PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire IX in 2.04



Pages : [1] 2 3

Kwiatos
07-24-2004, 03:46 PM
Max speed Spitfire MK IX in 2.04 isn't still to high? As i read some people reported these to 1c before patch and so? My squad and i usaually fly Spits (Dogs, VEF, VWF) but i dont want to fly uberplane anymore. So now i must to fly Fw190 and Bf's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
I want to fly Spits but how to fly such plane with uber speed, dive and zoom climb. I just can't http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
303 Polish Sqn

Kwiatos
07-24-2004, 03:46 PM
Max speed Spitfire MK IX in 2.04 isn't still to high? As i read some people reported these to 1c before patch and so? My squad and i usaually fly Spits (Dogs, VEF, VWF) but i dont want to fly uberplane anymore. So now i must to fly Fw190 and Bf's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
I want to fly Spits but how to fly such plane with uber speed, dive and zoom climb. I just can't http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
303 Polish Sqn

faustnik
07-24-2004, 04:09 PM
Kwaitos,

Please post the speeds you are achieving with the Spit. A report of a problem without any form of data is not going to help.

Sorry, but, I see a lot of people jumping all over the Spits as uberized but, absolutely no numbers to base a complaint on. We need two things, numbers in the sim and historical data before we can make any conclusions.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

VOL_Hans
07-24-2004, 05:11 PM
520 km/h in level flight, 1000meters ASL...
No overheat...ever... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Spits are slightly Uberized. It's not to the point where you can just give up like it is with many other planes, but it just means that your advantages over it are significantly diminished...sometimes eliminated... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

The prop-hang climbs in the Spit ruin the 109's climb edge...And i've had atleast one pilot tell me he needs to sometimes throttle down to stay with 109's in climbs... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Edit: About all I can say is fly a Mk-V...I've heard no complaints about those yet. I think those are pretty much the same old Spit. I wouldn't call it Uber at all, not from the performance ive seen.

Hunde_3.JG51
07-24-2004, 10:15 PM
Under Oleg's testing conditions in 2.01 I got:

422mph for LF.IX at 7,000m
425mph for F.IX at 7,500m
437mph for HF.IX at 8,000m

I sent this info to Oleg with track concerning no overheat above 2-3,000m or so.

This was back in 2.01 but initial tests show the same speeds are possible. Don't know about overheat I haven't been flying much. I will test more but I don't think anything has changed in terms of speed and these numbers are way high IMO. I believe 404mph for LF., 408mph for F., and 416mph for HF. would be more accurate as I have many sources claiming these to be the correct numbers.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

kostek
07-25-2004, 02:28 AM
Faustnik i just don't get it:
"...historical data before we can make any conclusions."
THEN HOW THE HELL U DID THIS SPIT?? made him from stories??
Didn't u tested this?? Maybe it's time change beta testers, for ppl like 303_Kwiatek?

Monty_Thrud
07-25-2004, 06:29 AM
The spitfire does indeed overheat, roughly about the same time as the Bf109...however when you immediately cut the throttle and wait for the "Engine Overheat" warning to disappear off the screen and throttle back to full the Spitfire will immediately overheat again whereas the Bf109 will not...is this historically correct?.

As for the Spitfire being too fast i found that in Aces 2.01 , i could catch the Bf109's, but in 2.04 i usually have to give up the chase.I personally don't find the Spitfire to be "uberised" at all, in fact i would go as far to say i'm rather dissapointed in the handeling of the Spit, it has a nasty stall/spin...i was expecting more from the so called fix in fm.

http://premium.uploadit.org/bsamania/HurricaneIVD_cartoon2-copyns11.jpg

MEGILE
07-25-2004, 06:51 AM
Yeah Monty_Thrud.. I think sometimes people catch on to something and "want" something to be uberized without checking facts...
The spitfire does indeed overheat.. so the gentlemen who claim that it does not, you is wrong, be sure.

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

[This message was edited by Megile on Sun July 25 2004 at 06:19 AM.]

No601_Zulu
07-25-2004, 07:06 AM
When the SpitfireMK1X arrived in 1942 it gave the Luftwaffe a real shock.. It looks like it is still doing it today with the Luftwhinners.

Zulu
No.601 Squadron
Tangmere Pilots

Continuing a campaign to bring the Typhoon/Tempest, Mosquito and Beaufighter to IL-2 FB AEP....Please.

Monty_Thrud
07-25-2004, 07:40 AM
I can just imagine the whinning about the Spitfire XIV and Tempest/Typhoon and Mosquito already http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif...thats if we're getting them http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://premium.uploadit.org/bsamania/HurricaneIVD_cartoon2-copyns11.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
07-25-2004, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
I can just imagine the whinning about the Spitfire XIV
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


we already got it in fb http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

just did 50% fuel on online summer 3

stayed under 3K

110% power + WEP from start up

didnt overheat once

was doing climbs till it stalled & loops & dives

nothing made it overheat

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xnomad
07-25-2004, 09:49 AM
Yep I was flying it last night and decided to engage WEP thinking I would be overheating real soon, this was already in the middle of a long dogfight with me at 100% throttle the whole time.

Well anyway I drove that Spitfire hard and it didn't overheat when I know for sure that a G-6 A/S would have been screaming for a nice cold bath after that much high speed flying. I even forgot to take it easy after I won the fight and was heading home, I didn't see a single overheat message the whole time.

But the Spit IX doesn't scare me......the La 5 FN does! Try flying against a few of those in a regular G-6 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif its tough.

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

MEGILE
07-25-2004, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 110% power + WEP from start up <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/354.gif
Go fly the SpitfireIX for real this time, and then ammend your mistake

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg

Back_Loop
07-25-2004, 11:58 AM
just did a tour in the spit. Desert map 12mins full throttle wep on = no overheat. Bf-109 F4 full throttle 6mins overheat.

When spit overheating cut throttle to 0 and I could see the temp going down real fast. 20 secs and 15 degrees

Same for 109 cant see anything happening in 20 seconds.

Now maybe you could go online and test it yourself

faustnik
07-25-2004, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kostek:
Faustnik i just don't get it:
"...historical data before we can make any conclusions."
THEN HOW THE HELL U DID THIS SPIT?? made him from stories??
Didn't u tested this?? Maybe it's time change beta testers, for ppl like 303_Kwiatek?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhhh, I have not been an official beta tester since FB 1.0. Don't know what you are talking about.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

faustnik
07-25-2004, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> _110%_ power + WEP from start up <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/354.gif
Go fly the SpitfireIX for real this time, and then ammend your mistake

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Badsight did not make a mistake. If you would like a track I will send you one.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

p1ngu666
07-25-2004, 02:31 PM
yeah i spent along time at WEP with no overheat, not that i was in a position to do anything about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. had 5 or so blue after me, but managed to dispatch em, in ironicaly headons http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

i think overheat has been toned down for all planes, the change in p47 is big, u got chronic heatsoak in that before. and 109 would cool down at 99%throttle wid closed rads, if ur doing 300kph or so

think someone posted data on spit have good rads, and the wep time is more engine wear than temp.

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

VW-IceFire
07-25-2004, 02:56 PM
Sea Level: 512kph TAS (318 mph)
7650 (25,000 feet): 632kph TAS (392 mph)

My results from 2.04.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

faustnik
07-25-2004, 03:37 PM
Spit IXe

Level speed at sea level 532kph TAS.

No overheat after over 15 minutes max throttle + WEP including sustained climb to 5000+ meters. Gave up trying to get overheat after the temp guage started flling in continuous climb. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

On Crimea map.

Sorry, that's what I got. Have track.

BTW: The Fw190A6 reaches 566kph leavel speed so it still has a speed advantage.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Monty_Thrud
07-25-2004, 05:19 PM
well Badsight ...i did 100% fuel crimea 6500 100% power there is no 110% power on my Spitfire and i didnt use wep on either planes this was offline

http://premium.uploadit.org/bsamania/HurricaneIVD_cartoon2-copyns11.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
07-25-2004, 05:52 PM
Icefire, are you using Oleg's test conditions? I just tested on Crimea, at 12:00pm, over water and got:

Spitfire F.IX: 678km/h at 7,500m
Spitfire HF.IX: 700km/h at 8,000m
Spitfire LF.IX: 676km/h at 7,000m

FW-190A-6: 671km/h at 6,000m (auto-pitch)
FW-190A-6: 679km/h at 6,000m (100% manual and fast overheat)

*Note, all tests done with WEP/boost, 100% fuel, and standard armament. Spitfire overheated much later than FW-190.

I can send/make a track of any of these tests. They are easy to obtain under conditions (Oleg's conditions) mentioned above.

Btw, I am still waiting to see a single source that says these are anywhere near accurate numbers for the Spitifre IX versions in FB.

I think it is time for some others to "check the facts." And you better believe when I saw a Spitifre HF.IX cruising at 437mph with long overheat (at least it overheats now, in 2.01 it did not overheat above 2-3,000m at all) that I was "shocked."

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

VW-IceFire
07-25-2004, 07:25 PM
Sorry, my test settings were posted in another thread. They were Crimea, over the water, at 12:00 noon, clear weather, fuel 100%.

Correction to your list. All of the IX models we have are LF models except the HF one. The F desgination, as far as I know, is for the earlier versions active in 1942. Some of the Spit pilots also called the LF version the Spitfire IX-B.

I did not use WEP. Did all of you use WEP? Because without WEP I find the Spitfire performs according to specifications. My results gave sufficient time for the Spitfire to get upto speed and for me to make the adjustments to keep it flat out as much as possible. No dives, no climbing...its very difficult...the plane wants to do something. So I stayed ontop of it and achieved those results. I may have been able to eek more speed out of it...but certainly not the numbers you are showing.

So did you use WEP? Otherwise, something is very odd indeed.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

faustnik
07-25-2004, 08:50 PM
I used WEP? In its present FB form the Spit IX has it in unlimited amounts at sea level. So, that would be a more accurate evaluation of the Spit IX's performance in FB.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

LEXX_Luthor
07-25-2004, 09:01 PM
Oleg said no WEP or Boost right?

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

faustnik
07-25-2004, 09:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

All of the IX models we have are LF models except the HF one. The F desgination, as far as I know, is for the earlier versions active in 1942. Some of the Spit pilots also called the LF version the Spitfire IX-B.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ice-Fire,

I never got that before. I'm sure someone else mentioned it but, it never sank in! Thank you very much, it goes a long way to explaining some climb issues.

So '42 1942 models, such as the one tested against the 190A4 at Farnborough were designated Spit IX F?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

RAF74_Buzzsaw
07-25-2004, 09:42 PM
Salute Faustnik

Yes, the models tested against the 190A4 were Spit IXF's, with a maximum +15.2 boost. They used the Merlin 61 engine, instead of the Merlin 66 seen in the AEP models, which are LF's with +18 boost and a supercharger modified for better low alt performance. They are designated LF, whether they have clipped wings or not.

The test for the Mk IX F is here on the Mike Williams Spitfire site:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bf274.html

Faustnik, the problem is the climbrate of the 190A's. They are climbing worse than they should be.

The 190A5 should do 4250 feet per minute, the A4 around 4000.

faustnik
07-25-2004, 09:47 PM
Buzzsaw,

The Fw190A climb subject just gets more complicated the harder I look into it.

I'm very happy to get straightened out on the "F" vs "LF". Thanks!

The question that I have with the 2.04 Spit IX is purely the WEP issue. The Spit IX seems to have almost unlimited use of WEP at low altitudes. In this case full WEP performnce is attained with no worry of overheat.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

RAF74_Buzzsaw
07-25-2004, 09:48 PM
Salute

People should be aware that the 190A had its performance fall off rapidly over 20,000 ft or 6100 metres. This was one of the major impetuses to the adoption of the Jumo powered Dora.

VW-IceFire
07-25-2004, 09:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

All of the IX models we have are LF models except the HF one. The F desgination, as far as I know, is for the earlier versions active in 1942. Some of the Spit pilots also called the LF version the Spitfire IX-B.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ice-Fire,

I never got that before. I'm sure someone else mentioned it but, it never sank in! Thank you very much, it goes a long way to explaining some climb issues.

So '42 1942 models, such as the one tested against the 190A4 at Farnborough were designated Spit IX F?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well for starters, I'm not the worlds foremost authority on Spitfires but when it comes to aircraft like the Spitfire I like to know what I'm talking about.

As far as I know, and there is conflicting information and nobody is ever 100% certain about anything Spitfire related I think, the one that you are talking about is probably a Spitfire IX F. Yes. I will not be offended if someone else comes along and offers more substantial proof that I'm wrong. But its most likely that the A-4 they had was tested against an early model...yes.

So with our IX models...undoubtedly, we have a later model IX that was introduced in later 1943 and used extensively in 1944. The tail is a clear indication but not a complete one (retrofitting for example and the fact that rounded tail versions were still produced for some time!).

As for the WEP issue I have two things to say about it:

1) People should test without WEP on if they want accurate results as to how the Spitfire IX performs. The impression that people have been giving are that the IX in general is performing above what it should. This is a misrepresentation. I imagine that if all of you go back and do the test without WEP then you'll see your results much like mine.

In the "real world"...(according to Pierre Closterman and Arthur Bishop biographys) engaging WEP would mean an engine overhaul or replacement, it runs the risk of seriously damaging the engine during operation, it shortens the engines lifespan, and it will overheat significantly quicker. So...in FB I attempt to mimic real operations...therefore, I use WEP sparingly regardless of consequence in the game or not.

2) The lack of consequences for engaging WEP on nearly every plane seems to be strange after reading what I have. I'm not sure how long they are all able to run at beyond maximum power...but the La-7, the FW190's, the Bf-109s, and the P-51/47's all seem to be able to run on continuous power, minus a heat problem for a very long time.

So in this, if infact the IX is not as it should be for radiator cooling, and in particular under WEP, then that is the bug. The bug is not the IX's top speed which is just fine under nominal engine conditions.

Therefore, the testing and the argument should be shifted towards examining WEP and radiator problems. Not the top speed of the Spitfire specifically.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

faustnik
07-25-2004, 09:58 PM
Agreed 100% IceFire! The unlimited WEP issue effect all other areas of performance and may be the root of all of the "uberSpit" claims.

Then again we have some work to do before declaring the Spit WEP times "wrong".

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

609IAP_Recon
07-25-2004, 10:09 PM
Just just go back to 2.01 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!
609IAP_Recon
http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg


Full Real Virtual Online War: Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com)

Hunde_3.JG51
07-25-2004, 10:33 PM
I'm sorry I am not understanding what you guys are trying to say. The speeds I got are easy to obtain and can be run for a long time. I did use WEP/boost. Are you saying there should be no WEP/boost for Spitfire IX? Are you saying it is providing a boost that it should not? Or are you saying that all historical speed tests didn't take any WEP/boost into account (though I find this hard to believe) and that the Spitfire could actually go faster than all of the top speeds I have seen in literature. I'm sorry I am not following you guys.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

WUAF_Badsight
07-26-2004, 12:06 AM
thats what they mean Hunde

without WEP used , the Spitfire posts speeds close to RL tests

& that IRL , Spitfires did have WEP & that it did give a performance boost

unlike RL , FB Spifires can run WEP without regard for engine termination

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
07-26-2004, 09:55 AM
But why would someone say the problem is not with top speed, there obviously is a problem. The bottom line is that it does have boost and it lets the Spitfire achieve very high speeds. If the Spit is reaching historical top speeds in-game without boost and it did in fact use boost then there is a problem with top speed. But if others are saying the 404, 408, and 416mph top speeds I have always seen are without boost (if the Spitifre did in fact use boost) then I am skeptical. Why would every other plane need boost to achieve historical top speeds in FB except the Spitifre?

I guess I am just missing something, or maybe I am just tired. All I know is that the 422+mph speeds the F.IX and LF.IX can achieve along with the 437mph HF.IX's speed seems wrong to me. I don't think it is just a problem of them being able to hold those speeds for a long time. I have never seen these kind of speed numbers for the Spitifre anywhere. I think they should achieve 408 (F.), 404 (LF.), and 416mph (HF.) respectively with boost enabled (if the Spitifre used boost).

Like I said I am probably missing something so I apologize if what others are saying is different than how I am taking it.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Kwiatos
07-26-2004, 01:06 PM
I made some test speed Spitfire MK IX in 2.04, Map Crimea, 100%fuel, max power. We have:

MK IX HF:
0km - 535 km/h
6km - 636 km/h
7 km - 671 km/h !!!
8km - 702 km/h !!!!!

MK IXe LF CW
0km - 536 km/h
6km - 648 km/h
7km - 676 km/h !!!

MK IX e
0km - 543 km/h
6km - 653 km/h
7km - 680 km/h !!!???
7.5km - 683 km/h !!!???
8km - 677 km/h ?????

Probalby in AEP we have Spitfire MK IX with Merlin 66 (+18). We see in data: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html

that these Spitfire had max speed:

Sea level - 336 mph / 540 km/h
22000ft (6.6km) - 407 mph / 655 km/h
30000ft (9km) - 395 mph / 635 km/h

If we have Spitfire MK IX with Merlin 70 should be:

Sea level - 329 mph / 529 km/h
27800ft (8.3km) - 415 mph / 668 km/h.

The best speed for Spitfire MK IX was 415 mph - 668km/h !!!!

So we clearly see that we have overmodelled Spits MK IX in high alt maxium speed.

Similar situation we have with Spitfire MK V 1941 and 1943 CW not with maximum speed but with CLIMB RATE!!!

[This message was edited by Kwiatos on Wed July 28 2004 at 02:48 AM.]

[This message was edited by Kwiatos on Thu August 05 2004 at 09:52 AM.]

VW-IceFire
07-26-2004, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
But why would someone say the problem is not with top speed, there obviously is a problem. The bottom line is that it does have boost and it lets the Spitfire achieve very high speeds. If the Spit is reaching historical top speeds in-game without boost and it did in fact use boost then there is a problem with top speed. But if others are saying the 404, 408, and 416mph top speeds I have always seen are without boost (if the Spitifre did in fact use boost) then I am skeptical. Why would every other plane need boost to achieve historical top speeds in FB except the Spitifre?

I guess I am just missing something, or maybe I am just tired. All I know is that the 422+mph speeds the F.IX and LF.IX can achieve along with the 437mph HF.IX's speed seems wrong to me. I don't think it is just a problem of them being able to hold those speeds for a long time. I have never seen these kind of speed numbers for the Spitifre anywhere. I think they should achieve 408 (F.), 404 (LF.), and 416mph (HF.) respectively with boost enabled (if the Spitifre used boost).

Like I said I am probably missing something so I apologize if what others are saying is different than how I am taking it.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1) I am saying that people are confusing the top speed of the Spitfire as being the problem with the problem being that WEP lasts for too long without serious consequences. As I understand, WEP increases RPM's or boost pressure or another element on the engine depending on the engine. Its also detrimental to run on WEP.

Now, maybe someone else knows more about the speed tests (like this one: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html) but were they run on War Emergency Power? It doesn't look like they were.

So the problem isn't the top speed of the Spitfire LF thats represented in the game (note: all IX models in-game are LF except for the HF model) specifically...the problem is that you can run on infinite WEP without overheat. That is the problem.

Kwaitos...again, please state...did you use WEP for your tests or not? You must have because I cannot reach 643 kph at seal level. There isn't anything for me to do to get that result...except using WEP. If you did...did the test results here: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html also use WEP?

I believe WEP is the issue...not the top speed under nominal engine conditions (which I tend to fly at for realism sake - using WEP only sparingly as indicated by Spitfire pilots).

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

hop2002
07-26-2004, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now, maybe someone else knows more about the speed tests (like this one: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html) but were they run on War Emergency Power? It doesn't look like they were.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, they were.

WEP on the Spit LF and HF IX was initially 3000 rpm, 18 lbs sq/in manifold pressure (known as boost in British terms)

That changed later on, with 100/150 fuel, to 3000 rpm, 25 lbs boost.

The tests on this page were done at the earlier WEP rating of 3000 rpm, 18lbs

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Kwaitos...again, please state...did you use WEP for your tests or not? You must have because I cannot reach 643 kph at seal level.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suspect that's a typo, and it should be 543 km/h, which is pretty much bang on what a Spit LF IX should do at sea level.

Looking at Kwiatos' tests, the Spit looks right up to critical altitude, but the critical alt is too high, which means speeds go on increasing when they should have started dropping.

VW-IceFire
07-26-2004, 04:15 PM
Ok...so the issue seems to be narrowing down then. The test numbers were looking at use WEP and Kwaitos speed tests seem to indicate that the numbers are pretty good till they get to high altitude (i.e. the Spits best alitude) and then they continue to go up instead of dropping again.

So the speed issues seem to persist at high altitude then? Kwaitos, would you agree?

