS gear.

WNr. 1774
485 km/h at 1.31 ata at MS gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)
497 km/h at 1.35 ata at MS gear (corrected for guaranteed engine output)
460 km/h at 1.31 ata at FS gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)
470 km/h at 1.35 ata at FS gear(corrected for guaranteed engine output)


WNr. 1792
464 km/h at 1.30 ata at ? gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)

WNr. 1791
474 km/h at 1.30 ata at ? gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)

In short, it just the usual Mike Williams BS.

J-347
464 km at 1.35? (detail not given) ata at ? gear

Hmm even with US test ( 290 mph at the deck)

Can we see the testing details of the airframes? What Werknummer, airframe condition, what boost was used, were the radiator flaps open or closed etc...?

All I can see is that they did no actual testing below 10 000 feet / 3000 m.

So for serial 109 E-1/ E-3 speed at the deck for 1.3 Ata (5 minut emergency power) should be between 467-475 km/h

Yes. When operating the high altitude blower (FS gear) near SL, which occured in some tests, but never in real operations.

Serial 109 E-1/ E-3 speed at the deck for 1.35 Ata was 500 km/h. Don't argue with me, argue with Willy Messerschmitt who sold these planes and guaranteed in the contract that each and every one of them will do within 5% tolerance of 500 km/h.

So i think 500 km/h would be really absolutly limit for serial 109 E version - if so it could be do at 1.45 Ata (1-minut emergency power) and radiator close for very short time ( below 1 minut).

No, 500 km/h is the official specification for the serial produced Bf 109E.

My source, which I already posted, says the 109E could do 497 km/h at 1.35ata, with 1/4 open radiators, without overheating.

I'd like to see your source which contradicts that.

[Kurfürst]

Life must have treated you so unfairly, Osprey.

[Osprey]

I doubted your data based on biased approach between allied and axis over many posts of yours, you don't like this one bit although it's a logical deduction to make, quite normal.

From what I can see is that you have a projected graph that you made yourself from your own calculations vs multiple graphs which come from actual air tests from both allied and axis during the time. But it doesn't fit with your dreams so you shoot the messenger. We've been here before haven't we.......