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Kwiatos
07-26-2004, 04:38 PM
As you see all Spits IX from FB have too fast maxium speed at high altitude expecially version IXe 1943. Yes boost 3000 rpm at max lbs is maximum power in spit (with Bost). Spitfire have also strange (very good) zoom climb in FB which we know that should be worse than Fw190. I didnt test climb rate but in test data we see that Spit IX Merlin 66 had good climb rate. Pity that there we dont have early Spitfire MK IX (Merlin 61) which was much worse in clinmb rate.
If we speak about overheat in Spit Ix i must say that they overheating at high alt too quickly (air temp) and at low alt probalby should overheat quicker. Spit IX overheat much quickier at high alt than low alt.
I think that Spitfire MK V 1941 and CW 1943 should be fixed in climb rate which is very strange. Climb rate in these planes incrase with alt to 7 km which is incorrect. Climb rate in thes planes should be the best at sea level then should slighty decrase with alt. Thats way Bfs G-2, G-6 have problem in climbing with these Spit MK V at high alt.
Should be like these :
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

friedric
07-26-2004, 05:35 PM
test link spit IX vs FW 190 A version not now of FW ((((((


http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire9v190.htm

~S~

Hunde_3.JG51
07-26-2004, 06:43 PM
Icefire wrote:

"So the problem isn't the top speed of the Spitfire LF thats represented in the game (note: all IX models in-game are LF except for the HF model) specifically...the problem is that you can run on infinite WEP without overheat. That is the problem."

But if WEP is pushing the plane to speeds that are past historical numbers then the problem isn't just WEP being too long, it is top speed as well.

I have tested all Spits at SL as well and they seem ok to me. I tested them all at best altitude (Kwiatos you forgot to take HF. up to 8,000 where it will do 700kmh even with 100% fuel) and they do not seem ok to me. I would guess the speed becomes too high more and more as you rise in altitude, but I haven't tested at altitudes in between, nor do I have numbers as to what they would/should be.

If all the Spit IX's (other than HF.) in-game are actually LF.s their speed should start dropping off at about 21-22,000 feet and max out at 404-407 mph. This is not even close to what we have in game.

And friedric, I have seen that numerous times but the Spitfire IX in FB simply climbs away rapidly from any FW-190A. Relatively speaking the FW-190A climb-rates in FB have always been too low (or others too high), and it seems it will never change. It is a shame it will likely be this way in BoB as well with Spitifre V's diving with FW-190's and Spit IX's climbing away like the Focke Wulf is towing a trailer. I know Il-2 compare is not to be taken as law but just looking at the lines/graphs when comparing FW-190 and Spitfire is uninspiring to say the least.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Mon July 26 2004 at 11:25 PM.]

VW-IceFire
07-26-2004, 07:49 PM
Couple of points:

1) Spitfire IX models according to Squadron Signal:

F Mk IX (Merlin 61)
LF Mk IX (Merlin 66)
HF Mk IX (Merlin 70)

We have the second and third model. We have no model with the Merlin 61 in the game.

2) Hunde_3.JG51, I see your point and now that I know what I know...my position has shifted a bit. The speeds that we are achieving current at 100% throttle with no WEP are the ones that we should be achieving with WEP. So I change my poisition...top speed is a problem. Moreso at high altitude.

3) Climb rate between Spitfire IX and FW190A's should be very close depending on altitude (the FW190's apparently falls off or the IX catches up as altitude increases towards 25,000 feet). Also ...this interesting report says that the Bf 109G's (a G-2 and G-3) climb slower than the IX F and LF (with more advantage to the LF initially).

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9v109g.html

Interesting.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

hop2002
07-26-2004, 08:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The speeds that we are achieving current at 100% throttle with no WEP are the ones that we should be achieving with WEP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not correct.

The real life Spit LF IX could do about 335 mph at sea level with WEP. That's 540 km/h.

I just tried it in FB, and got 538 km/h at sea level with WEP, and 512 km/h without.

Taking Kwiatos' figures:

MK IX HF:
0km - 535 km/h
6km - 636 km/h
7 km - 671 km/h !!!

MK IXe LF CW
0km - 536 km/h
6km - 648 km/h
7km - 676 km/h !!!

MK IX e
0km - 643 km/h
6km - 653 km/h
7km - 680 km/h !!!???
7.5km - 683 km/h !!!???
8km - 677 km/h ?????

Assuming that the Mk IX E figure of 643 km/h is a misprint (and it's 100 km/h faster than the others, and only gains 10 km/h between 0 - 6 km, whereas the others gain 110 km/h), those sea level speeds, obtained with WEP, are accurate to the speeds the real life Spits developed.

If you look at the 6 km figures, they are again pretty accurate.

MK IX HF:
6km - 636 km/h
real life HF IX 628 km/h

MK IXe LF CW
6km - 648 km/h
Real life LF IX 642 km/h

MK IX e
6km - 653 km/h
Real life LF IX 642 km/h


The largest of these differences is well within the normal error between individual aircraft.

The problem only seems to occur above critical altitude, when the planes keep getting faster, instead of slower.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3) Climb rate between Spitfire IX and FW190A's should be very close depending on altitude <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not between a Spit HF/LF and the 190A. The HF/LF had much better climb rate than the Spitfire F IX, and much better than the 109 As (Not talking about very late As like the A9)

There seems to be some suggestion that the Merlin 61 engined F IX should have been modelled instead of the HF/LF. That's a cop-out that every sim prior to this one has taken. I've never flown an HF/LF IX in another sim, and I don't know of one which modelled them.

There were approx 5,600 Spit IXs produced. Approx 350 were early F IXs with the Merlin 61. About 900 were later F IXs with the Merlin 63 (performance somewhere between the LF and HF). 400 were HF IXs with Merlin 70, 4000+ were LF IXs with the Merlin 66. In late 1944, the Spitfire XVI was introduced, which was a late production LF IX with a US produced engine equivalent to the Merlin 66. Another 1000+ of these were built.

When added together, out of well over 6500 Spitfire IX/XVIs, 350 had the performance some people seem to be asking for, about 6,300 had the performance of the HF/LF.

In fact, from mid 1944 many Spit IX/XVIs were running on 150 octane fuel, which gave them a speed increase of up to 30 mph below 20,000ft, and increased the climb rate by up to 900 ft/min below 15,000 ft (at some altitudes, the increase was zero, at others up to the figures quoted above. eg you'd get a 25 mph speed increase at sea level, about 15 mph at 10,000ft, about 30 mph at 14,000ft, declining to no increase at 20,000ft and above)

If you don't like the current Spitfire IX, imagine the LF IX doing 360 mph (580 km/h) at sea level, and climbing at approx 5,500 ft/min (28 m/s)

Hunde_3.JG51
07-26-2004, 09:19 PM
Ok, so we agree top speed is a problem. And without extensive testing I will agree with hop2002 that speed problem may just be at higher altitudes. Like I said I think LF. versions began to fall off speed-wise at around 21-22,000 feet and my guess is that speed problem starts about there (or shortly after) and increases as altitude rises. As for HF., I'm not sure where the problem starts but I know 437mph can't be right.

Question to hop2002, when was Merlin-66 and 70 first used in Spitifre Mk.IX in combat operations? I've asked this several times in other threads but never really got an answer.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

VW-IceFire
07-26-2004, 10:46 PM
Here's the info: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9v109g.html

"The LF IX, equipped with the Merlin 66 and frequently referred to as the Spitfire IXB, first went operational in March 1943 with the Biggin Hill Wing, comprised at the time of Nos. 611 and 341 Squadrons. This type was by far the most produced of the Spitfire IX varients. The HF IX, equipped with the high altitude specialized Merlin 70, also entered service in the Spring of 1943, being divvied up amongst the Spitfire IX squadrons in 11 Group with No. 64 squadron amongst the first to put the type to use. All-up weight was about 7,480 lbs. irrespective of varient."

I think the LF IX was the only type sent to Russian lend-lease so thats another reason why this sim models it. But it makes sense I think...I'd love to have both LF and F types of Spitfire IX's but I'll settle for a XIV and a 22 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Seems like there are some discrepancies in speed then and that they aren't across the board and that its only in certain regimes.

The standard dogfight crowd...fighting between 0 and 3000 meters...seem to be facing very much the type of fighter the LF IX was. Its the high alt crowd that has a reason to not be happy...and I sympathise.

Lets iron out our testing and send the numbers of Oleg. Thats what the ultimate goal here is.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

WUAF_Badsight
07-26-2004, 10:51 PM
the Spitfires speed isnt a problem Hunde , if you look at Hops post they are flying to the correct speeds

just that their high Alt performance 7000m + isnt correct

yes the Mark5 climbs better than it should & yes all the Spitfires keep E really well

but the amounts that we are seeing under 7K are spot on , level speed wise

if FB moddeled operating difficultys ( emphasis on the *IF* ) , then WEP would seriously degrade your digital planes motor & performance after a while

this doesnt happen in FB for any plane

& we have ETO FW-190s to compare the FB Spits to

more weight , less Hp & speed & climb than their WTO counterparts

the thing that has me puzzeled is , if the Spits were this deadly IRL as they are in FB , how did so many german pilots survive the war with rediculous kill-rates ?!?!?!?!

imagine day after day of fighting these planes that can run with you & have great turn & awesome hit power

during WW2 , id so rather have been in a Spit in 43

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

faustnik
07-27-2004, 12:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

The standard dogfight crowd...fighting between 0 and 3000 meters...seem to be facing very much the type of fighter the LF IX was. Its the high alt crowd that has a reason to not be happy...and I sympathise.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're kind of flip-flopping here Ice-Fire. Had something changed to convince you that the Spit IX's WEP duration without overheat is no longer an issue? That is more of a low altitude concern, as many people report the Spit IX overheating at high altitudes in 2.04.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Hunde_3.JG51
07-27-2004, 12:19 AM
Thanks Icefire, good stuff and good post.

Badsight wrote:

"the Spitfires speed isnt a problem Hunde , if you look at Hops post they are flying to the correct speeds

just that their high Alt performance 7000m + isnt correct"

How can "speed not be the problem" when their high altitude speed is so off. I already said in my above post that speeds seem fine as far as I can tell at medium/low altitudes. And I disagree, I think the problem starts earlier than 7,000+ meters, speed should start falling off at arond 5,500-6,000m for LF.IX versions.

I'm not sure what you mean about ETO FW-190's either. Some versions were de-rated but Oleg already said this is not what we have in FB.

I would have rather been in a Spit in 1943 also because they were on the right/correct side http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, but as far as planes go I would rather be in FW-190. FB is a game that does not have certain aspects modelled well (dive/zoom) and that has overmodelled/undermodelled certain planes in specific areas. So I don't really use FB as a judge of planes, there are too many what if's, it's too subjective, and there are too many shortcomings in terms of modelling/physics.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Tvrdi
07-27-2004, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:

How can "speed not be the problem" when their high altitude speed is so off. I already said in my above post that speeds seem fine as far as I can tell at medium/low altitudes. And I disagree, I think the problem starts earlier than 7,000+ meters, speed should start falling off at arond 5,500-6,000m for LF.IX versions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

true...we encountered spits in VWF often when they were flying above 6k and performing like Doras and Mustangs at that hight, thats ridiculous....I was amongst the ppl who warned that spit need tuning regarding overheating (was overheating too fast) but now its almost impossible to overheat an engine in spit (I didnt succed to overheat his engine even with 100% and boost..waited forever http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)...another thing....I achieved 890 Kmh in Spit IXe in diving and when 900 kmh was reached a small part fell off LOL he could reach a f 890 kmh without damage?? and less shaking at those speeds than in Bf109 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

Kurfurst__
07-27-2004, 06:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

Taking Kwiatos' figures:

MK IX HF:
0km - 535 km/h
6km - 636 km/h
7 km - 671 km/h !!!

MK IXe LF CW
0km - 536 km/h
6km - 648 km/h
7km - 676 km/h !!!

MK IX e
0km - 643 km/h
6km - 653 km/h
7km - 680 km/h !!!???
7.5km - 683 km/h !!!???
8km - 677 km/h ?????

....

If you look at the 6 km figures, they are again pretty accurate.

MK IX HF:
6km - 636 km/h
real life HF IX 628 km/h

MK IXe LF CW
6km - 648 km/h
Real life LF IX 642 km/h

MK IX e
6km - 653 km/h
Real life LF IX 642 km/h


The largest of these differences is well within the normal error between individual aircraft.
The problem only seems to occur above critical altitude, when the planes keep getting faster, instead of slower.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, but above 6 km the numbers are completely wrong.

The LF does ~670km at 7 km alt, whereas in real life it was happy to do 404mph there (650 km/h), about 20k/mh slower.

The (LF) MkIXe is even worser, I wonder why it`s even faster? At 7.5km 683km/h, real life : 648 km/h, it`s now 35 km/h faster than it should be. MkIXLF being as fast as a 190D-9 or a 109G-10? Don`t think so.

Didn`t check the HF MkIX numbers, cos they roughly doing OK, 670 km/h is about correct for the plane, even though at the lower alts it`s too fast now, but I don`t think it would make a lot of difference.



Another trouble of the Spit IXs in the game, apart from the practical inability to overheat bug, is their way overmodelled diving abilities. In real life, the Spit IX was shown to be a poorer diving plane against practically anything it was tested against. In the game, it has no real problem staying in a dive with 109s, 190, and even heavier US planes. Obviously wrong and needs to be corrected as well.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
3) Climb rate between Spitfire IX and FW190A's should be very close depending on altitude <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not between a Spit HF/LF and the 190A. The HF/LF had _much_ better climb rate than the Spitfire F IX, and much better than the 109 As (Not talking about very late As like the A9)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, according flight test of the prototype Spit LF IX, differing in some technical aspects from the serially produced one, shows roughly ~4600 fpm ROC at SL.

Serially built LF Mk IX did around 4200 fpm on the same boost.

Regarding the FW 190A`s climb rate, it`s given as 4100 fpm on normal boost, and 4600 fpm 'with increased boost' at SL, in British Intelligence sources.

Appearantly there`s no real difference between them at low levels, it could be even the 190A getting the edge.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
There were approx 5,600 Spit IXs produced. Approx 350 were early F IXs with the Merlin 61. About 900 were later F IXs with the Merlin 63 (performance somewhere between the LF and HF). 400 were HF IXs with Merlin 70, 4000+ were LF IXs with the Merlin 66. In late 1944, the Spitfire XVI was introduced, which was a late production LF IX with a US produced engine equivalent to the Merlin 66. Another 1000+ of these were built.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting - so only about Fs 300 Mk IXs were build in 1942 until the HF/LF, and the Merlin 63 appeared in 1943 ? Three hundred planes is a very limited number, no wonder they were so awfully rare.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If you don't like the current Spitfire IX, imagine the LF IX doing 360 mph (580 km/h) at sea level, and climbing at approx 5,500 ft/min (28 m/s)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That imagination indeed sounds scary, even though the measured speeds and ROC was quite a bit lower than what you claim. Impressive climb rate nonetheless, though it would nice to mention that this "5500fpm" ROC could only be kept up to about 500ft (how much is that, 150-200m altitude above ground?), after that it fall down pretty quickly. It wasn`t called 'Low Fighter' for nothing. Though I`d fully agree an 1944/45 Spit IXe/XVIe would not hurt the game at all, provided Oleg has the capacity for another extra FM. That, and correcting the IXe`s year of date to 1944, when it really appeared, not in 1943.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Rautaa...
07-27-2004, 06:29 AM
Many interesting and true things about Spitfires in patch 2.04, Kurfurst. Spitfires dive speed is equal to 109's in this game now and is impossible shake spit diving away from it except 190 may do it, 109 not. talking about thoise evidences-source seems reliable and good but they are used wrong way...when we talk about non-overheating problem they show us reports made lower pressurized engines (like 1,18 ATA and this ofcourse decreases power and performance top speed and rate of climb) and when we talk about too good climb rate and speed they show us evidences made highly pressurized engines (like 1,25 ATA)...interesting, isnt it ?

Well, you cant get them both-you have to decide which version is current Spit IX in FB/AEP and specs should be according to it....less heating and less powerfull version or more overheating and more powerful version of Merlin, which is it going to be ??? IT CAN'T BE BOTH !!!

JG53Frankyboy
07-27-2004, 06:29 AM
its realy a pitty that maddox didnt name the SpitfireIXs correct - if our observations are ok and the F. ones in game have also the Merlin66.

btw, was the "e" armament in production 1943 ore were the US Brownings on short supply at that time ? just for interest, no flame

Rautaa...
07-27-2004, 06:34 AM
"true...we encountered spits in VWF often when they were flying above 6k and performing like Doras and Mustangs at that hight, thats ridiculous....I was amongst the ppl who warned that spit need tuning regarding overheating (was overheating too fast) but now its almost impossible to overheat an engine in spit (I didnt succed to overheat his engine even with 100% and boost..waited forever )...another thing....I achieved 890 Kmh in Spit IXe in diving and when 900 kmh was reached a small part fell off LOL he could reach a f 890 kmh without damage?? and less shaking at those speeds than in Bf109 "

correct...you are completely right about that, vertical performance and dive speeds in Spitfires (also Vb) are REDIGILOUS they can't catch diving 109's before wings rip off, then they maybe can dive faster than 109 G's and later models LOL

p1ngu666
07-27-2004, 06:41 AM
spitfire could dive quickly, once it got there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

and i take what kurfy says with a bag of salt big enuff for a american couch potato http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

if i can find my spit IX profile ill scan or take piccies of it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

btw in a speed dive, it was the engine/prop that failed, not the airframe

which has happened to me ingame

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Hunde_3.JG51
07-27-2004, 06:45 AM
Kurkfurst and others, like I said take the HF.IX up to 8,000m and it will do 700km/h. That is way higher than the 416mph I have seen listed for this plane in several resources.

Again, these are my test numbers for 2.04:

Spitfire F.IX: 678km/h at 7,500m
Spitfire HF.IX: 700km/h at 8,000m
Spitfire LF.IX: 676km/h at 7,000m

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

VW-IceFire
07-27-2004, 06:56 AM
I'm not really flip flopping...just trying to narrow down onto the core of the problem. Make something complex into a fairly simple statement.

Basically...if you look at everything...top speed performance with WEP is relatively accurate for the LF model up until the supercharger kicks in. Thats where the discrepancy seems to occur...roughly speaking. Thats where the speed continues to climb instead of starting to fall off. The The Mark IX LF is the one being modeled and it should fit the performance specs of the IX's with the Merlin 66. Overheating should also be consistent with the Merlin 66.

I refute that the IX is performing at FW190D-9 levels. I flew the D-9 last night on UK Dedicated against plenty of Spitfires and Mustangs. I could hold my own against any one of them and easily outspeed almost all but the P-38/47/51's. The IX is slower and has less zoom climb than the Dora...in terms of subjective combat results against experienced Spitfire pilots...there is no question.

As far as dives were concerned...I've read that the IX was better in a dive than the V was. Enough so that the difference between it and the FW190A's was much smaller. Pingu is also right, I was told by a Spitfire pilot that a prolonged dive was bad for Merlin engines...something about the way that the oil is distributed into the engine would not function properly and destroy the engine.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

hop2002
07-27-2004, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>..when we talk about non-overheating problem they show us reports made lower pressurized engines (like 1,18 ATA and this ofcourse decreases power and performance top speed and rate of climb) and when we talk about too good climb rate and speed they show us evidences made highly pressurized engines (like 1,25 ATA)...interesting, isnt it ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've got it exactly the wrong way around.

The cooling report is of a Spitfire running at 25 lbs boost. The performance figures are for a Spitfire running 18 lbs boost.

Exactly the opposite of what you've said.

BTW, it's 18 lbs and 25 lbs/sq in, not 1.18 and 1.25 ata.

18 lbs is roughly 2.22 ata, 25 lbs roughly 2.7 ata.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As far as dives were concerned...I've read that the IX was better in a dive than the V was. Enough so that the difference between it and the FW190A's was much smaller.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somebody posted the TAIC report on the Zero on the AH board recently. What's suprising is how little difference there was between the planes in dive and zoom climb.

The P-51 vs Zero:

Dive began at 200 ias at 10k ft. After 27 seconds, when the Zero had reached it's pre set speed limit (set for safety reasons, presumably) , the P-51 was 200 yards ahead.

Same conditions, P-38J, again 200 yards ahead after 30 secs.

At 25k ft, same ias, the P-38j was 75 yards ahead after 30 secs.

P-47 at 10k ft, 100 yards ahead after 30 secs.
P-47 at 25k ft, 300 yards ahead after 30 secs.

Same sort of story for zooms. Zooms were begun after a dive to 310 ias, and held until 130 ias.

The P-38J was 300 feet above the Zero. The P-51 500 feet. The P-47 was 600 feet above.

These figures were obtained using amongst the best divers of the war, against the Zero, which was one of the worst. The Spitfire had a decided dive advantage against the Zero.

That means you're going to get considerably less seperation in the dive and zoom against Spitfires than this.

I think people's expectations of how much seperation they should get from diving and zooming is too high.

From Lucky 13, by Hugh Godefroy. Godefroy was the Spit pilot in the AFDU trial of Arnim Faber's 190. "Jamie" was flying the 190:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If Jamie followed the favourite German technique of flicking over on his back and going straight down, he would pull away from me in the first two or three thousand feet. After that the Spitfire IXB could gradually catch him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>during WW2 , id so rather have been in a Spit in 43<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1943 was a very black time for the Luftwaffe, particularly the second half. Don't make the mistake of thinking the Luftwaffe had it easy in 1943, like in 1941.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Regarding the FW 190A`s climb rate, it`s given as 4100 fpm on normal boost, and 4600 fpm 'with increased boost' at SL, in British Intelligence sources.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which 109 A? And what report, exactly?

Rautaa...
07-27-2004, 08:45 AM
"Which 109 A? And what report, exactly?"

Many documents may have been destroyded during war (carpet bombings wiped whole cities away ) and there is not always exact documents and if all those documents could be found from internet...wau you're a good Googler.. but there are people still living, veterans from those days and they tell things at least here in Finland, many things that can not been found from documents can be heard from these veterans at annual virtul pilots meetings (2 x /year)

Rautaa...
07-27-2004, 08:50 AM
"1943 was a very black time for the Luftwaffe, particularly the second half. Don't make the mistake of thinking the Luftwaffe had it easy in 1943, like in 1941."

You are right about that..it is black time in this simulator now because -41 Vb Spitfire outflies -43 G6 at low level and catches it on spiral climb which was 109's bread and butter maneuver during those war years

Kurfurst__
07-27-2004, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
That means you're going to get considerably less seperation in the dive and zoom against Spitfires than this.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but still the 109/190, all US fighters had well documented dive advantage vs. the Spitfires and this is not how in the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
From Lucky 13, by Hugh Godefroy. Godefroy was the Spit pilot in the AFDU trial of Arnim Faber's 190. "Jamie" was flying the 190:

If Jamie followed the favourite German technique of flicking over on his back and going straight down, he would pull away from me in the first two or three thousand feet. After that the Spitfire IXB could gradually catch him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fun thing is, in the official, final report on that event, the exact opposite is stated. Pilot stories are hardly reliable evidence, espeically when there are a lot of wishful thinking in it.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
1943 was a very black time for the Luftwaffe, particularly the second half. Don't make the mistake of thinking the Luftwaffe had it easy in 1943, like in 1941.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean? Never really seen anything that would show that `43 would something 'very black time'. After all, the 109Gs and 190As still had easy time with Soviet fighters, and most of the Spits they faced were still the old MkVs and not the advanced MkIXs. Even the latter could not claim themselves superior, a match at best case (not in Mike`s site of course, LOL). The 109G and 190A was in service in great numbers from already `42. The fights got harder for the LW of course, and the Allies finally could produce things that could match German fighters after years. Still, 1943 was full with German success in the airwar, particularly vs. US bomber formations, and the VVS still felt hard the weight of the LW at Kursk. I really can`t imagine what is supposed to be 'very black' in `43, first half or second half, expect for the horizont of the things to come in 1944.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Regarding the FW 190A`s climb rate, it`s given as 4100 fpm on normal boost, and 4600 fpm 'with increased boost' at SL, in British Intelligence sources.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which 109 A? And what report, exactly?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s British Intelligance paper Hop. And what`s a '109A'? At first I though it was a typo, but it`s the second time now. There`s no 109A in service with the LW.



To summerize the Spitfire IX problems in the current patch :

a, Inability to overheat or have any kind of historical 5-min limiation on WEP time
b, Speaking of WEP, I don`t think a separate 'W' button is neccesary, it should be simple 0-100% on the throttle, to my knowladge, there was no special 'plug' for extra power on the IX series, only on the first Spitfires like the MkI. And, w/o a seperate WEP button, life would be much easier.
c, Vastly higher level speeds above the rated altitutude of them, 30-50km/h faster speeds than historically these planes were capable of
d, Overmodelled diving abilities that enable the Spit to stay in dives with planes it couldn`t in real life.
e, The Spit V`s climb rate is STILL 100% better, TWICE than it should be at high altitude, being equal to the Mk IX/late 109G/Ks, which is simply insane.
f, Wrong year for the E-wing models, it should be 1944, not 1943.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

p1ngu666
07-27-2004, 10:24 AM
kurfy, spit increadible at high speed dives, british used it for testing, getting info for the m52 project, now the raf had at that time, p51,spit,p47,typhoons,possibly tempests to pick from.

it was the wing shape, if u was wondering http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


oh and for the wep limit, if we have that for spit, have it for all. in nearly all ive read of 109 pilots, they used boost only for a minute or so. in fb i very rarely disengauge it if im flying the 10whine

lets not get one sided over this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

WOLFMondo
07-27-2004, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tvrdi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:

How can "speed not be the problem" when their high altitude speed is so off. I already said in my above post that speeds seem fine as far as I can tell at medium/low altitudes. And I disagree, I think the problem starts earlier than 7,000+ meters, speed should start falling off at arond 5,500-6,000m for LF.IX versions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

true...we encountered spits in VWF often when they were flying above 6k and performing like Doras and Mustangs at that hight, thats ridiculous....I was amongst the ppl who warned that spit need tuning regarding overheating (was overheating too fast) but now its almost impossible to overheat an engine in spit (I didnt succed to overheat his engine even with 100% and boost..waited forever http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)...another thing....I achieved 890 Kmh in Spit IXe in diving and when 900 kmh was reached a small part fell off LOL he could reach a f 890 kmh without damage?? and less shaking at those speeds than in Bf109 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there might be a problem with dive acceleration etc but the fastest recorded speed of a Spit PR IX in a dive was 606mph and at that point the prop broke off. Give or take a few MPH for inaccuracies etc and thats still bloody fast http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif or 975 kph. Even at 900Kph it still should hold up and not disintergrate. What was the maximum dive speed of the BF109G that was recorded with out it breaking up?

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

p1ngu666
07-27-2004, 10:33 AM
found profile http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
photo's soon, gotta tidy up some http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Rautaa...
07-27-2004, 10:40 AM
"Well there might be a problem with dive acceleration etc but the fastest recorded speed of a Spit PR IX in a dive was 606mph and at that point the prop broke off. Give or take a few MPH for inaccuracies etc and thats still bloody fast or 975 kph. Even at 900Kph it still should hold up and not disintergrate. What was the maximum dive speed of the BF109G that was recorded with out it breaking up?"

Is there a document about this huge dive speed ??

p1ngu666
07-27-2004, 10:47 AM
its in this profile i think http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
to me it sounded like the prop broke somewhere, or the mechanisum

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

dadada1
07-27-2004, 11:08 AM
The reason why I question the Spit HFs figures of around 430mph with WEP is the fact that the Griffon Spits are only gaining around 11 to 15mph. Not really a significant difference which you would expect given the extra power of the Griffon. I'm going to contact the fighter collection at Duxford in the hope that they can shed some light on the comparitive performances of Spits with both engines. If anyone would know I'm sure they would seeing as they fly Spits on a regular basis.

p1ngu666
07-27-2004, 02:28 PM
in profile (uploadin it atm http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) it says its max speed at 416mph @ 27,000ft

just thought of sumin, is uk miles a diff length to american miles? i think it is.
gallons is different for example
hm

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

p1ngu666
07-27-2004, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
mile (mi) [1]
a traditional unit of distance. The word comes from the Latin word for 1000, mille, because originally a mile was the distance a Roman legion could march in 1000 paces (or 2000 steps, a pace being the distance between successive falls of the same foot). There is some uncertainty about the length of the Roman mile. Based on the Roman foot of 29.6 centimeters and assuming a standard pace of 5 Roman feet, the Roman mile would have been 1480 meters (4856 feet); however, the measured distance between surviving milestones of Roman roads is often closer to 1520 meters or 5000 feet. In any case, miles of similar lengths were used throughout Western Europe. In medieval Britain, several mile units were used, including a mile of 5000 feet (1524 meters), the modern mile defined as 8 furlongs (1609 meters), and a longer mile similar to the French mille (1949 meters), plus the Scottish mile (1814 meters) and the Irish mile (2048 meters). In 1592, Parliament settled the question in England by defining the statute mile to be 8 furlongs, 80 chains, 320 rods, 1760 yards or 5280 feet. The statute mile is exactly 1609.344 meters. In athletics, races of 1500 or 1600 meters are often called metric miles. See also nautical mile.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictM.html

well thats THAT cleared up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

a few % difference and that would make all the difference wouldnt it?

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

p1ngu666
07-27-2004, 03:02 PM
http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/spitprofile/
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
modemers, dont bother with the last 3, there just wot units had em and stuff

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/spitprofile/SIMG3953.JPG has the specs, but not detailed ones

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Kwiatos
07-27-2004, 06:29 PM
I made test Spitfire Mk IX HF,2.04, Crimea 100% fuel, full power
and i reach 702 km/h at 8000 km. These is 34 km/h too fast - should be 668 km/h for merlin 70.
Spitfire MK IX overheat even qickly overheat at high alt but at low alt overheat much slowier.

lbhskier37
07-27-2004, 06:41 PM
a mile is a mile

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

WUAF_Badsight
07-27-2004, 10:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:


oh and for the wep limit, if we have that for spit, have it for all. in nearly all ive read of 109 pilots, they used boost only for a minute or so. in fb i very rarely disengauge it if im flying the 10whine

lets not get one sided over this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the Bf109's with WEP have enough for 40 minutes (or 45 minutes)

they will begin too lose power & MP if you fly with WEP on non-stop for more than 10 minutes

IRL 10 minutes was their MAX time allowed for continual WEP use

its moddeled in FB

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Rautaa...
07-28-2004, 12:37 AM
I think we have proofs enough-Spitfires are strongly overmodelled now in FB. There is an other game called "Secret weapons over Normandy" , maybe all FB Spitfires belong there and not seriously taken realistic flight simulator game.

Rautaa...
07-28-2004, 12:46 AM
...BTW what happened to my thread "Patch 2.04 and Spitfires" ?? It has been wiped away from this forum, there were many flight tests (not only made by me but others too) that proofed Spitfires UBERNESS and there were evidences pros and cons Spitfires ?? That thread has now been wiped away from this forum, why is that ??

WOLFMondo
07-28-2004, 01:21 AM
Its all a conspiracy so luftwhiners can whinemorehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Does anyone have the IX's performance on different grade fuel? COuld the current IX be running on 120 or 150 grade rather than 100? That could be it.

THe IX might be pretty good but it can be removed from the skies easily enough. Got to also remember it was a very well liked plane in most respects. I've certainly never found a quote from a pilot saying anything other than they really like it.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

p1ngu666
07-28-2004, 02:38 AM
what about the german accounts? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
&lt;franz whinner&gt; HORRIBLE plane, shot me down like 5 times already http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
it is uber and out turn out climb me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif. most of all all the girls left for england to go be with spit pilots cos there planes so pretty http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Rautaa...
07-28-2004, 03:03 AM
..still nobody knoes what happened to my thread "Patch 2.04 and Spitfires" , it has been wiped away from here (even it had good arguments pros and cons Spitfires and many flight tests made by many usesrs). Is this Russian impression of free word and democracy: if it gets too hot or too close to truth, just wipe them away..boof..to the bit heaven and that's it ???

VW-IceFire
07-28-2004, 06:48 AM
It was a pretty bad and redundant thread compaired to what was here. This thread is more balanced.

I took a 109G-6 (early) out for a spin last night against innumerable Spitfires. I had no problem parking myself on their six and blasting them to pieces. Even more fun in the FW190A-6 (which is VERY agile in the latest patch).

Spitfire is a deadly fighter and one of the best but by no means invulnerable. I still think, despite the numbers, that the 109 climbs easier than the Spitfire. You have to coax it less.

Certainly I've never seen a Spitfire climb away so surely that he would escape.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Kwiatos
07-28-2004, 07:00 AM
from g6 spit climb easly from g6 a/s, g10 not. we should have spit IX merlin 61 to counter bf g2, g-6. Im not understood whay in patch 2.04 Oleg M. and 1C didnt fix such obviously thing like maximum speed at high alt for sptifires mk IX http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. I thought that such basic thing will be corrected in first step in patch.

SeaFireLIV
07-28-2004, 07:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gefechtsverband_Kuhlmey_Steel:
I think we have proofs enough-Spitfires are strongly overmodelled now in FB. There is an other game called "Secret weapons over Normandy" , maybe all FB Spitfires belong there and not seriously taken realistic flight simulator game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate statements like this. The major complaint is about ONE Spitfire. But now some LW guy has taken iy upon himself to have accuse ALL spits.

Just as the USAAF flyers may be biased let`s not forget that some of the Luftwaffe guys here are also looking to twist things around to their advantage whether it`s historically correct or not!

2.01 Spits were good, I think. Possibly they could have turned more, but I don`t know so won`t say, but the overheat seemed the only real problem. Even then I`d rather have 2.01 than a Spit that NEVER overheats.

Anyway, some details posted seem to suggest that the Spit IXe was definitely overheating too soon.

By the way, the Spit IXe DOES overheat, but takes a long while too. Although from some posts I`ve seen producing `facts` (we must be careful with facts posted here), it seems like the overheat is closer to reality than not. Maybe just a little toning down is needed - JUST A LITTLE. Say perhaps 10 -20% quicker to overheat...

dadada1
07-28-2004, 07:39 AM
When are people going to realise that making statments such as the "secret weapons over normandy" type are in general counter productive. To phrase things in such a way is simply going to alienate the very people your trying to persuade that, perhaps there is something worthy of investigation. This in term creates stubborn resistance rather than encourage debate on both sides. No wonder the term Luftwhiner is in common usage. If we are going to conduct a discusion and I mean discussion lets have a little moderacey. If you have something useful to add to the debate, fine but please try to limit responses to analysis and fact rather than emotion.

I also believe the Spit speed needs looking at, but I also believe theres a wrong and a right way to talk about it, and this isn't one of them. I contacted The Fighter Collection this morning so I'm still waiting for a response to questions I think we all wish to know. If I get any response, I'll post it here.

Rautaa...
07-28-2004, 09:02 AM
!"It was a pretty bad and redundant thread compaired to what was here. This thread is more balanced."

There were many flight test made by many people and they all showed the fact: they were too fast at high altitudes and climbed too fast plus there was printed material pros and cons Spitfires

" took a 109G-6 (early) out for a spin last night against innumerable Spitfires. I had no problem parking myself on their six and blasting them to pieces. Even more fun in the FW190A-6 (which is VERY agile in the latest patch)."

About tose things..yes you maybe had newbies against you..cause it is now typical newbies aircraft-better than LA-7 or Yak-3

"Spitfire is a deadly fighter and one of the best but by no means invulnerable. I still think, despite the numbers, that the 109 climbs easier than the Spitfire. You have to coax it less."

Spit dont stall when following 109 climb in spiral. It can crank it's nose all over and shoot after climbing 109..and bullets sure climb faster than any aircraft...those variometer readings are too optimistic in Spitfires..they give values (to both, L.F and H.F) over 4000 ft/min up to 8000 meters and it is not the truth, anyone can check it from those RAF papers published in my thread by hoop.

"Certainly I've never seen a Spitfire climb away so surely that he would escape."

About those speeds and climb rates..couldn't outfly Spit IXe when I was flying Dora 1944 at 5500 meters..it soon caught up 190 D !! got 3-4 km's advantage and two minutes and his prop was on my tail...

I really dont know who's advantage is if great leagues like VWF and VEF are suffering lack of OKL pilots now after this patch 2.04 and they will die away...

We still don't know what happened to my thread and even administrator havn't taken contact..weird, isn't it, is it usual here ?

faustnik
07-28-2004, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
By the way, the Spit IXe DOES overheat, but takes a long while too. Although from some posts I`ve seen producing `facts` (we must be careful with facts posted here), it seems like the overheat is closer to reality than not. Maybe just a little toning down is needed - JUST A LITTLE. Say perhaps 10 -20% quicker to overheat...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What leads you to this conclusion? It does not help to fight "bad facts" with more "bad facts".

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Rautaa...
07-28-2004, 11:00 AM
Tables posted by hoop give to Spitfire Vb 1941 model top speed of 136 mph I.A.S at 28.000 feet...that is about 9500 meters, right. Well, I just tested (I got track of it) -41 Spitfire Vb's top speed at 9500 meters, carefully and to many directions and Spitfires own speedometer gave continous values 160-170 mph I.A.S...that is 35 mph I.A.S too much !!! I mean that Spitfire IX is not only overmodelled Spitfire at high altitudes (too fast). I can send this track to anyone who wants it and will publish it also here as soon I got it to some public page available for anyone to download.

Link to Spitfire Vb information published by hoop (thank you hoop)

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

To who should I send this track and historical data to get it fixed until next patch comes out ?

Rautaa...
07-28-2004, 11:56 AM
Here is a link to this track: Spitfire Vb speed performance at 9500 meters.. 100 % fuel and Crimea map, above water. Watch speedometer (should be 132 mph I.A.S according to Brittish specs, link above)

http://www.leosk.org/tiedostot/spitVbat9500m.ntrk

hop2002
07-28-2004, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Link to Spitfire Vb information published by hoop (thank you hoop)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to set the record straight: Here and in the previous thread that was locked, someone seemed to credit me with the Spit testing site at http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

The site's nothing to do with me (I'd gladly take credit for it if it was), it's created and maintained by Mike Williams, who is active on some flight sim boards as MW. Don't think he comes here though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Spitfire Vb 1941 model top speed of 136 mph I.A.S at 28.000 feet...that is about 9500 meters, right<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

28,000ft is 8,534m. Anyone who needs to convert between metres and feet, mph and km/h, ft/min and m/s should download "convert" from http://www.joshmadison.com/software/convert/

It's free, and converts between these and many more very quickly and easily.

The figure of 136 IAS at 28,000 ft is the speed at which best climb rate was achieved, it isn't the top speed.

Top speed at 28,000ft isn't given, but 9,500m is just over 31,000ft. At 30,000ft, the maximum IAS achieved was 216.5 mph. At 33,000ft it was still 197.5 mph.

RedDeth
07-28-2004, 01:04 PM
ive heard accounts of spitfires at higher altitudes running too cold. to the point they have to have radiators closed . any truth to this?

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1088291823_taylor-greycap.jpg

p1ngu666
07-28-2004, 01:13 PM
possibly, its mighty cold up there, and the wind chill, iirec the p38 overcooled or something, so it is possible

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Zyzbot
07-28-2004, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rautaa...:
Tables posted by hoop give to Spitfire Vb 1941 model top speed of 136 mph I.A.S at 28.000 feet...that is about 9500 meters, right. Well, I just tested (I got track of it) -41 Spitfire Vb's top speed at 9500 meters, carefully and to many directions and Spitfires own speedometer gave continous values 160-170 mph I.A.S...that is 35 mph I.A.S too much !!! I mean that Spitfire IX is not only overmodelled Spitfire at high altitudes (too fast). I can send this track to anyone who wants it and will publish it also here as soon I got it to some public page available for anyone to download.

Link to Spitfire Vb information published by hoop (thank you hoop)

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

To who should I send this track and historical data to get it fixed until next patch comes out ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Scroll further down the page of the link you so kindly provided and the SPEED TRIAL charts show higher indicated top speed than that.

carguy_
07-28-2004, 09:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

I took a 109G-6 (early) out for a spin last night against innumerable Spitfires. I had no problem parking myself on their six and blasting them to pieces. Even more fun in the FW190A-6 (which is VERY agile in the latest patch).

Spitfire is a deadly fighter and one of the best but by no means invulnerable. I still think, despite the numbers, that the 109 climbs easier than the Spitfire. You have to coax it less.

Certainly I've never seen a Spitfire climb away so surely that he would escape.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry VW-IceFire,your statement pretty much proves nothing and presents no contribution to this topic.

Which type of game you played(DF,VWF,coop)?
What altitudes gave you so big advantage?
At what speeds did you outmaneuver Spitfires?
What Spitfire types were those you were so flawlessly sending to hell?
Have you done it singlehandetly(without a wingman)?

Please post some detail,if you can.
Then repeat this to all VWF okl pilots.They will laugh in your face.
No Spitfire should be engaged 1v1 without a big energy advantage on the side of LW.

There is another possibility though.You might be just about the best LW pilot there had ever filled FBAEP skies.
Well,then I feel honored to behalf of VWF LW community invite you to VWF.Show us how to flawlessly park on Spits` six and bust their a$$es!We believe in you!

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

WOLFMondo
07-29-2004, 12:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
No Spitfire should be engaged 1v1 without a big energy advantage on the side of LW.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you know how to take Spits down, where is the problem?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It stands to reason that if your taking on a fighter that can turn as well as energy fight then you need an advantage over either its turn or have way more energy. You have to do the same with P51's, Ki84's, Yak9/3's, La7's etc.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

p1ngu666
07-29-2004, 11:53 AM
icefire IS a good pilot, be sure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

p1ngu666
07-29-2004, 06:14 PM
for kurfy and others http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

was in a really good spitfire book, really good pics http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
sounds like im a kid dont it?:P

anyways stupidly huge cos im lazy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://premium.uploadit.org/pingu666/SIMG0010.JPG

http://premium.uploadit.org/pingu666/SIMG0011-2.JPG

606 mph = 975.262464 kph
that is quick, id guess something on the propelly passed mach1 and didnt like it, but its only a guess

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

WOLFMondo
07-30-2004, 02:53 AM
Nice book...more!http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I guess that proves the spitfire IX breaks up to easily in FB.

Does that also have the similar story of a XIX in the far east doing a similar thing but from 40,000+ft?

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

p1ngu666
07-30-2004, 07:46 AM
dont thinkso
it only has a few pages of text actully http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
but its got alot of pics, they setup a photoshoot with all ww2 stuff, everyone dressed up etc and detail shots http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

also got p51 and p47 in the series, p51 has lots of A series shots http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. my dad bought them... dunno what others there are http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Kurfurst__
07-30-2004, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
for kurfy and others http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

was in a really good spitfire book, really good pics http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
sounds like im a kid dont it?:P

anyways stupidly huge cos im lazy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://premium.uploadit.org/pingu666/SIMG0010.JPG

http://premium.uploadit.org/pingu666/SIMG0011-2.JPG

606 mph = 975.262464 kph
that is quick, id guess something on the propelly passed mach1 and didnt like it, but its only a guess
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah, ye ole Spitty myth of .89Mach. And this time : 'maybe it`s even more than Mach 1!' Booooring old story, really it is, discussed, debunked in detail multiple times.

Kinda boring, all these Spitfire supreme statements.. fastest, best diver, best climber, best in everything. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Spitfire = SUX
109 = RULEZ
Period. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now, as it is proven, we can concentrate on less childish and more productive matters.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly
http://www.nightwish.com/files/wita-hi.mp3

WOLFMondo
07-30-2004, 10:12 AM
Productive matters...you mean another .50 cal thread? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

p1ngu666
07-30-2004, 10:14 AM
hey kurfy, u is wrong http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Spitfire = SUX
109 = RULEZ
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

wrong way round my friend http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
dont worry everyone makes typo's

im not saying its more than mach 1 :P, maybe some part of propeller passed mach 1, or its critical mach, i dont know, and neither do u http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif, does anyone know for sure?

spitfire was very good in high to very highspeed dives, climbed very well, best engine sound or equal with r2800 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, and best looker http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

maybe i should run those pics thru photoshop, blur em and make them barely ledgable, be more authentic ya? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

faustnik
07-30-2004, 10:45 AM
Well, there goes another interesting thread right down the toilet.

Nice work. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

p1ngu666
07-30-2004, 10:50 AM
i guess so http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
no one has discussed info from the profile either

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

LuftLuver
07-30-2004, 11:22 AM
You know I only play to destroy German aircraft, but flying the Spit around for 15 to 20 minutes (maybe longer) at 100% throttle and boost w/o overheat seems a bit fantastic.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

faustnik
07-30-2004, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
You know I only play to destroy German aircraft, but flying the Spit around for 15 to 20 minutes (maybe longer) at 100% throttle and boost w/o overheat seems a bit fantastic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just limit yourself to 5 minutes WEP and you are guilt free Luftlover. The 109s in FB have just as many other "uber" characteristics as the Spits.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

p1ngu666
07-30-2004, 12:47 PM
yep they do, dont they
amusingly one of them is overheat

on boost, its WEP, war emergancy power, hence theres no limit to how long u can run it, its there to save your *** http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
but there is a recommendation.

also the overheat depends on the rads cooling enuff for the heat the engine produces, the spitfire seems tobe able to run for a long time, but u pay for that in extra drag and weight for larger rads.

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

WOLFMondo
07-30-2004, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
You know I only play to destroy German aircraft, but flying the Spit around for 15 to 20 minutes (maybe longer) at 100% throttle and boost w/o overheat seems a bit fantastic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just limit yourself to 5 minutes WEP and you are guilt free Luftlover. The 109s in FB have just as many other "uber" characteristics as the Spits.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They do but until the Spit and Mustang are whined into oblivion there not going to be happy. Its simply to much to belive they were actually good planes.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

p1ngu666
07-30-2004, 02:23 PM
yep, i mean they gotta be atleast somewhere in the ballpark of axis aircraft, and evidence tends to point to them being better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

what made me chuckle was a guy called spitfire UFO on a server, guess what he was flying? a LA7 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif, one of the previous title owners of UFO http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

faustnik
07-30-2004, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:


They do but until the Spit and Mustang are whined into oblivion there not going to be happy. Its simply to much to belive they were actually good planes.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the hell is wrong with the P-51? Ahh, nevermind. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Only Spit issues that I see (one fat man's opinion):

- Overheat of Spit IX at low altitude

- Relative climb rates of Spits and 190s (all versions)

- Relative power of Hispano to Mg151/20

These are questions not statements

However will I continue to enjoy flying against all Spits? You bet I will! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

p1ngu666
07-30-2004, 02:28 PM
fair dibs to faustnik http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
im lookin forward to il2compair coming out, for difinative numbers.
ill agree the p51 is abit better than it should, in some areas.

on the gun stuff, i dunno, gets all technical for me and im too lazy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ill dig out the spitfire test thingy i got

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
07-30-2004, 05:56 PM
just make a test.

take some m8tes with you on a closed Dogfight.

one Takes HF-Spit, one LF IX and one the default IX. another one should take a FW190D9 and one a Ta152.

take off from the same base, form up and start climbing at full power, see what happens...

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/pics/ajatus.jpg

hop2002
07-31-2004, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>one Takes HF-Spit, one LF IX and one the default IX. another one should take a FW190D9 and one a Ta152.

take off from the same base, form up and start climbing at full power, see what happens...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What should happen is the Spit LF and F (the F in game is an LF) should open a lead, followed closely by the HF, followed by the TA 152 and Dora.

When you get to higher altitudes, the Ta 152 should eventually catch and pass the Spitfires, and the HF should pass the LF and F some time before that.

faustnik
07-31-2004, 11:13 AM
The main thing when considering such tests is the climb of the 190, not the Spit. The Spit climb might seem too high relative to the 190s but, test against a similar year class 109 and you have an entirely different story.

Check Robban's climb tests. Only one series of planes tests out in a realistic range for climb, the 190. So, if you say that the Spit climbs too fast relative to the 190, well, so does everything else. The whole lot of planes in FB might benefit from a climb rate check.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

WUAF_Badsight
07-31-2004, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yep they do, dont they
amusingly one of them is overheat

on boost, its WEP, war emergancy power, hence theres no limit to how long u can run it, its there to save your *** http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
but there is a recommendation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not true

the WEp on the Bf-109 will destroy your motor if you leave it on

after ten minutes continuall use your start to lose power & MP

its moddeled in FB

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
07-31-2004, 06:39 PM
i think ya using it wrong m8 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
109 can cool off at 99% throttle and closed rads, doing 300+kph
start engine, enguage wep at idle, once the smoke has cleared

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

p1ngu666
07-31-2004, 07:13 PM
did a quick test, and one time i got it back, another time i stayed in wep all the time, think it lasted 20-30mins, i was at low alt
(id need to test it further) and engine went funny then died

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

dadada1
08-01-2004, 02:32 AM
On the 109 you can have WEP selected all the time, it just does'nt kick in and therefore affect the motor until you push the throttle into the 100-101% region. You can't make a comparison with the way it works on the Spit can you pingu.

carguy_
08-01-2004, 03:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
did a quick test, and one time i got it back, another time i stayed in wep all the time, think it lasted 20-30mins, i was at low alt
(id need to test it further) and engine went funny then died

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The problem is that the engine decides to die in one moment without this *chkchkchkchkchkchk* sound that can be heared when engine overheats due to radiator damage.The motor just dies without any mid-damage stages.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

p1ngu666
08-01-2004, 06:29 AM
dadada yeah thats how i fly the 109 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
ive just never flown on wep for ages to come across this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

the spit is only higher manifold pressure isnt it? while 109 has meths and water aswell, which is probably the damaging part?

my motor went funny, giving wrong boost, but i was at 8xspeed so http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

i can test some more later if u guys want too

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Rautaa...
08-01-2004, 09:16 AM
Looks like many (experienced) red pilots have drawn own conclusing of Spitfire IX...they dont fly it anymore on dogfight servers, they prefer P-51 and other american planes now rather than Spitfire

Maple_Tiger
08-01-2004, 09:35 AM
I took that HF out for a spin for the first time..

I like it, but i don't think it should be as fast as the P-47 at 9000m. Something wrong there lol.

Then i tride the HF at 7600m and it easly reached 680km/h TAS while the P-51D overheats at 675km/h TAS lol.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Rautaa...
08-02-2004, 08:04 AM
there is no need to change Spitfire IX fligh model--just rename him to Spitfire XIV in next patch and performance is like it should be

dadada1
08-02-2004, 10:53 AM
What seems to be the root of the problem is how an aicrafts top speed is defined in books, etc. Is a planes top speed measured with or without boost. Most german sources state top speed and include temporary boosting (MW 50 GM 1) in the aircrafts top speed. Is this the case with allied planes? The Spit HF achieving 437mph with WEP is amazing considering it doe'snt have the laminar flow wing and aerodynamics of the P51. Also as Maple mentions, the Spit IX faster than the P47, it just does'nt add up with all the previously printed performance figures. Also bear in mind that the top speed from my books of the MKXIV (again doesn't mantion WEP) is 448 mph @ 24 500, that make the HF with a considerably less powerful engine only 11MPH slower. Does'nt that seem odd? The last Seafire, Mk 47 has a Griffon 88 with a power output of 2350hp and quoted Max Speed of 452 MPH(again no mention of WEP).Thats only a speed difference of 15MPH. What was the need for the for a heavier Spit when your only gaining 10 to 15MPH. Just trying to find some logic for the performance of the Spits in game, because I cant find any to justify their speed they're capable with WEP.

Nub_322Sqn
08-02-2004, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rautaa...:
there is no need to change Spitfire IX fligh model--just rename him to Spitfire XIV in next patch and performance is like it should be<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not according to the tactical trials I read about the Spitfire MKXIV.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

hop2002
08-02-2004, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>there is no need to change Spitfire IX fligh model--just rename him to Spitfire XIV in next patch and performance is like it should be<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire XIV would be about 25 mph faster at lower altitudes than the Spit IX in game.

The Spit IXs in game are too fast above about 6000m, below that they are very close to their correct speeds.

Kurfurst__
08-03-2004, 02:18 PM
Were there a seperate WEP 'pull plug' on the Mk V`s and Mk IXs (and later) like on the MkI`s for enabling +12 lbs boost ?

I never came around anything that would suggest that, I think it would be more histrorical if boost would be directly controlled by just the Throttle setting between 0-100%.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

hop2002
08-03-2004, 03:12 PM
There was a "gate" in the throttle, so it wasn't simply a case of throttle travel governing wep, as you seem to be suggesting.

LBR_Rommel
08-04-2004, 08:11 AM
S!

- Wings of Luftwaffe
- By Capt. Eric Brown former RAF test pilot

"The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, was somewhat better than that of the Spitfire owing to the nose-down attitude of the Fw 190 in flight.The pilot was well protected from frontal attack by the engine and the sharply-sloping 50 mm armour-glass windscreen and from the rear by his shaped 8 mm armour seat-back and the 13 mm head-and-shoulder armour, plus small 8 mm plates disposed above and bellow the seat-back and on each side.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I checked out the maximum level speed of my Fw 190 A4/U8 - which, incidentally, had its external stores carriers removed by this time - and clocked 394 mph (634 km/h) at 18.500 ft (5.640 m), and I ascertained that the service ceiling was around 35.000 ft(10.670 m), so it matched the Spitfire Mk IX almost mile per hour and foot per foot of ceiling.Here were apparently two aircraft that were so evenly matched that the skill of the pilot became the vital factor in combat supremacy.
The Focke-Wulf had one big advantage over the Spitfire Mk IX in that it possessed an appreciably higher rate of roll, but the Achilles Heel that the AFDU had sought with Armin Faber´s 190 A-3 was its harsh stalling characteristics wich limited its manouvre margins.
The AFDU comparisions between the Focke-Wulf and the Spitfire Mk IX - with the former´s BMW 801 at 2.700 rpm and 20.8 lb(1.42 atas) boost and the latter´s Merlin 61 at 3.000 rpm and 15 lb (1.00 ata) - had revealed that the German fighter was 7-8 mph (11-13 km/h) faster than its British counterpart at 2.000 ft (610 m) but that speeds of the two fighters were virtually the same at 5.000 ft (1.525 m).Above this altitude, the Spitfire began to display a marginal superiority, being about 8 mph(13 km/h) faster at 8.000 ft(2.440 m) and 5 mph(8 km/h) faster at 15.000 ft(4.750 m).The pendulem then swung more in favour of the Focke-Wulf which proved itself some 3 mph(5 km/h) faster at 18.000 ft(5.485 m), the two fighters level pegging once more at 21.000 ft(6.400 m) and the Spitfire then taking the lead until, at 25.000 ft(7.620 m) it showed a 5-7 mph(8-11 km/h) superiority.
In climbing, little diference was found between the Fw 190 and the Spitfire Mk IX up to 23.000 ft(7.010 m), above which altitude the climb of the German fighter began to fall off and the difference between the two aircraft widened rapidly.From high-speed cruise, a pull up into a climb gave the Fw 190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive.In the dive, the Fw 190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the German fighter was markedly the superior of the two in all save the tight turn - the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speeds and the worst heights for its pilot to engane the Fw 190 in combat were between 18.000 ft and 22.000 ft(5.485 and 6705 m), and at altitudes below 3.000 ft (915 m). "

Major LBR=Rommel

http://www.luftwaffebrasil.com
http://www.luftwaffebrasil.hpg.ig.com.br/rommel_ban.jpg

faustnik
08-04-2004, 10:38 AM
Rommel,

The Spit IX in the above comparison was an early version powered by the Merlin 61. The Spit IX in FB is powered by the Merlin 66 which would have better performance at low and medium altitudes. (Thanks to the Spit fans here for getting me straightened out on that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Many of the die hard Spit fans here though will also say that some aspects of 190 performance could be improved.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

LBR_Rommel
08-04-2004, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Rommel,

The Spit IX in the above comparison was an early version powered by the Merlin 61. The Spit IX in FB is powered by the Merlin 66 which would have better performance at low and medium altitudes. (Thanks to the Spit fans here for getting me straightened out on that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Many of the die hard Spit fans here though will also say that some aspects of 190 performance could be improved.

S!

But thats it, some things in Fw must be improved only that.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

S!

But thats it, some things in Fw must be improved only that.


Major LBR=Rommel

http://www.luftwaffebrasil.com
http://www.luftwaffebrasil.hpg.ig.com.br/rommel_ban.jpg

p1ngu666
08-04-2004, 05:33 PM
what ata is the 190's ingame?
1.42 rings a bell, but not sure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
spit we got has 18lbs boost i think

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

WUAF_Badsight
08-04-2004, 11:53 PM
P1ingue , the only correct plane in Fb is the FW-190s

all others are overmoddeled or suspect in their dive / E retention / accelleration / top speed

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
08-06-2004, 01:52 AM
This sounds ironic Badsight... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

What makes me think is that this (even early spit. engine 61 etc... ) was tested against a FW190A4/U8.

In the game I don't (well i Suck anyway...) stand a chance vs. a spit IX up to an a8. It's jsut slower at any altitude (Fighting mostly betweene 5k and the deck) and neither can I outtrun it in a dive nor am I am capabale of outturning it at high speeds. But maybe someone can tell me how.
The A4 is able to hold it's ground against a MK Vb but only if you're wary of the fact taht you'll pay double the price for every mistake compared to the spit guys...

The only thing I found is that on the deck I can outrun it in level flight with an UNDAMAGED a9. A single bullet in the wing makes every fw crawl nd leak energy everywhere. (Thanks for modelling ! I think Brits are using dehydrated rock for that. as soon as it touches the plane a capsule of water will shower the dehydrated rock and then you end up having a meteor ony ourwing / in the plane... *g*).

Back on topic.

Was there any response from the developers on behalf of this topic ? Will they change something about it until PF ?

Did anyone make comparisons between the H.F. and L.F versions of the Spits. One of my books (Osprey: Late Marque Spitfire Aces 1942-1945) quotes that the H.F. wings were often removed since the were not that good for figghting at lower alot (below 25,000 ft) and that it was a bit slower.
From what I "feel" it's that the H.F. is the "best" Spitfire here but I may be wrong. I just fly it sometimes to show my guys that I can almost kill everything with this b**ch http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

S!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

RAF74_Buzzsaw
08-06-2004, 02:09 AM
Salute

We do not have a real HF with extended wings here. The extended wingtips were only available on Spit VIII's and other models, not the Spit IX. These small additions to the regular wings increased the wing area over the standard non-clipped variety. This is the wing which RAF pilots did not like. It slowed down the rollrate considerably.

Our HF is an engine only HF, without the wingtips. So it has the high alt performance tuned engine. The LF is tuned for best performance under 15,000.

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
08-06-2004, 02:52 AM
Thanks for the Info !
So it is definately the best spit in game right ?
And the wings are not modelled in terms of physics but just for the optics right ?

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

lbhskier37
08-06-2004, 05:47 AM
All I know is that I feel dirty after flying the IX online. It is too easy to get kills. I've never been that good with the so called "uber" russian planes, but the Spit IX is the easiest plane to rack up kills to me. I wasnt taking numbers down, but it seems to easily catch just about anything. The funny thing is most of my kills when flying it happen when a German mistakenly thinking his plane dives fast trys to dive away only to have me catch him and put rip his wing off with 1 20mm. If everything is accurate with the spit fine, and I comment the Brits for creating an incredible plane, but something tells me there are a few things still off.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

p1ngu666
08-06-2004, 06:50 AM
think spit was a delight to fly and easy to fly, exactly what u want in a fighter during war http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
oh, and id expect more warning before stall, cos u can snap stall it easy
ive never flown a spit so i cant say its 100%, but if i get hte offer i will gladly fly a spit irl http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
(a 2 seater, dont wanna crash one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )

i think its "uber" because of good speed, great climb, good turn, good guns.

i have been out rolled by a fw190 and it has bought him time

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

robban75
08-08-2004, 03:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LBR_Rommel:
S!

- Wings of Luftwaffe
- By Capt. Eric Brown former RAF test pilot

the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive.In the dive, the Fw 190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can all agree that this simply wont happen in FB/AEP. The ability to turn has been blown out of proportion in this game. Zoom climb and diving ability are at least as important for a fighters effectiveness in the combat. Since this isn't modelled, it's quite obvious why the 190 doesn't fare as well as it should. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

CHDT
08-08-2004, 03:35 AM
*********************************
the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive.In the dive, the Fw 190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty



We can all agree that this simply wont happen in FB/AEP. The ability to turn has been blown out of proportion in this game. Zoom climb and diving ability are at least as important for a fighters effectiveness in the combat. Since this isn't modelled, it's quite obvious why the 190 doesn't fare as well as it should.
*************************************


I fully agree with that.

But I remember a patch (perhaps the first one after FB) in which the zoom ability of the 190 was pretty well done against the turn fighters.

But the case was quickly closed: whining ---&gt; back to the Focke-Wulf status-quo http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LLv34_Flanker
08-08-2004, 04:30 AM
S!

Spitfire, the plane that in many minds won the Battle Of Britain, even the Hurricane did the grunt's work there. Had no flaws, was superior to anything and of course is correct now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

3 pilots of our squadron, including me, flew on WarClouds44+ for fun and decided to take Spitfire Mk.IX's for a swing. We racked up over 10 kills together in one sweep. The skies were simply cleansed no matter what axis plane they threw on us. 2 hits of the Hispano made 109 blow up, a few .303cal behind cockpit of FW190 made it break up and burn http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

And now to the funny part. The map was the famous overheat room aka Desert. We flew on WEP all the time WITHOUT overheat! I checked the temperatures now and then, in 100'C range or so with WEP on. Then I pull throttle to idle and in a VERY short time temps dropped to 50'C! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Spitlovers..U got the ultimate plane now so rejoice. It requires no skill to fly since one can throw it around like no tomorrow without penalty. I could make it stall 1 time by putting the trim FULLY up and pulling the stick VERY sharply back. I just can't wait to see the Mk.XIV if Mk.IX is this good http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

---------------------------

Flanker
1.Lentue p¤¤llikk¶ / TO
Lentolaivue 34

"Let Chaos entvine on defenseless soil!"
~Dimmu Borgir~

Osirisx9
08-08-2004, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LLv34_Flanker:
S!

Spitfire, the plane that in many minds won the Battle Of Britain, even the Hurricane did the grunt's work there. Had no flaws, was superior to anything and of course is correct now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

3 pilots of our squadron, including me, flew on WarClouds44+ for fun and decided to take Spitfire Mk.IX's for a swing. We racked up over 10 kills together in one sweep. The skies were simply cleansed no matter what axis plane they threw on us. 2 hits of the Hispano made 109 blow up, a few .303cal behind cockpit of FW190 made it break up and burn http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

And now to the funny part. The map was the famous overheat room aka Desert. We flew on WEP all the time WITHOUT overheat! I checked the temperatures now and then, in 100'C range or so with WEP on. Then I pull throttle to idle and in a VERY short time temps dropped to 50'C! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Spitlovers..U got the ultimate plane now so rejoice. It requires no skill to fly since one can throw it around like no tomorrow without penalty. I could make it stall 1 time by putting the trim FULLY up and pulling the stick VERY sharply back. I just can't wait to see the Mk.XIV if Mk.IX is this good http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

---------------------------

Flanker
1.Lentue p¤¤llikk¶ / TO
Lentolaivue 34

"Let Chaos entvine on defenseless soil!"
~Dimmu Borgir~<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whats so uber about the spit ix. When I fly it, it seems that evry 109 that i go against seems to be able to outclimb and out turn me when I'm on the deck so I just stay up high and not get suckered into a lowspeed low level dogfight. Especially by that G2. I dont see to many complaints about that aircraft comming from the axis side. Who needs the late moddled 109s when you have the G2 buzzing around. In fact I think that the P-38J is a much better aircraft if flown correctly than the spit ix HF and ixc.

RAF238thOsiris

VW-IceFire
08-08-2004, 08:23 AM
Its funny how my IX still overheats in 2.04 despite what you guys keep saying. Less than before, and I agree its still kinda bugged (before it would overheat all the time under 3000 and never above, now its more even but still probably too low).

I'm surprised to see this thread still here with the same round about circumstantial arguments and the same people saying the same thing. I've been gone for vacation for 2 weeks and its kind of depressing. You'd think someone would have made some headway.

In light of the arugments here...I decided to take the 109's and the 190's up against the Spitfire IX's in a number of public and private games. My conclusion is that there is nothing about the Spitfire IX that makes it unbeatable or where it out performs the Axis opposition. Any of the 109G-6's are capable of beating the Spitfire in an even fight...and the G-6A/S has sufficient extra power to hang with the IX through any manuver. The 109K-4, despite its heavier weight, has so much extra power and climb ability that well flown it can dictate the battle entirely with the IX. If you get suckered into a low and slow fight...then I give the Spitfire an advantage but in a proper fight at medium altitude and with correct and discliplined ACM then you have a serious advantage.

In terms of the FW190, my prefered Axis mount, the Spitfire falls apart handily at the slightest burst of 20mm cannon fire. I commonly nail Spitfires, even in manuvers, with off angle quad 20mm bursts...usually a good hit will cause sufficient damage to cause the IX to be so control damaged that either the pilot will bail, run, or continue the fight in a much disadvantaged position.

I've been shot down by numerous well flown Spitfire IX's...but thats true of any plane. If someone gets on your six...evasion is difficult. The Spitfire IX makes it easy to get there...but the same can be said of the 109G-6 which can do the same thing to most other opponents (a G-6 can easily position itself on the six of a P-47 or P-38 with ease, much like the IX can on the six of the heavier and slightly less manuverable FW190 in a low alt fight where diving isn't possible).

In short, the whine that the IX is wiping out the Axis, is totally discredited in my mind. Learn your plane and work on your piloting skills.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

kostek
08-08-2004, 08:44 AM
And that's your opinion. Thx very much. I'm glad that u have a fun from flying this Spit. Now let's move on to the main subject:
Allied pilots flying VWF are saying that Spit IX is a bit overmoddeled. if u wanna read more, first subject made by 303_Kwiatek.

hop2002
08-08-2004, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I could make it stall 1 time by putting the trim FULLY up and pulling the stick VERY sharply back.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can make it stall very easily by pulling the stick alone. Perhaps there's something wrong with your stick settings?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And now to the funny part. The map was the famous overheat room aka Desert. We flew on WEP all the time WITHOUT overheat! I checked the temperatures now and then, in 100'C range or so with WEP on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What were your radiators like?

The Spit IX had automatic radiators. For tests, the RAF forced them closed, then flew in tropical summer conditions on WEP at 25 lbs, a much higher rating that the 18 lbs we have in game.

They found it didn't overheat in level flight either, and only in a 25 lbs climb to over 20,000 ft, with the radiators forced closed.

In level flight, you shouldn't overheat with the radiators shut. In climbs, it would take a long time to overheat with rads shut, and probably not at all with rads open. In tropical summer conditions, they were able to climb at 25 lbs from 2,000ft to 32,0000ft with radiators open with no overheat. Again, we only have 18 lbs in game, so the overheat will be much less (25 lbs puts out about 400 hp more)

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1090694499_climbcropped.jpg

Try climbing a Spit IX against the 109 K4, it should hae as good a climb rate as the 109. In game, the 109 has far, far better climb rate. Why not complain about that?

I expected better from a member of LLv34, quite honestly. I remeber a fight I had a gainst a couple of guys from your squadron in EAW years ago, I was in a Spit I against a pair of 109Es. The fight got down to sea level, where I should have had a speed and climb advantage. That's when I found out EAW only modelled 87 octane fuel for the Spit I, just like it only modelled the Merlin 61 F IX.

FB is the only sim to model a Merlin 66 Spit IX, afaik, and it's certainly generating a lot of whines.

Who knows, complain enough and perhaps Oleg will only model the Spit with 87 octane in BoB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

p1ngu666
08-08-2004, 10:53 AM
they switched to 100 before BOB didnt they?
not sure myself

i can also make it stall easly without hassle, id like the buffeting tobe brought forward, but the stall point to remain the same.

spit pays for the bigger high drag rads with worse acceloration, topspeed (possibly) and fuel economy.

i can also shoot spits down easily enough. ppl complain that its not a challenge to fly, well it wasnt, hence it was well loved by all http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.

10whine u need tobe expertan todo really well in combat, but spit u dont haveto be, so whats the better plane?

in combat u want every advantage, give u best chance of staying alive. now in a game like il2, u will seak a challenge. i for example will go after 109/190 in a il2 in coops/dogfights.

i wont drop my bombs unless i really haveto. now in war that is monumental stupidity http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
in game its a pile of fun to bag a couple of 109's and then go and bomb the target

btw from my mixed bag of data, spitfire should genrally outclimb, out turn and be faster than a 109 till g10, but still retains climb and turn.

k4 will be faster than griffon spit, but i suspect itll yo yo.

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Kurfurst__
08-08-2004, 12:11 PM
WEP limitations from the Spitfire IX and XVI flight manual :

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/MkIXenginelimits.jpg


Maximum power with WEP (+18lbs/3000rpm, as in the game) was limited to a maximum of 5 minutes use.

Very high load on the engine resulted in an increasing probabilty of engine damage or complete failure after exceeding the limit.

How long can the IX LF run in the game on WEP without suffering engine power drop and failure?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

Nub_322Sqn
08-08-2004, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
How long can the IX LF run in the game on WEP without suffering engine power drop and failure?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see in the manual that after 5 minutes the engine is destroyed, it's just a value to warn the pilots not to wreck the engine.

Not counting the bug that the MKIX doesn't overheat below 3000 meters it does give the overheat message at +/- 5 minutes at 3000RPM/18lb boost.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Kwiatos
08-08-2004, 12:37 PM
Spitfire MK IX in FB 2.04 overheat quickly at high alt but much slowier at low alt - its much better than before patch but still needed reworked. I think should be opposite - qicker overheat low and slower high.

hop2002
08-08-2004, 12:39 PM
From the air ministry instructions to Spit V pilots, August 1942 (Prune's guide for living):

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When being briefed, always ask at what revs and boost you should fly. This will naturally depend on the length of the sweep, but don't forget that;

a) when hard pressed you can fly 16 lbs boost 3000 rpm without any danger of blowing up, but

b) your consumption will be 150 gallons per hour.


Finally, when unlikely to be engaged, fly minimum revs and under 4 lbs boost, but when in the vicinity of Huns, fly maximum everything and in good time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the Mustang pilot's notes:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It is often asked what the consequences will be if the 5-minute limit at Take-off Power is exceeded. Another frequent inquiry is how long a period must be allowed after the specified time limit has elapsed until Take-off Power can be used. These questions are difficult to answer, since the time limit specified does not mean that engine damage will occur if the limit is exceeded. Instead, the limit means that the total operating time at high power should be kept to a reasonable minimum in the interest of prolonging engine life.

It is generally accepted that high-power operation of an engine results in increased wear and necessitates more frequent overhaul than low-power operation. However, it is apparent that a certain percentage of operating time must be at full power. The engine manufacturer allows for this in qualification tests in which much of the running is done at Take-off Power to prove ability to withstand the resulting loads. It is established in these runs that the engine will handle sustained high power without damage. Nevertheless, it is still the aim of the manufacturer and to the best interest of the pilot to keep within reasonable values the amount of high-power time accumulated in the field. The most satisfactory method for accomplishing this is to establish time limits that will keep pilots constantly aware of the desire to hold high-power periods to the shortest period that the flight plan will allow, so that the total accumulated time and resulting wear can be kept to a minimum. How the time at high power is accumulated is of secondary importance; i.e., it is no worse from the standpoint of engine wear to operate at Take-off Power for one hour straight than it is to operate in twelve 5-minute stretches, provided engine temperatures and pressures are within limits. In fact, the former procedure may even be preferable, as it eliminates temperature cycles which also promote engine wear. Thus if flight conditions occasionally require exceeding time limits, this should not cause concern so long as constant effort is made to keep the over-all time at Take-off Power to the minimum practicable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
08-08-2004, 01:11 PM
nice post hop http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Hoarmurath
08-08-2004, 01:26 PM
http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/p38spitfw190.jpg

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sigus.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
08-08-2004, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
they switched to 100 before BOB didnt they?
not sure myself

i can also make it stall easly without hassle, id like the buffeting tobe brought forward, but the stall point to remain the same.

spit pays for the bigger high drag rads with worse acceloration, topspeed (possibly) and fuel economy.

i can also shoot spits down easily enough. ppl complain that its not a challenge to fly, well it wasnt, hence it was well loved by all http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.

10whine u need tobe expertan todo really well in combat, but spit u dont haveto be, so whats the better plane?

in combat u want every advantage, give u best chance of staying alive. now in a game like il2, u will seak a challenge. i for example will go after 109/190 in a il2 in coops/dogfights.

i wont drop my bombs unless i really haveto. now in war that is monumental stupidity http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
in game its a pile of fun to bag a couple of 109's and then go and bomb the target

btw from my mixed bag of data, spitfire should genrally outclimb, out turn and be faster than a 109 till g10, but still retains climb and turn.

k4 will be faster than griffon spit, but i suspect itll yo yo.

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes they did switch to 100 just before the Battle of Britain.

Agreed on all counts pingu. Right on the money.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Nub_322Sqn
08-08-2004, 01:38 PM
The Spit in that test is not the one we have in the game Hoarmurath.

So it's pretty useless to post info on a Merlin 61 Spitfire in this thread.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Hoarmurath
08-08-2004, 01:42 PM
Well, the fact that the info in this document doesn't suits you doesn't invalidate it. We don't have a Fw190A-3 too... We have a A-4, a A-5, a A-6, but no A-3...

I still think that this test is interesting personnally. Just to help getting some insight about relative perfs of some planes at that time...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sigus.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nub_322Sqn
08-08-2004, 01:58 PM
Well, whatever makes you happy Hoarmurath.

I see no reason to post information about planes that are not even in the game in this thread.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Kwiatos
08-08-2004, 03:11 PM
But we have SPitfire MK V and Fw 190 A-4 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW Hoarmurath have you next pages of these document??

LLv34_Flanker
08-08-2004, 03:20 PM
S!

A bit of clearing up here. My stick settings are pretty much the same Oleg posted some time ago, only a minor change in rudder sensitivity. That part is from Eric Brown's to make the plane less jumpy sideways. Trim I use only for level flight or high speed recovery in Bf109G-6.

About outturning planes in Spitfire Mk.IX. There were Bf109G-2's(other models too), Dora's, Ta152's etc. and not a single one of them was able to get away from the Spit if we got close enuf. It was easy to cut the corners tightly since I had no fear of losing E, 109's tried to spiral climb away. So? I could run on WEP all the time since take-off while the Axis had to control their power settings not to fry their engines http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Kills in Spit were easy like stealing candy from a kid.

A bit about the DM. It took 5 x 30mm hits to down my Spit while a Bf109G-2 blew to pieces with 2 x Hispano hits http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif The .303cal MG's flamed a Fw190 in matter of a few hits.

Make a comparison. Make Spit run for temperatures over 100'C on the gauges and same on any Bf109. Then pull thorttle back to idle and see which one reaches lowest temp fastest...Spitfire. On the 109 it takes some time to go below 80'C even on ground after engine shutdown but Spit does this on engine idle with a considerable margin.

I did not fly EAW much so can't really comment that part. Was a nice game of it's time and even now is alive and kicking thanx to the modders.

Frankly I am not surprised by anything anymore regarding this game after each patch...too much of this "tune one thing and screw up a 1000 more in the process"-phenomenons. I REALLY hope BoB is different and IL2-process taught some lessons on what NOT to do. I have my hopes in BoB and wish all the best for the development team so they can make a new sim that shows the path to others for years to come.

Well..that's pretty much all I want to say about Spitfire and other issues in this game. It's no use to cry when the **** is already in the pants http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Maybe I just should try to "enjoy" this game "as is" and forget any implications of realism..entertainment at best.

---------------------------

Flanker
1.Lentue p¤¤llikk¶ / TO
Lentolaivue 34

"Let Chaos entvine on defenseless soil!"
~Dimmu Borgir~

VW-IceFire
08-08-2004, 04:08 PM
Flanker...why compair a 20mm cannon with a 30mm cannon that we know doesn't work properly all the time?

The MG151/20 and the Hispano Mk II 20mm should have been your point of comparison. I can take a wing off a Spitfire with a single half second burst of a MG151/20 too if I'm lucky...

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Hoarmurath
08-08-2004, 04:15 PM
no sorry kwiatos, i have only the first one... i'll keep my eyes open for more.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sigus.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nexus2005
08-08-2004, 04:49 PM
Flanker, imo you cannot indicate a plane isn't modelled correctly because it is good and has different characteristics to a completly different plane. You can only prove it is not modelled correctly by comparing how it flys in game to data about the real life plane. I have read most of this thread and am yet to see any real life data that proves the Spitfire is overmodelled. Quite the opposite in fact.

As far as I can see the argument against the Spitfire is that it cannot be like this because German planes aren't like this. The argument for the Spitfire consists of various documents and bits of data from the real world. Which one sounds more credible?

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

robban75
08-08-2004, 05:24 PM
Overmodelled or not overmodelled. This discussion is endless and pointless IMHO. There's no modelling of individual dive acceleration and zoom climbs. Hence performance comparison between the Fw 190 and Spitfire IX CANNOT be made in a realistic way. The Spitfire had a similar climbrate and speed to the Fw 190. This we can test.
The Fw 190A is undermodelled in this regard, we can all agree on this.
The Fw 190 was very much superior in the dive and dive acceleration aswell as zoomclimb in RL compared to the Spitfire IX(with any engine). It isn't in FB/AEP as it isn't correctly modelled.

This is THE main reason why the Spitfire comes of as superior to the 190 in the game. The game engines limitations greatly reduces the 190's effectiveness.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

steiner562
08-08-2004, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Flanker...why compair a 20mm cannon with a 30mm cannon that we know doesn't work properly all the time?

The MG151/20 and the Hispano Mk II 20mm should have been your point of comparison. I can take a wing off a Spitfire with a single half second burst of a MG151/20 too if I'm lucky...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW you must be a really lucky guy then because i use GERMAN MGS 24/7 and I can tell you they are no where near the hispano even gibbage has commented on this, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.bf109.com/gallery/grayeagle/gallgray01sm.jpg

KGr.HH-Sunburst
08-08-2004, 07:23 PM
yes your right steiner the Hispano is about 2 times more powerfull then the Mg151 ingame
just try Mg151 on some Ami planes and youll see how many hits they can take and do the same with hispano connons.......

im not gonna debate this ,its a fact and they have tested it
if someone is still saying that the Mg151 is just as powerfull as the Hispano well then you should fly some more luftwaffe online

now the spit with 2xhispano 20mm and 2x50cal is just as powerfull as a FW190 with 4x20mm and 2x13mm

http://www.hell-hounds.de
http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/FB/Screens/Fw%20190A-4guns.JPG
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

Kurfurst__
08-08-2004, 08:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
From the air ministry instructions to Spit V pilots, August 1942 (Prune's guide for living):

[QUOTE]When being briefed, always ask at what revs and boost you should fly. This will naturally depend on the length of the sweep, but don't forget that;

_a) when hard pressed you can fly 16 lbs boost 3000 rpm without any danger of blowing up, but_

b) your consumption will be 150 gallons per hour.


Finally, when unlikely to be engaged, fly minimum revs and under 4 lbs boost,_ but when in the vicinity of Huns, fly maximum everything and in good time._<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Interesting story Hop, what air ministry is that ? British, perhaps? The same one that DECREASED the maximum allowed WEP time to 3 minutes from 5 minutes on the Spit V after it`s max. boost was increased to +16lbs from +12 lbs? :

"The operational limitations of the Merlin 45 have been increased, the use of 3000 R.P.M. and +16 lb/sq.in. boost being now permitted for periods not exceeding 3 minutes during combat. "

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html

I cannot see anywhere in your qoute that it would state anything about being able to fly without limits. The limit posed on +16lbs by the British Air Ministry was 3mins, no more.


Also, nice try to blend _Take-off Power_ (3000rpm, +61Hg) with WEP/Combat Power (3000rpm,+67hg) in that quote, but it didn`t work out, sorry.

Take off power and Combat Power were different ratings on the Mustang and in British terminology, Hop 2000 tries to mix them up so he can gain unlimited, ahistorical WEP time on the Spitfires he worships.

Of course, if you really claim WEP time was not limited at all (ie. no engine damage should occur after the presribed time limits), I think that should be applied to all planes, then. I am sure most Allied players will be very pleased to see K-4s running on their full power without any limiations.


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Mustanglimits.jpg

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Sun August 08 2004 at 08:19 PM.]

VW-IceFire
08-08-2004, 10:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by steiner562:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Flanker...why compair a 20mm cannon with a 30mm cannon that we know doesn't work properly all the time?

The MG151/20 and the Hispano Mk II 20mm should have been your point of comparison. I can take a wing off a Spitfire with a single half second burst of a MG151/20 too if I'm lucky...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW you must be a really lucky guy then because i use GERMAN MGS 24/7 and I can tell you they are no where near the hispano even gibbage has commented on this, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.bf109.com/gallery/grayeagle/gallgray01sm.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No I agree...they aren't as powerful as the Hispano and they do appear to be somewhat undermodeled. That still doesn't negate the fact that I've downed some Spitfires by aiming at the wing root and blasting the wing off...I was actually shocked. It was an off angle hit and it blew the wing clean off. Done in a few times now. Not too often, but enough. Its not like some of the other patches where you could pour fire in and do no damage...the damage is there...just not as much as it should. The blast effect just isn't as good...so the advantage goes to the Hispano and ShVAK with their higher kinetic damage.

This is where I think Oleg should, in the interests of overall accuracy (rather than specific accuracy), bump the damage up overall to counteract the fact that the explosive power isn't being totally accomodated.

Still...my original point is why compair a 20mm and a 30mm...especially since the MK108 sometimes does massive damage and other times does nothing at all (seemingly).

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Hunde_3.JG51
08-08-2004, 10:54 PM
"I have read most of this thread and am yet to see any real life data that proves the Spitfire is overmodelled."

Nexus, not to sound like a smarta$$ but any book will tell you that 437mph, 425mph, and 422mph for HF.IX, F.IX, and LF.IX are too high. Some have said we actually have all LF.'s and an HF. version of Spitfire IX. Climb statistics would make this seem likely. This means top speed for LF. versions should be about 404mph and the HF. should top out at about 416mph. This also means that LF. Spitfires ahould start losing speed above 6,000m or so, instead they increase to 7,000-7,500m and then start to drop off. Speeds below 6,000m or so seem fairly accurate as I can tell but above that something is clearly wrong IMHO (and other Spitifre supporters have agreed). As for the HF., I don't know where the problem begins but I know 437mph is way too high.

I could post many sources that say 404mph is correct top speed for LF.IX at 20,000 feet, and 416mph is correct top speed for HF.IX at 28,000 feet IIRC. But I don't have a scanner and I don't know how to host pics if I did. But this speed data is available in many books and is very consistent.

As for the overheat I'll let others discuss it but I don't see what makes the Spitifre special in terms of cooling that is should overheat so slowly in FB. You will find it hard to prove overheat times for any plane in FB, that type of data just doesn't seem to exist and that is why for the most part overheat is kept somewhat equal. I'm interested in how they will model overheat problems of early FW-190's in BoB (when they are created), that will be a real b1tch for us Focke-Wulf fans (and rightfully so).

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Nub_322Sqn
08-09-2004, 04:42 AM
What I do find rather funny is that the well known Axis players (whiners) in this thread keep on crying about the overheat issue on the Spits but never break a comment on the overheat issue of the Bf109 or FW190's.

At least we agree that there is a bug with the Spit IX not overheating below 3000 meters.

But when we bring up issues about their own planes they get all defensive and claim it's all ok because the german engines are soooooo great.

Yesterday I flew around in a Bf109 G6/AS and found that when running on full power + WEP and fly to the point you get the message Engine overheat you can simply (and instantly) cool down the engine by putting the throttle to 102% and leave WEP on.

That doesn't look very normal to me.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

steiner562
08-09-2004, 06:23 AM
I tryed what you said nub,with the rad open I was able too cool the engine as you said but the time between overheating the engine became less and less,to ther point it was overheating ever couple of seconds,I then tryed it with the rad closed and its impossible to cool the engine with your method.(102%)

http://www.bf109.com/gallery/grayeagle/gallgray01sm.jpg

Hoarmurath
08-09-2004, 06:51 AM
Anyway nub, the fact that there should be problems with other planes is not a reason for not correcting the spitfire if it is needed...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sigus.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nub_322Sqn
08-09-2004, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by steiner562:
I tryed what you said nub,with the rad open I was able too cool the engine as you said but the time between overheating the engine became less and less,to ther point it was overheating ever couple of seconds,I then tryed it with the rad closed and its impossible to cool the engine with your method.(102%)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that you can cool it down like that is reason enough to point it out.

And the comment about "with the radiator closed" is a joke right?

If not then...... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Nub_322Sqn
08-09-2004, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Anyway nub, the fact that there should be problems with other planes is not a reason for not correcting the spitfire if it is needed...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyway Hoar, the fact is that I never opposed to have this bug on the Spitfire fixed.

When I posted about the overheat issues of the Axis planes some time ago I got flamed by the LW whineboys right away and it was passed off as normal, just as steiner562 is trying to do now with the "With the rad closed I could not cool down the engine like that" as if it's completely normal you can cool down a radial engine instantly like that.

I have not tested it in 2.04 yet but without WEP and with the rad closed I was able to fly at 102% power until I ran out of fuel on the Bf109 and FW190's with version 2.01 without even overheating the engine.

I flew a Bf109G2 with the radiator flaps closed at 110% power, then when the overheat message came I simply throttle back to 102% power and the overheat message is gone instantly.

This was also passed off as normal to the famous luftwhiners and tossed in a "with manual pitch they overheat normally" so basicly they meant that it doesn't have to be fixed because they don't use auto pitch.
Not to mention the regular bashing I received from the whiners inc. trying to get the thread locked before more people saw it.

As far as I can see this is what they actually want, fix all the bugs on the Allied planes but leave our bugs intact because I kinda like it like this.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

steiner562
08-09-2004, 07:35 AM
A joke? if I WANTED TO TELL A JOKE I would say something like "why did the chicken cross the road?" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

http://www.bf109.com/gallery/grayeagle/gallgray01sm.jpg

steiner562
08-09-2004, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Anyway nub, the fact that there should be problems with other planes is not a reason for not correcting the spitfire if it is needed...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyway Hoar, the fact is that I never opposed to have this bug on the Spitfire fixed.

When I posted about the overheat issues of the Axis planes some time ago I got flamed by the LW whineboys right away and it was passed off as normal, just as steiner562 is trying to do now with the "With the rad closed I could not cool down the engine like that" as if it's completely normal you can cool down a radial engine _instantly_ like that.

I have not tested it in 2.04 yet but without WEP and with the rad closed I was able to fly at 102% power until I ran out of fuel on the Bf109 and FW190's with version 2.01 without even overheating the engine.

I flew a Bf109G2 with the radiator flaps closed at 110% power, then when the overheat message came I simply throttle back to 102% power and the overheat message is gone instantly.

This was also passed off as normal to the famous luftwhiners and tossed in a "with manual pitch they overheat normally" so basicly they meant that it doesn't have to be fixed because they don't use auto pitch.
Not to mention the regular bashing I received from the whiners inc. trying to get the thread locked before more people saw it.

As far as I can see this is what they actually want, fix all the bugs on the Allied planes but leave our bugs intact because I kinda like it like this.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nub why so defensive? Im not trying to pass anything off,I am merely stating the obervations I made with doing the same as you did,comments like "luftwhiners" etc they are not needed in this forum and comes across quite childish in my eyes,why dont you open a new thread if the overheating of the 109 disturbs you that much...

http://www.bf109.com/gallery/grayeagle/gallgray01sm.jpg

Kurfurst__
08-09-2004, 07:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
I have not tested it in 2.04 yet but without WEP and with the rad closed I was able to fly at 102% power until I ran out of fuel on the Bf109 and FW190's with version 2.01 without even overheating the engine.

I flew a Bf109G2 with the radiator flaps closed at 110% power, then when the overheat message came I simply throttle back to 102% power and the overheat message is gone instantly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Probably because 110% power on the G-2 refers to 1.3ata Real-life performance, and that was a 30-min rating on the DB 605A.

Dropping it back to 100% (in-game) you would arrive at the Max. Continous ratings, which could be maintained w/o time limits. In fact, from reports I have seen even on 1.3ata on closed radiators they had real trouble getting the temperature over 100 degree celsius. According to the tech. documentation of the DB 605A, 102 Celsius can be maintained without time limits, and 115 Celsius coolant temperature up to 10 minutes lenght w/o damage to the engine.

In other words, you run the plane on a power setting which really can`t hurt it (even though it`s VERY easy in the game to ruin the G-2s engine on 110%/1.3ata power, which is completely unrealistic).

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

Hunde_3.JG51
08-09-2004, 08:08 AM
Nub, we went over this before. The 190A needs to use manual-pitch to reach indicated top speeds. Using auto-pitch results in lower rpm's and lower speeds, significantly so. So why would the FW-190A overheat normally on "auto" when it can't reach its normal top speed?

As for 109 I have no idea, don't fly it that much.

And no comment on the Spitifre LF.IX's high speeds from 6,000 up? That's like a FW-190A-6 going 700km/h at 7,500m. Try this under Oleg's test conditions, its easy to do. And then take HF.IX and see your speed reach 437mph. Like I siad, there are many sources claiming 404 and 416 are proper top speeds, I'm still waiting for someone to show me one stating otherwise. Even Spitfire fans have agreed this is wrong.

Sorry if you take this as Spitifre bashing but it is clearly wrong.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Nub_322Sqn
08-09-2004, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by steiner562:
Nub why so defensive? Im not trying to pass anything off,I am merely stating the obervations I made with doing the same as you did,comments like "luftwhiners" etc they are not needed in this forum and comes across quite childish in my eyes,why dont you open a new thread if the overheating of the 109 disturbs you that much...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already did that twice but on both accounts Issy and his fellow whiner friends flooded the thread with flame posts and BS.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Nub_322Sqn
08-09-2004, 08:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Nub, we went over this before. The 190A needs to use manual-pitch to reach indicated top speeds. Using auto-pitch results in lower rpm's and lower speeds, significantly so. So why would the FW-190A overheat normally on "auto" when it can't reach its normal top speed?

As for 109 I have no idea, don't fly it that much.

And no comment on the Spitifre LF.IX's high speeds from 6,000 up? That's like a FW-190A-6 going 700km/h at 7,500m. Try this under Oleg's test conditions, its easy to do. And then take HF.IX and see your speed reach 437mph. Like I siad, there are many sources claiming 404 and 416 are proper top speeds, I'm still waiting for someone to show me one stating otherwise. Even Spitfire fans have agreed this is wrong.

Sorry if you take this as Spitifre bashing but it is clearly wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, I can reach the rated speeds on auto pitch without a problem.

And you never saw me agree with the spit IX's top speeds so I never claimed they are correct.

As far as I see it they should fix all the bugs on ALL planes.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

[This message was edited by Nub_322Sqn on Mon August 09 2004 at 07:38 AM.]

Nub_322Sqn
08-09-2004, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
I have not tested it in 2.04 yet but without WEP and with the rad closed I was able to fly at 102% power until I ran out of fuel on the Bf109 and FW190's with version 2.01 without even overheating the engine.

I flew a Bf109G2 with the radiator flaps closed at 110% power, then when the overheat message came I simply throttle back to 102% power and the overheat message is gone instantly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Probably because 110% power on the G-2 refers to 1.3ata Real-life performance, and that was a _30-min rating on the DB 605A_.

Dropping it back to 100% (in-game) you would arrive at the Max. Continous ratings, which could be maintained w/o time limits. In fact, from reports I have seen even on 1.3ata on closed radiators they had real trouble getting the temperature over 100 degree celsius. According to the tech. documentation of the DB 605A, 102 Celsius can be maintained without time limits, and 115 Celsius coolant temperature up to 10 minutes lenght w/o damage to the engine.

In other words, you run the plane on a power setting which really can`t hurt it (even though it`s VERY easy in the game to ruin the G-2s engine on 110%/1.3ata power, which is completely unrealistic).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just too funny Issy.

Whenever Hop posts tests that claim the very same thing for the Spit IX you step in and flame him and bash the entire test but at the same time you make the very same claims on the Bf109.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Kurfurst__
08-09-2004, 08:37 AM
What do you know on the 109G or the DB 605A, when they should overheat, what are their limits?

Nothing.

You just keep whining after being told you are wrong, several times, from which you don`t even understand a word. That`s the very definition of a whiner. So STFU.

RAF limits for +18lbs was 5 mins, LW limits for 1.3ata was 30 mins. Period.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

Nub_322Sqn
08-09-2004, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
What do you know on the 109G or the DB 605A, when they should overheat, what are their limits?

Nothing.
You just keep whining after being told you are wrong, several times. So STFU.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it begins, as usual.

Anyway Barbie, don't sing it but bring it.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Kurfurst__
08-09-2004, 08:49 AM
So how should it work, Nub ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Tell us when should it overheat according to you, not just the stereotypical parrotting of WRONG, WRONG, 109 TOO GOOD, LUFTWHINERS, LUFTWHINERS, ISSY, ISSY, WHINER, FLAME, BASH blah-blah-blah etc..

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif Oh... you have no idea..? I guessed so. Now burn it, troll.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

Enofinu
08-09-2004, 08:51 AM
Nub u sound like kid now. bring up some info and charts to prove ur talks. for me and many others ur talking is worth of S**t. u can mumble and bumble as much u can, at least i dont give any weight on ur words.

thompet03
08-09-2004, 08:53 AM
lol nub...

Nub_322Sqn
08-09-2004, 09:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
Nub u sound like kid now. bring up some info and charts to prove ur talks. for me and many others ur talking is worth of S**t. u can mumble and bumble as much u can, at least i dont give any weight on ur words.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, well since I agree that the Spit needs to be fixed what should I prove here?

I don't make wild claims without backup like Barbie does, so tell me, what should I prove?

I don't make claims so I don't have to prove anything.

Heck, even when I ASKED about the Bf109 and the overheat times I was flamed by Barbie the ultra whiner and all he did was make claims and reply flame posts WITHOUT any proof on his end.

Just like he is doing now, and you join in with your personal attack. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

p1ngu666
08-09-2004, 09:05 AM
kurfy, as a 109 expertan, is it the mw50 that damages the engine in some way? or causes a bulid up of **** on the spark plugs for example?

u can cool down a 109 with rad closed at 99% throttle, then go back to WEP, the cycle does speed up, but according to ingame gfx u are getting hardly any liquid cooling with closed rads. closed would be great in russian winters to heat up engine quickly.
test i did (quickly) was that aslong as u doing 300kph ud be ok.


190 can fly around on WEP for ages with open rad, auto pitch, on manual u overheat quicker

spitfire speeds are wrong above 6000m, going by data we have.

im more inclinded into thinkin a simply higher manifold pressure, rather than adding mw50 or other things, would let u run wep longer.

besides, WEP by its very nature, u use for the minuium time, if u had a gaggle of 190s on your tail, and uve spent 5mins on WEP, and your slowly eaking away, do u turn it off to save the engine? when this would mean u getting shot down, no u run full power and hope itll get u home. if engine toasts o well, maybe u got away, or u lived longer.

the limit is there for engine life, not because on the 6th minute it would grenade itself.

and kurfy uve moaned about the highdrag rads alot, but the chances are if its high drag, its also a effective rad. a good cooling radiator, with high drag admittidly would let u run higher power for longer.

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Nub_322Sqn
08-09-2004, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
So how should it work, Nub ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Tell us when should it overheat according to you, not just the stereotypical parrotting of WRONG, WRONG, 109 TOO GOOD, LUFTWHINERS, LUFTWHINERS, ISSY, ISSY, WHINER, FLAME, BASH blah-blah-blah etc..

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif Oh... you have no idea..? I guessed so. Now burn it, troll.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I am happy that you are happy that you think it's normal that a Bf109G2 can fly forever on 102% throttle with the radiator closed.
I just tested it again and it still can do it in 2.04, external tank and full internal tank it can go on like that until it runs out of fuel.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

thompet03
08-09-2004, 09:12 AM
Sorry Nub, but how long did you take to empty the fuel??

And btw: You were asked to tell when it should overheat... where is the answer?

Nexus2005
08-09-2004, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Interesting story Hop, what air ministry is that ? British, perhaps? The same one that DECREASED the maximum allowed WEP time to 3 minutes from 5 minutes on the Spit V after it`s max. boost was increased to +16lbs from +12 lbs? : <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This does not necessarily mean that what Hop said isn't true. These time limits can also be introduced to make engines last longer and reduce maintenance work, just because a limit is set doesn't mean that the engine will blow up if you go over it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Of course, if you really claim WEP time was not limited at all (ie. no engine damage should occur after the presribed time limits), I think that should be applied to all planes, then. I am sure most Allied players will be very pleased to see K-4s running on their full power without any limiations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here it is again, saying that if your plane can do this then my completly different plane and engine should be able to also. There is no logic to this at all.

Hunde_3.JG51 I apologise, I must have missed that. If the high altitude speeds of the Spitfire are wrong, then I hope they get fixed. But I still strongly object to all the baseless whining that is going on. I have to say I see this kind of whining about the opposite side's planes only from LW flyers.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

Kurfurst__
08-09-2004, 09:39 AM
LOL WILD CLAIMS BARBIE PROVE ANYTHING FLAMED ULTRA-WHINER 109 OVERHEAT CLAIMS BARBIE FLAME WITHOUT PROOF!!! JUST LIKE HE JOIN YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS

= 'mumble and bumble', well said. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

Kurfurst__
08-09-2004, 09:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nexus2005:
This does not necessarily mean that what Hop said isn't true. These time limits can also be introduced to make engines last longer and reduce maintenance work, just because a limit is set doesn't mean that the engine will blow up if you go over it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually as far as I can see Hop`s first qoute doesn`t tell at all the laid down limits can be exceeded at all. All it says 16 can be used w/o blowing the engine, but that`s quite natural, given that this was a new limit introduced, and of course there`s some safety factor; a 3-min limit does not mean the engine will blow at 3min 1sec.

However, the seemingly endless ability to run on WEP on the Spits is simply just ridiculus, it`s like there was no limit at all. There was, it was not just for fun to state : you ARE LIMITED to FIVE minutes on COMBAT rating. Exceeding that didn`t do good for the engine. Exceeding that by a large margin would lead to engine failure, sooner or later. This will be modelled in BoB (engine state of individual planes being monitored), but currently, there`s no penelty for using your engine like a madman apart from engine failure during the mission itself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Of course, if you really claim WEP time was not limited at all (ie. no engine damage should occur after the presribed time limits), I think that should be applied to all planes, then. I am sure most Allied players will be very pleased to see K-4s running on their full power without any limiations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Here it is again, saying that if your plane can do this then my completly different plane and engine should be able to also. There is no logic to this at all.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There`s some logic in that, however, if you know the K-4`s WEP limit was 10 mins, whereas the Spit`s was 5 mins.
Right now it works as the K-4 blowing it`s engine completely after about 8 mins on WEP, the Spit being able to exceed it`s own time limit lenght by several times without anything happening. If someone says this is correct this way, I am inclined to believe he wants engine limiations on the Spitfire to be completely ignored for advantage.

Stinks, isn`t it ? Hop in some way tries to put it that the Spits should be overheating-free (using a trial doc that doesn`t even give temperatures, and refers to a 5-min period only, ie. withing the safe limits). Now since the game handles the relative WEP times on the basis of engine temperature/time on WEP, and not on engine wear, this indirectly means that if the Spit is made overheat-free temperature-wise, then it will be WEPlimit-free, too. Unfairly, as all planes are hold back by overheating mimicing increased engine wear at high powers.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

hop2002
08-09-2004, 10:08 AM
The initial tests they carried out of the Spit V at 16 lbs said the limit was 3 mins. The Spitfire pilot's manual, however, says 5 mins.

The fighting instructions given to pilots (Pilot Prune's guides) are as I posted above. There's no time limit listed, only an urging to use full throttle "whenever the Huns are about".

Regarding the 5 min limit, and what happens when you exceed it, look at the RAF ratings.

When the Spit V came out, it was rated at a max of 9lbs, for 5 mins. Then they increased the limit to 12 lbs, again for 5 mins. Then they increased it to 16 lbs, for 5 mins. Finally it went up to 18 lbs, again the limit was 5 mins.

The Spitfire IX with Merlin 66 was initially limited to 18 lbs, for 5 mins. Later that went up to 25 lbs, limit still 5 mins.

IF 25 lbs could be maintained for 5 minutes, how long could 18 lbs be maintained? 25 lbs gave 400 hp more than 18 lbs, which is going to put more stress on the engine, and generate far more heat. Yet it could be held for 5 minutes. In game we only have 18 lbs.

The fact that the RAF kept increasing the rating, yet always kept the rating at 5 minutes, shows that it's not an absolute level. You shouldn't expect a problem if 5 minutes was exceeded, and the RAF never fitted a device to physically restrict the time. They did fit automatic boost controls that stopped the rated power being exceeded, but never bothered with something to stop the rated time being exceeded.

The British were always more conservative in their engine ratings than the Germans. The Germans derated most of their major engines at one time or another. The Db 601, Db 065, BMW 801, all were derated for a time. The RAF generally increased the rating of their engines, or kept it the same, rarely, if ever, derated an engine.

Kurfurst__
08-09-2004, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
kurfy, as a 109 expertan, is it the mw50 that damages the engine in some way? or causes a bulid up of **** on the spark plugs for example?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually MW 50 would keep the engine internals relatively clean, inc. the spark plugs, which is good. The downside that after a long-long use (=25-50 hours of engine operating time), the engine has to be checked for signs of corrosion (because of the water) meaning extra maintaince work, but that shouldn`t effect in-game engine troulbes with MW50 at all... not to mention MW 50 is an internal cooler itself, it helps to keep the engine cooler than w/o it at the same power. So basically, MW 50 is (should be) all good in the short run we have in the game, no side effects. What kills engines is high load, which leads to worn-out bearings, loss of compression=loss of power in cylinders.. especially if the engine is run for too long on WEP too hot, with low lubrication.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
u can cool down a 109 with rad closed at 99% throttle, then go back to WEP, the cycle does speed up, but according to ingame gfx u are getting hardly any liquid cooling with closed rads. closed would be great in russian winters to heat up engine quickly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO the GFX parts of the 109 rads are completely s.ed up. You should be able to reach the max. speeds with slightly open rads, you shouldn`t require full closing of them... fully closed was only used as you say, for warmup on the ground, or to avoid overcooling etc. not to mention there`s very little difference in the cooling ability (in-game) between full open and full closed, but the drag cost is huge between the two.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>190 can fly around on WEP for ages with open rad, auto pitch, on manual u overheat quicker.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I have seen, the FW 190 with WEP had very high limits (10-15mins), or maybe not at all, expect to watch for engine temperature to be in the allowed regime for the allowed time.

spitfire speeds are wrong above 6000m, going by data we have.

im more inclinded into thinkin a simply higher manifold pressure, rather than adding mw50 or other things, would let u run wep longer.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
the limit is there for engine life, not because on the 6th minute it would grenade itself.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you test that in your own car, going over the redline, with the temperature lamp blinking, for 10-20 mins?
We all know an engine should not fail immidiately, but it won`t do it good. Keep it running above it`s limits, and it will fail, pistons will stick, burn out etc.. we have monstre engines with monstre forces here!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
and kurfy uve moaned about the highdrag rads alot, but the chances are if its high drag, its also a effective rad. a good cooling radiator, with high drag admittidly would let u run higher power for longer.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LARGE sized radiators are good for cooling, that`s true, but they don`t need to be high-drag, too. The Spit`s 'drag-bags' are sticking far out from the wings, that`s the only reason they make so much drag, but this doesn`t comes with any advantage. There are similiar sized = similiarly effective rads on the 109s, Pony, Yaks, but they have sink it deep into the fuselage/wings so they come with little drag but just as big cooling surface. Even then, the Spit`s rads look quite effective for cooling, but I am not convinced you can run on full power as long as in the game with them.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

Kurfurst__
08-09-2004, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
IF 25 lbs could be maintained for 5 minutes, how long could 18 lbs be maintained? 25 lbs gave 400 hp more than 18 lbs, which is going to put more stress on the engine, and generate far more heat. Yet it could be held for 5 minutes. In game we only have 18 lbs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Merlin used petrol carb, as it lacked direct injection, which meant some cooling was given by the fuel evaporating in the s/c intake. Higher boost = More fuel injected = more cooling done. Somewhat similiar to MW or petrol injection on the 190, less effective though.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The fact that the RAF kept increasing the rating, yet always kept the rating at 5 minutes, shows that it's not an absolute level. You shouldn't expect a problem if 5 minutes was exceeded, and the RAF never fitted a device to physically restrict the time. They did fit automatic boost controls that stopped the rated power being exceeded, but never bothered with something to stop the rated time being exceeded.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why, who did? Pilots were allowed to burn down their engines happily over enemy territory, if that was their fancy. Few of them were such morons, though. The fact that there were no safety device on RAF planes hardly proves they could run on WEP as long as they wanted.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The British were always more conservative in their engine ratings than the Germans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Germans derated most of their major engines at one time or another. The Db 601, Db 065, BMW 801, all were derated for a time. The RAF generally increased the rating of their engines, or kept it the same, rarely, if ever, derated an engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lot`s of PR-talk here. Fact that the Germans increased the output just as well as the British. The 'de-rated' talk is only in English, in fact none of these engines were 'derated' to my knowladge, they already arrived in service with a basic power setting, the higher power to be expected in the future being stated as information. That`s why the German text usually tells things like 'noch nicht freigegeban' - not yet cleared. The 601E arrived at 1.3ata in service, within half a year it was cleared for 1.42ata, which was expected to be reached already with more development work. The 801D was not derated, the airframe itself could provide enough cooling for it until it was redesigned. Hardly a powerplant problem, the 190 had problems with back cylinder cooling from the first day of the prototype, designed for a smaller engine at that time. The 605A arrived in service with 1.3ata rating, and was cleared for higher ratings after a year and then it increased it to 1.7, then 1.8, then 1.98ata. Either way you look at it, it`s increasing engine output on both sides, it`s there black and white. Of course arrogance may want to make you tell the smart brits kept improving their engines gradually, from 1300 to 1700, then reaching ~2000HP in the end, while those sorry Germans were busy fixing their own, from 1300 to 1475, then 1800, finally arriving at ~2000HP in the end.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

p1ngu666
08-09-2004, 10:37 AM
hm, ill test the k4, but possibly if u back down too 99% for a few seconds u can go full bannana's again

iirec the mw50 was a 10min limit, then 10mins rest then 10mins again

so im thinking its a limit on the process, or the pump or something (for example)
also the cycling wouldnt do engine any good compaired to a flat out run of same time continuous.

and i think the deeper rads put it away from the laminar flow, cos the flow over the wings is slower than the surrounding air? maybe im remmberin sumin wrong http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

p1ngu666
08-09-2004, 10:43 AM
with the increasing boost/wep over time, did the max contiuous /combat boost step a level aswell?
for example if the 25 boost spit had 18 contiuos, then that would be interesting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Nub_322Sqn
08-09-2004, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thompet03:
Sorry Nub, but how long did you take to empty the fuel??

And btw: You were asked to tell when it should overheat... where is the answer?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It doesn't overheat at all when I performed the test so does it really matter how long it took to run out of fuel?
If you really want to know then do the same test since I don't really feel like wasting more time to fly a G2 until it's completely dry since you can do the same thing.

I didn't even timed it how long it took to dry the tanks since I did not really care about that.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Nub_322Sqn
08-09-2004, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
LOL WILD CLAIMS BARBIE PROVE ANYTHING FLAMED ULTRA-WHINER 109 OVERHEAT CLAIMS BARBIE FLAME WITHOUT PROOF!!! JUST LIKE HE JOIN YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS

= 'mumble and bumble', well said. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Same old same old.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

p1ngu666
08-09-2004, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why, who did? Pilots were allowed to burn down their engines happily over enemy territory, if that was their fancy. Few of them were such morons, though. The fact that there were no safety device on RAF planes hardly proves they could run on WEP as long as they wanted.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe, but, it is possible to run WEP forever

and some might disagree on the derating, ive read stuff from jagd and butch2k i think on derating of 109F versions.

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Kurfurst__
08-09-2004, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
and some might disagree on the derating, ive read stuff from jagd and butch2k i think on derating of 109F versions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

De-rated : Appeared in service on a given boost level, which had to be decreased later on.

109F-2 arrived in service already at 1.35ata, F-4 at 1.3ata, 109G at 1.3ata, and all were increased later on.

But, if you want, we can say the same 'derated story' on Spitfires, and say the Mk IX was derated to +15lbs in 1942. Of course it didn`t, it arrived in service at +15lbs, which was to be increased later on.

In any case, the story is the same, initial powers were increased later on for all these birds and engines. From the practical point of view, it`s doesn`t matter how you call that.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

hop2002
08-09-2004, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>De-rated : Appeared in service on a given boost level, which had to be decreased later on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NO, derated = not allowed to run at the rating it was supposed to run at.

It's not just me that says many German engines were derated, try Butch's comments on this board:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Overheating was the reason for the BMW, the 801 did not get sufficient cooling, moreover the exhaust gazes proved a bit too hot, so a redesign of both the engine and the aircraft was in order.
For the DB engine, it was technical difficulties of various kind, mechanical, electrical, etc... The more you study the series the more you realize it was plagued with problems which took months to fix. The DB were always announced as performing well in the first manual edition, were derated within a couple of month in a second edition and were fully operational in a later edition 6 or more months after...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> don't think so for the G-2, indeed the G-2 was out of the front line units before the 1.42ata boost was totaly cleared (fix of the crown thickness (first) and change in the sparkplug design (second)).
For the 109F, the DB601E manual was revised in may 42 and cleared the 1.42ata boost on which restriction had been put in the June 1941 edition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=484109953&r=163105763#163105763

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At a time or another BMW801, DB601N, DB601E, DB605A had to be derated due to various troubles. In the case of the DB605A it was not until June 1943 that the limitation was lifted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=93010433&r=89010433#89010433

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But, if you want, we can say the same 'derated story' on Spitfires, and say the Mk IX was derated to +15lbs in 1942. Of course it didn`t, it arrived in service at +15lbs, which was to be increased later on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't derated because it was never intended to run at anything more than 15 lbs.

Here is an example of derating:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1090935219_db605a.jpg

The intended rating was forbidden due to problems.

Germany rated their engines agresively, and often they could not, at least initially, live up to those ratings.

p1ngu666
08-09-2004, 12:54 PM
ive not got time to check links, but as a fictional example

comes into service as 1.5ata, bad reports back to manufactorer or something, off shoots a memo stating all planes of that engine be put back to 1.3ata until further notice, sometime down the line itll goto 1.5 again, and probably more.

the quality of DB engines wasnt good at the end of the war from what ive read, numious factors. bulit by slaves, poor quality materials because of bombing/massive demand, probably/possibly agressive ramping up on power, also in service care was getting worse
eg less oil, oil recycling.

those sort of things would aid the ping pong ratings

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

thompet03
08-09-2004, 01:08 PM
@ Nub:

After what you said i realy believe you didnt made the test at all. And pretending things that were not done.. in germany we call that lying. So why should i believe what youre saying...

And again: You didnt give an answer: when should the overheat begin?

And stop flaming... thx

Nub_322Sqn
08-09-2004, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thompet03:
@ Nub:

After what you said i realy believe you didnt made the test at all. And pretending things that were not done.. in germany we call that lying. So why should i believe what youre saying...

And again: You didnt give an answer: when should the overheat begin?

And stop flaming... thx<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why don't you do the test yourself?
It's easy, just fly at 102% throttle, close the radiator and keep on going until your dry.

And I don't know when it should overheat, that is also the reason I ASKED about it in 2 previous threads but somehow people felt the need to flame instead of answer.

Since ALL engines develope heat when they are running they all should overheat when going at 100% input for long periodes of time, especially with the radiator closed.

But as you say, you think I am lying, we in Holland call that being lazy to do the damn test yourself.
And even if you do the test yourself you still will claim it overheats normally over here.

But I am fed up with you and your BS and will submit the track to Oleg via mail instead of wasting more time over you.

And who started flaming?

Oh my, that was you..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

faustnik
08-09-2004, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:Germany rated their engines agresively, and often they could not, at least initially, live up to those ratings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I found this and thought it was interesting:

"It is significant to note that in 1942 the performance of the Fw 190 was so considered so superior to the current Allied types that orders were given for all frontline Fw 190s in France to fly with their BMW 801 engines derated in order to conserve their life.Maximum power was reduced from 1.42 atas (20.0 lb / sq in) boost, which offered some 1,770 hp at rated altitude down to 1.35 atas (19.84 lb /sq in) giving only 1,595 hp at 2500 ft. (760m) and 1,455 hp at 18,000 ft (5,500 m). As the Allied ability to combat the 190 grew, the limitation was lifted and the fighter's full performance was used."

From The Focke-Wulf Fw-190, Swanborough and Green.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

[This message was edited by faustnik on Mon August 09 2004 at 01:54 PM.]

hop2002
08-09-2004, 03:25 PM
Green is responsible for a lot of errors that are constantly repeated in modern books, like 15 mm cowling guns in the 109, 3 mins to 5000m for the K4, etc.

190s were certainly derated on the channel front, but it was because they had troubles running at the correct rating, not because they were so good.

Until they chromed the exhaust, the engines would overheat at 1.42 ata. It's only from the summer of 42 that this problem was fixed, and the full rating allowed.

Kurfurst__
08-09-2004, 04:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>De-rated : Appeared in service on a given boost level, which had to be decreased later on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NO, derated = not allowed to run at the rating it was supposed to run at.

It's not just me that says many German engines were derated, try Butch's comments on this board:.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can argue on that if you want. Fact is, the German manuals give also the projected performance of the engine that is expected from it on the long run, and note it that power is not yet available.

Let`s see, butch, and pretty much everyone says the DB 605A was "derated" in June 1942 to 1.3ata.
When did the 109G/DB605A enter service ? June 1942... first known loss of a 109G on 19th July 1942, force landing by Fw Baudach of 11/Jg2, Wrk10316.

Oops, they were entering service already with 1.3ata, there was no 'recalling' as you like it to put.

Next, 109F-4 and the 601E. "Derated after entering service", says Hop. Fact, the F-4/601E was limited in the June 1941 manual to 1.3ata first. Another fact, the 109F-4 entered service, again in June 1941, the first known loss happening on 1st July 41..

Oops, they were entering service already with 1.3ata, there was no 'recalling' as you like it to put.

BTW, with the 1.42ata cleared in 1942 for the 601E, the 109F-4 did 670 km/h at 6200m.

As for the 601N, again, the engine was arriving to the front at 1.35ata, as the original fiurst Kennblatt shows. In fact, there`s hardly any mention of a higher setting for the 601N, nor do I know of any 601N power curve that would show higher than the 1.35ata rating.


By coincidence, all these 'derated' engines arrived in service already at a limited rating. Why? Because they never intended to do more initially.


The BMW 801 was a special one. Wasn`t really with the engine, which was fine. In fact, too fine, too powerful, and developed so much power and heat that the early 190A airframe could not cope with that, it couldn`t cope with the earlier engines cooling requirements, either. Back cylinder overheating, common problem on radial engined fighters, the rear bank not receiving as much air as the front ones. Exhaust burning out has rather little to do with that.. those burned out frequently on 150 graded Merlins, too, all it matter they were replaced more often.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Here is an example of derating:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1090935219_db605a.jpg

The intended rating was forbidden due to problems.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Intended rating"? The intended rating was to be 1.3ata for the DB 605A when it was introduced. I can`t see that being forbidden. 1.42ata was not allowed until a time, just like +18lbs was not allowed on the Merlin 6x series until the engines themselves were sufficiently strenghtened for that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Germany rated their engines agresively, and often they could not, at least initially, live up to those ratings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fairy tale. The Germans gave the expected performance of the engines which were under continous development. Naturally they didn`t hold them back from service, if good perfomance could be already expected from them. That`s why high performance German fighters become so quickly widespread in service, unlike the RAF`s best machines. How many produced MkIXs in 1942? Maybe 300? How many in `43, maybe 1000? The rest of the RAF struggling hard with those Mk Vs vs. 109Fs and Gs, which were some 60-70 km/h faster then them, and the MkIX didn`t become a more or less standard mount until the end of `43, 1.5 years after it was officially introduced.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

p1ngu666
08-09-2004, 05:38 PM
well, the 190 was kept ONLY in france for a while because of the spitfire threat, rather than in russia or africa where they where suited better than the 109

also there was the mark 8 going into production

RAF considered that the V was doing rather well against the 109F atleast.

and id favour butches data over yours http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Kurfurst__
08-09-2004, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
and id favour butches data over yours http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I`d favour butch`s own data instead of Hop`s interpretation of it. Everyone here knows what the initial allowed powers of the German aero engines were; Hop just likes to make a nice story of it they being continously taken back from their max. power after a while they started their service. I had shown they always started their service with limited power, and then raised it later on, similiar to the trend of British engines.

But that`s just a sidetrack IMHO, and has more to do with Hop`s attitude rather than the topic itself.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

meina222
08-09-2004, 11:59 PM
Overmodelled or not - the truth is the spit IX rules the skies in il-2 against LW even against 1944-45 planes. Maybe role should be more suited to a spit XIV.

dadada1
08-10-2004, 04:39 AM
I would sincerely like all overheat times on all FB aircraft to be the subject of serious review and correction if necessary, regardless of VVS, USAF, Luft etc. What I can't understand is anyone on this forum wanting to maintain an unfair unhistorical advantage, to my mind this kind of attitude stinks regardless, same goes for anyone defending those advantages. If they did'nt exist, they should'nt be there, like I said this applies to all FB aircraft not just the Spit.

p1ngu666
08-10-2004, 06:13 AM
true
funny thing is, p47 up high, rad closed no problem, a yak up high overheats easy, even on open, while producing WAY less power

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

hop2002
08-10-2004, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>ops, they were entering service already with 1.3ata, there was no 'recalling' as you like it to put.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Straw man argument again, Isegrim? I've never said they were "recalled", I've said they were derated.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Next, 109F-4 and the 601E. "Derated after entering service", says Hop.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think I did, did I? I said the engines were derated, I didn't say it was before or after entering service.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>By coincidence, all these 'derated' engines arrived in service already at a limited rating. Why? Because they never intended to do more initially.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Intended rating"? The intended rating was to be 1.3ata for the DB 605A when it was introduced. I can`t see that being forbidden. 1.42ata was not allowed until a time, just like +18lbs was not allowed on the Merlin 6x series until the engines themselves were sufficiently strenghtened for that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not according to Butch.

According to Butch, 1.42 ata was initially cleared for the DB 605A, then banned, then in Nov 43 cleared again.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The BMW 801 was a special one. Wasn`t really with the engine, which was fine. In fact, too fine, too powerful, and developed so much power and heat that the early 190A airframe could not cope with that, it couldn`t cope with the earlier engines cooling requirements, either. Back cylinder overheating, common problem on radial engined fighters, the rear bank not receiving as much air as the front ones. Exhaust burning out has rather little to do with that.. those burned out frequently on 150 graded Merlins, too, all it matter they were replaced more often.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with exhausts burning out is not serious on an inline engined fighter, because the stubbs were external to the airframe, ie when they burned away the gasses were still vented outside immediately. It didn't matter if they got too hot either, as they were external.

Not just on the Merlin, but all inlines (or all I know about, anyway)

For a radial, because of the positioning of the cylinders, you had to have a short exhaust run inside the engine bay. If these got too hot, they'd transmit heat to the engine, if they burned through they'd be exhausting into the engine bay.

FWIW, I didn't think the problem with the 190 was with exhausts burning through, just that they transmitted too much heat. Chroming made them radiate much less heat. It could be that they burned through, as you say. I'd never considered that.

CHDT
08-12-2004, 11:16 AM
Yep, add the speed of the Spit IX to the energy retention of this aircraft in horizontal but also in vertical manoeuvers and there's no more many options left to the 190 drivers except surprise attacks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Np for me not being able to follow a Spit in a horizontal dogfight, but being overperformed also in dive and in zoom climb....!!!!!

Ah, the good old times of the first FB patch with which energy fighters had this energy edge in vertical which allow them to be flown as they have to be flown!

IIJG69Kartofe
08-12-2004, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
Yep, add the speed of the Spit IX to the energy retention of this aircraft in horizontal but also in vertical manoeuvers and there's no more many options left to the 190 drivers except surprise attacks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Np for me not being able to follow a Spit in a horizontal dogfight, but being overperformed also in dive and in zoom climb....!!!!!

Ah, the good old times of the first FB patch with which energy fighters had this energy edge in vertical which allow them to be flown as they have to be flown!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep ... I really think making him the new "superhyperuberplane" of the game, is not a good service to the memory of this superb plane and for the courageous pilots who flew them.

Now wen i fly a spit Vs a Fw i think " Hmmm Yum yum ..." http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, Vs a 109 ... "yum yum .. But stay careful"...

This situation is totally the opposite according to all the Brits and german testimonials... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Poor spit .. Look what they have done to you ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Overmodelled or not - the truth is the spit IX rules the skies in il-2 against LW even against 1944-45 planes. Maybe role should be more suited to a spit XIV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Euuuh ... The spit XIV role in the war was really minor, comparing to the spit IX, so the term "ruler of the skyes" is IMHO a bit exagerated.

faustnik
08-12-2004, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IIJG69Kartofe:


Now wen i fly a spit Vs a Fw i think " Hmmm Yum yum ..." http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, Vs a 109 ... "yum yum .. But stay careful"...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be honest, when our schwarm of 190s encounters a bunch of Spit Vs, all we think is ahhhh, wulf chow! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The Spit Vs climb is very "optimistic" but, they are just too slow too keep up with our 190s. The same goes for the Spit IX vs. the A8 and later. Fw190A6 vs. Spit IX is a great fight, requiring perfect teamwork for the 190s to come out on top, awesome matchup!

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

VW-IceFire
08-12-2004, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IIJG69Kartofe:


Now wen i fly a spit Vs a Fw i think " Hmmm Yum yum ..." http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, Vs a 109 ... "yum yum .. But stay careful"...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be honest, when our schwarm of 190s encounters a bunch of Spit Vs, all we think is ahhhh, wulf chow! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The Spit Vs climb is very "optimistic" but, they are just too slow too keep up with our 190s. The same goes for the Spit IX vs. the A8 and later. Fw190A6 vs. Spit IX is a great fight, requiring perfect teamwork for the 190s to come out on top, awesome matchup!

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree.

Been flying Blue alot...taking the FW190A-6, the Bf 109G-6A/S out for one on one and team battles against Spitfires (and other types). While I will maintain that FW190's are by far the harder plane to fly...an experienced pilot in a FW190 can keep advantage against a Spitfire if he has it initially (the FW190 being excellent on the attack).

The problems that Luftwaffe (and some USAAF pilots have) is that dive speeds and energy don't always seem to work like they were reported to have in what many of us have read. A FW190 should be able to disengage from a Spit V with nearly any problems (given some initial range to perform a Split S and dive away) and escape a IX with some trouble but ultimately achieve a better dive speed. At present, that doesn't work so well. But neither does it for P-47's and it probably won't work for the Tempest (which had an awesome dive) or the Typhoon...the advantage will be minimal when it probably should be better.

This is a problem that gives advantage to all lighter aircraft...not just the Spitfire.

Going back strictly on topic...having been doing some thinking and flying back and forth...the Spitfire IX is seemingly very close to what it should be but with a top speed being greater than it should at high alt and a WEP that doesn't seem to cause many overheats and no real danger the the engine.

The XIV, should we get it, would be faster...but with a greater penalty of weight. Although its manuverability is "the same", I've read some pilot reports about how it would mush through manuvers more easily than the IX and the V. Apparently for manuverability and handling, the Mark V was the best (although not all Spitfire pilots agree) with the VIII/IX being very close as well with the XIV not being quite as good. Still, the chief Spitfire test pilot during WWII apparently liked the XIV best for its raw power and the abilities that it gave it.

Got some new books while on holidays so its been a good read on the Spitfire with lots of comments on their performances and comparisons made by people who flew many different marks.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

CHDT
08-12-2004, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The problems that Luftwaffe (and some USAAF pilots have) is that dive speeds and energy don't always seem to work like they were reported to have in what many of us have read. A FW190 should be able to disengage from a Spit V with nearly any problems (given some initial range to perform a Split S and dive away) and escape a IX with some trouble but ultimately achieve a better dive speed. At present, that doesn't work so well. But neither does it for P-47's and it probably won't work for the Tempest (which had an awesome dive) or the Typhoon...the advantage will be minimal when it probably should be better.

This is a problem that gives advantage to all lighter aircraft...not just the Spitfire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the heart of the problem since day one of IL-2!

A little more "juice" should be given to energy fighters in dive and zoom climbs(like in the second patch of FB) to let them be able to be used as they should be used!

As it is now, it's most of the time not possible to energy fighters to disengage from a fight as they could do it in real life. Simply because the turn fighters can dive and zoom climb as much, sometimes better or just enough to make the energy tactics not work on the energy fighters!

But I think it's just another dead horse in the big herd of the other dead horses http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CHDT
08-12-2004, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The problems that Luftwaffe (and some USAAF pilots have) is that dive speeds and energy don't always seem to work like they were reported to have in what many of us have read. A FW190 should be able to disengage from a Spit V with nearly any problems (given some initial range to perform a Split S and dive away) and escape a IX with some trouble but ultimately achieve a better dive speed. At present, that doesn't work so well. But neither does it for P-47's and it probably won't work for the Tempest (which had an awesome dive) or the Typhoon...the advantage will be minimal when it probably should be better.

This is a problem that gives advantage to all lighter aircraft...not just the Spitfire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Btw, something has to be done on this subject for PF, or the dogfights opposing the US energy fighters against the Japanese turn and burn aircrafts will be totally screwed!

RAF238thKnight
08-12-2004, 03:58 PM
Ok, this is getting just stupid on the overheat issue. I fly spits and hurricanes and to not have combat flaps modeled in the MKIIb and MKIIc is just stupid. Secondly on the spits I overheat in every conflict I have been in with good engine management. So stop this BS retoric on OVERHEAT its not true. I think all you guys fly on is winter maps.

Knight

WWMaxGunz
08-29-2004, 10:47 AM
What planes are in FB tha do not have automatic radiators? There are some, it was
posted when overheat problems of certain planes came out and tracks sent in.

The onscreen text says auto but for that series at least there was no automatic
shutters so what said auto is really closed tight. You have to open them for
cooling. Planes with automatic shutters left on auto take long to overheat but
you get the drag from the shutters and you lose the protection of the shutters
once the engine is running hot.

If you don't know which planes then don't answer, just wonder about it.


Neal

Edit: I forgot to add that someone was posting too high speeds for different
Spit IX's. So I looked at the F model numbers, or was it LF that should go
to 404mph at the height, was it 7500m? I go back and read:

LF should be 404mph, in 2.01 he got 422 at 7000m. 2.04, 677kph (420mph) at 7000m.
F should be 408 mph, in 2.01 he got 425 at 7500m. 2.04, 678kph (421mph) at 7500m.
HF should be 416 mph, in 2.01 he got 437 at 8000m. 2.04, 700kph (435mph) at 8000m.

What I also notice is that;
LF &gt; 420/404 = 1.03960
F .&gt; 421/408 = 1.03108
HF &gt; 435/416 = 1.04567

Not exactly large margins are they?

Sorry Kyrule, but something in me forced to check and I am
a bit offput.

How do 109G-2's and -6A/S's compare? FW-190A-6's and A-9's?

The FM is a physics based model running stepwise in realtime.
Realtime is more real than some people seem to be.
Under 5% is D@MN GOOD for a true physics-based model =but= I
guess the error should be in the negative to be "right".

How close do they have to be? 5% faster at max speed is at
least 10% more power or a smaller that 5% less drag. The
extra power or less drag does affect all other performance.
5% slower is likewise 10% less power or less than 5% more
drag and the opposite impact. But I bet that just reducing
the engine power 10% won't get a better fitting plane, just
can't say why. I may just as well be wrong and the next
patch will have Spit IX's that aren't 5 or 10% undermodelled.
It may be beyond the time budget of 1C to adjust, check,
repeat for days or weeks trying to hit much closer to the
mark. Under 5% is really shooting close when you are trying
to keep a whole lot of other data points similarly close.

I do notice many test posts of too high max speeds at higher
alts as well as climbs but never % of error or other compares
except by 'fanbois'. Face it, all the data do not match and
given the hardware they cannot without a rigged and somewhat
rigid FM (read, some kind of rails).

So these planes "rule the skies" with under 5% overmodelled speed?
Oh yeah, there's the dive and zoom issue which hard data seems to
be rarer than oxygen above 10km alt. Just that it should be 'much'
which is license to fill in whatever one wants.

Historic reality includes team tactics, changing tactics with new
planes surprising the enemy (or new planes with old tactics not as
surprising) until they could adapt and train against them, and then
the planes themselves are down the list from pilots and organization.

Online reality most often stems from DF servers. No need to say more
is there? People who fly the planes properly for each plane kick @ss
and post about it. How is it there is so wide differences? By Ivan
I see that some people have different versions of the game, obviously.
What other answer can there be when experts disagree?


Neal

[This message was edited by WWMaxGunz on Sun August 29 2004 at 10:26 AM.]

VW-IceFire
08-29-2004, 12:21 PM
Please keep in mind that we do not have a F IX Spitfire in the game. We have only the LF IX and the HF IX.

The F IX used the Merlin 61 or 63. The LF IX used the Merlin 66 (as did the Mark LF VIII) and the HF IX used the Merlin 70.

There should be slight differences in performance between clipped and non clipped but LF does not mean anything about the wings. Engine only.

Not sure if thats what you were talking about up top MaxGunz (or anyone else) but its just a good thing to keep in mind. Having that straight solves some of the confusion.

Having a Spitfire XIV in-game means that the RAF would be able to challenge the Bf 109K-4 and the FW190D-9 which are still far superior to the Spitfire IX. Why does nobody mention this? If you guys fly those, then you will see how big an advantage they have either in climb, speed, or acceleration over the Spitfire IX. Thats why we want a XIV. Keep in mind that the XIV's handling would be somewhat degraded because of its extra weight and while turns would be near identical, rapid manuvers and dive pull outs would take more time. I've got the pilot comments that point that out very clearly. So the XIV would not be the same plane or flown in the same way as the IX would be now.

As it stands right now, nobody can find out what the heck is going on with the XIV project. Its probably dead so its not like any of you have to even worry...

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

p1ngu666
08-29-2004, 12:35 PM
mk22 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

faustnik
08-29-2004, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

How close do they have to be? 5% faster at max speed is at
least 10% more power or a smaller that 5% less drag. The
extra power or less drag does affect all other performance.
5% slower is likewise 10% less power or less than 5% more
drag and the opposite impact. But I bet that just reducing
the engine power 10% won't get a better fitting plane, just
can't say why. I may just as well be wrong and the next
patch will have Spit IX's that aren't 5 or 10% undermodelled.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neal,

I see a flaw in this line of reasoning. If, for example, if the Fw 190A6 had a 20 mph speed advantage over the Spit IX at 1000 meters and if the Spit IX was overmodeled in speed by only 5 percent than the Fw190s advantage is wiped out completely. Small percentages, like 5 to 10 percent can make a HUGE difference in relative a/c performance.

So, I guess my opinion is that, with all fighters of a given time period being so similar in performance, small errors in over/undermodeling can have very large impact on the overall simulation. I know that must make things very difficult for 1C but, it is the reality of the situation.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

VW-IceFire
08-29-2004, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

How close do they have to be? 5% faster at max speed is at
least 10% more power or a smaller that 5% less drag. The
extra power or less drag does affect all other performance.
5% slower is likewise 10% less power or less than 5% more
drag and the opposite impact. But I bet that just reducing
the engine power 10% won't get a better fitting plane, just
can't say why. I may just as well be wrong and the next
patch will have Spit IX's that aren't 5 or 10% undermodelled.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neal,

I see a flaw in this line of reasoning. If, for example, if the Fw 190A6 had a 20 mph speed advantage over the Spit IX at 1000 meters and if the Spit IX was overmodeled in speed by only 5 percent than the Fw190s advantage is wiped out completely. Small percentages, like 5 to 10 percent can make a HUGE difference in relative a/c performance.

So, I guess my opinion is that, with all fighters of a given time period being so similar in performance, small errors in over/undermodeling can have very large impact on the overall simulation. I know that must make things very difficult for 1C but, it is the reality of the situation.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hit the nail on the head. Also why Maddox's team probably has as much trouble as they do. There are alot of things that need to be "balanced" like that....so that in the overall scheme of things the setup is right. But that must be a real headache. Thats why I don't always envy those guys for what they do....their services and work is fantastic and I recognize it well but its hard. Very hard.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

OldMan____
08-29-2004, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
What planes are in FB tha do not have automatic radiators? There are some, it was
posted when overheat problems of certain planes came out and tracks sent in.

The onscreen text says auto but for that series at least there was no automatic
shutters so what said auto is really closed tight. You have to open them for
cooling. Planes with automatic shutters left on auto take long to overheat but
you get the drag from the shutters and you lose the protection of the shutters
once the engine is running hot.

If you don't know which planes then don't answer, just wonder about it.


Neal

Edit: I forgot to add that someone was posting too high speeds for different
Spit IX's. So I looked at the F model numbers, or was it LF that should go
to 404mph at the height, was it 7500m? I go back and read:

LF should be 404mph, in 2.01 he got 422 at 7000m. 2.04, 677kph (420mph) at 7000m.
F should be 408 mph, in 2.01 he got 425 at 7500m. 2.04, 678kph (421mph) at 7500m.
HF should be 416 mph, in 2.01 he got 437 at 8000m. 2.04, 700kph (435mph) at 8000m.

What I also notice is that;
LF &gt; 420/404 = 1.03960
F .&gt; 421/408 = 1.03108
HF &gt; 435/416 = 1.04567

Not exactly large margins are they?

Sorry Kyrule, but something in me forced to check and I am
a bit offput.

How do 109G-2's and -6A/S's compare? FW-190A-6's and A-9's?

The FM is a physics based model running stepwise in realtime.
Realtime is more real than some people seem to be.
Under 5% is D@MN GOOD for a true physics-based model =but= I
guess the error should be in the negative to be "right".

How close do they have to be? 5% faster at max speed is at
least 10% more power or a smaller that 5% less drag. The
extra power or less drag does affect all other performance.
5% slower is likewise 10% less power or less than 5% more
drag and the opposite impact. But I bet that just reducing
the engine power 10% won't get a better fitting plane, just
can't say why. I may just as well be wrong and the next
patch will have Spit IX's that aren't 5 or 10% undermodelled.
It may be beyond the time budget of 1C to adjust, check,
repeat for days or weeks trying to hit much closer to the
mark. Under 5% is really shooting close when you are trying
to keep a whole lot of other data points similarly close.

I do notice many test posts of too high max speeds at higher
alts as well as climbs but never % of error or other compares
except by 'fanbois'. Face it, all the data do not match and
given the hardware they cannot without a rigged and somewhat
rigid FM (read, some kind of rails).

So these planes "rule the skies" with under 5% overmodelled speed?
Oh yeah, there's the dive and zoom issue which hard data seems to
be rarer than oxygen above 10km alt. Just that it should be 'much'
which is license to fill in whatever one wants.

Historic reality includes team tactics, changing tactics with new
planes surprising the enemy (or new planes with old tactics not as
surprising) until they could adapt and train against them, and then
the planes themselves are down the list from pilots and organization.

Online reality most often stems from DF servers. No need to say more
is there? People who fly the planes properly for each plane kick @ss
and post about it. How is it there is so wide differences? By Ivan
I see that some people have different versions of the game, obviously.
What other answer can there be when experts disagree?


Neal

[This message was edited by WWMaxGunz on Sun August 29 2004 at 10:26 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No 5% is not good. meybe for Euler´s method. but not for improved Euler´s method and mo modern methods. Even In my current engine I get less than 1% discrepance from algebraic Integration of motion equantions.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

WWMaxGunz
08-29-2004, 10:04 PM
Then your engine is entirely predictable at least wherever you get that 1%.
Do you cover how much of the handling characteristics that FB has at present?
How free of canned modes or routines is your model and how does it behave
at departure from flight? FB has had a problem with stabilty in straight
stalls so I don't say it's perfect but it does stay true to characteristics
not found elsewhere. And yes, I got that from an independant AE who was
working on his doctorate and got that work done less than a year later.

You must have very tight step timing if you can hold true to formulae at
runtime as well.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
08-29-2004, 11:05 PM
Icefire, I took those numbers from Hundes' posts on page 1 of this thread.
We don't have a Spit IXF so there is a question I missed of how he ran that
part of his test.

Faustnik, I care more about how the Spit model works to get the 5% than anything
else. How the numbers work out at very high alts is as discussed before not the
same as lower down possibly due to real versus calculated by the sim compression
onset which is going to show mostly at high TAS, over .5 mach which isn't that
fast at 7km alt, 23000 ft, standard atm mach right about 700mph, roughly. The
way it is looking at how the FM matches to compression not so well, that margin
may be a lot more than differences in combat conditions.

But in real terms of basic strategy, you are right when one plane has overage
and the opponent does not.

There is still the question of what target speed Oleg is going for as opposed
to what Hunde is using, he has many sources that agree but they may all be
coming from one primary source.
What Oleg is using as he has stated before is optimal values from primary
sources (serial planes only? I think I trust him to choose reasonably.) for
German, Brit and US planes. So between his numbers and other peoples there
is also a gap. The old Object Viewer speeds are from before he changed to
the optimal values for calcs, have they been updated? It would be very good
to know what his target data is.

I don't envy those guys at all but I do say they had a hand in making the bed
they must sleep in. I also wish that 1C had a representative who could come
out and provide basic info on a regular basis or at least point to where the
relevant data is when it is unchanged. The values have to exist at 1C or they
can't be working to match them! I doubt they are in a secret book in a safe
either so posting them directly should not be a big problem. Just how dang
tight are the copyright laws to stop them from posting their own values
based on the info they have, results only not actual documents? That's my
main gripe is working in shadows where a bit of light should not be hard
to get. A little glastnos? Did I spell that right? Surely not.


Neal

OldMan____
08-30-2004, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Then your engine is entirely predictable at least wherever you get that 1%.
Do you cover how much of the handling characteristics that FB has at present?
How free of canned modes or routines is your model and how does it behave
at departure from flight? FB has had a problem with stabilty in straight
stalls so I don't say it's perfect but it does stay true to characteristics
not found elsewhere. And yes, I got that from an independant AE who was
working on his doctorate and got that work done less than a year later.

You must have very tight step timing if you can hold true to formulae at
runtime as well.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not a aircraft engine, is another kind of machine, but overall disprepance does not concern how many variable you have in engine, is about integration methods (beleive-me I understand a lot of this). If you use good integration methods and correct inputs you will get the correct output for that specifica desired movment.

So the only possible option are not correct input or some force not modelled.

Also tight time stepping is not good, it just improves how fast the simmulation diverges from reality. Numerical imprecisions is a problem that is not solved by brute force, but by calculus.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

Kwiatos
08-30-2004, 11:07 AM
I send few days ago e-mail to 1C about overmodelled maximum speed at high alt for Spitfire MK IX and unfortunately until today no answer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
I think 1C have no time to fix FM of some planes because they work with PF and BoB. In my opinion last patch 2.04 was made in a big hurry (sth like afterwork hours) because 1C had no time to make it in good way. See whats up with removed fire extinguishers on P-38s (there are still), tweaked FM for SPitfire MK IX (only change i notice is in overheting). Patch 2.04 is like not-ending product.

VW-IceFire
08-30-2004, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I send few days ago e-mail to 1C about overmodelled maximum speed at high alt for Spitfire MK IX and unfortunately until today no answer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
I think 1C have no time to fix FM of some planes because they work with PF and BoB. In my opinion last patch 2.04 was made in a big hurry (sth like afterwork hours) because 1C had no time to make it in good way. See whats up with removed fire extinguishers on P-38s (there are still), tweaked FM for SPitfire MK IX (only change i notice is in overheting). Patch 2.04 is like not-ending product.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think there will be some time spent post PF release on getting the final models into the game.

These would theoretically include the list from the AEP2 thread. Since some values between the Spit VIII in PF and the Spit IX in AEP are similar we may get the high alt fix sometime after that.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

Itto_Okami
08-31-2004, 01:25 AM
well... I remeber to have posted about this once but I guess that I have to say it again. My father was a pilot with the Aeronautica Militare Italiana, he collected nearly 11000 flight hours before retiring nine years ago and one of the planes he had the chance to use was the Fiat G.59. This plane was a postwar version of the more famous G.55. The main difference was the engine, a Benz for the G.55 and a Merlin (both RR Merlin 66 or Packard 266 version) for the G.59. To the question about overheating of the engine the reply was the he never had problems about even flying at full power for more of five minutes while the problem was noticiable while the plane was in the ground. If the glycol went over 120?C they had to switch off the engine and change airplane. Keep in mind that he flew this airplane while he was at Elmas AB in the south of Sardinia and that it's surely not a cold place. I think that I can rely on my father words more and more than any people here whining about the Spitfire overheating expecially because cooling surface on the G.59 were not large as on the Spitfire...

S!

Itto

VW-IceFire
08-31-2004, 02:12 PM
Excellent information. I like this stuff...although some people say it isn't hard science (and it isn't) I think it brings a certain level of understanding from the pilot level that we should all be able to respect.

I don't think the overheating is nearly as much of an issue as is the maximum speed attainable. We all know its too high at high altitude. The engine overheating is harder to track down. If a sustained maximum power for 5 minutes on an aircraft with the same engine, at a higher boost pressure, in a warmer climate has no overheat issues then I'd say logically that the plane has less heating issues than others.

FW190 for instance was known, from what I've read, for running hot on a normal day. It does run hot...but some smart radiator work and you can always run at maximum or near maximum. Infact I find that once you get the overheat if you drop the engine back to 95% or drop it to 10% or less for a second or so, the temperature drops big time, and you can run for maximum power for another couple of minutes. Nobody has complained about that behavior. Its a little off, a little suspect perhaps, but not an issue for me. The D-9's with their auto rad are even easier to deal with. The 109's another hot running aircraft...and the same thing exists. Open the rad and drop your throttle for half a second and she's good for another few minutes of combat.

So for me, proper managment is what separates average from good pilots in the ability to get the best performance out of their plane.

What you cannot contend with is better than expected high altitude performance. Once again, fixable. No problem. And thats pretty much all of the complaints with the Spitfire IX as I understand it. New aircraft to target no doubt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

WWMaxGunz
08-31-2004, 03:30 PM
Knocking the rpms down a bit while coarsening the pitch if not a CSP plane
or knocking the rpms down by coarsening the pitch if it is will also reduce
production of heat. You can tighten the radiator more at high speeds and
still go faster.

Still, Google on words: mach speed altitude temperature

and see how temperature drops with alt. What runs hot at 3km should not at
5km. It gets cold up there, really cold. One of the biggest gripes from
the long distance high alt flyers was the cold. Look at how they dressed!
There was no difference I know of in summer/winter wear for those Allied
pilots and crewmembers that went up for hours on end. Even over the desert
you get up to high alt, you get cold even inside the plane with heaters
running.


Neal

Itto_Okami
08-31-2004, 03:36 PM
I suppose that one of the advantages of the Merlin above all the other inline engines was to be a derivate of the "R" engine used for the Schneider Trophy. That engine was a masterpiece of engineering. Not an engine suitable for combat duty but an invaluable data source to build one.
About the high altitude performance I didn't said anything because numbers can't be denied... but it don't bother me a lot because I never reached that heights so I think I can fly my Spit without breaking any rule. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
About the Fw, I've read that the A-0 and A-1 were prone to ignite quite often because overheating problems (source is Aircraft of the Aces serie) and that this problem nearly ended the combat life of the '190. I've searched around for more infos about this issue but was unable to find more. Can anyone confirm this thing?

S!

Itto

Itto_Okami
08-31-2004, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Knocking the rpms down a bit while coarsening the pitch if not a CSP plane
or knocking the rpms down by coarsening the pitch if it is will also reduce
production of heat. You can tighten the radiator more at high speeds and
still go faster.

Still, Google on words: mach speed altitude temperature

and see how temperature drops with alt. What runs hot at 3km should not at
5km. It gets cold up there, really cold. One of the biggest gripes from
the long distance high alt flyers was the cold. Look at how they dressed!
There was no difference I know of in summer/winter wear for those Allied
pilots and crewmembers that went up for hours on end. Even over the desert
you get up to high alt, you get cold even inside the plane with heaters
running.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and the snow on the Kilimanjaro show this...

S!

Itto

biggs222
08-31-2004, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I send few days ago e-mail to 1C about overmodelled maximum speed at high alt for Spitfire MK IX and unfortunately until today no answer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
I think 1C have no time to fix FM of some planes because they work with PF and BoB. In my opinion last patch 2.04 was made in a big hurry (sth like afterwork hours) because 1C had no time to make it in good way. See whats up with removed fire extinguishers on P-38s (there are still), tweaked FM for SPitfire MK IX (only change i notice is in overheting). Patch 2.04 is like not-ending product.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think there will be some time spent post PF release on getting the final models into the game.

These would theoretically include the list from the AEP2 thread. Since some values between the Spit VIII in PF and the Spit IX in AEP are similar we may get the high alt fix sometime after that.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah id expect the mkVIII in PF to perform pretty much the same way the mkIX does in AEP...same engine and whatnot. only a 300/400lb difference.

Kurfurst__
09-01-2004, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:

yeah id expect the mkVIII in PF to perform pretty much the same way the mkIX does in AEP...same engine and whatnot. only a 300/400lb difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

300 lbs difference is a lot! It`s like you`d fly with a bomb or droptank attached. The MkVIII`s real advantage over the Spit IX was it`s range, as it carried 120 gallons of fuel vs. 85 on the Spit IX, and was similiarly longer ranged : 740 miles vs. 434 miles. That`s why almost all of them were sent to the PTO and MTO, range was critical there. It was also very slightly faster because of the retractable undercarriage. It`s roll rate was lower (it used shorter span ailerons).

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

kostek
09-01-2004, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Itto_Okami:
well... I remeber to have posted about this once but I guess that I have to say it again. My father was a pilot with the Aeronautica Militare Italiana, he collected nearly 11000 flight hours before retiring nine years ago and one of the planes he had the chance to use was the Fiat G.59. This plane was a postwar version of the more famous G.55. The main difference was the engine, a Benz for the G.55 and a Merlin (both RR Merlin 66 or Packard 266 version) for the G.59. To the question about overheating of the engine the reply was the he never had problems about even flying at full power for more of five minutes while the problem was noticiable while the plane was in the ground. If the glycol went over 120?C they had to switch off the engine and change airplane. Keep in mind that he flew this airplane while he was at Elmas AB in the south of Sardinia and that it's surely not a cold place. I think that I can rely on my father words more and more than any people here whining about the Spitfire overheating expecially because cooling surface on the G.59 were not large as on the Spitfire...

S!

Itto<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well ther are 2 things that u need to know:
1. Same engine in 2 other types of planes can work different, f/e different air intake = different air presure, different possition of engine = different forces working on engine. U see i don't know if spitfire is looking close too g.55 or g59 but i know that he could work not as u say.
2. Most of pilots that were flying their planes said those planes were just great. So (i don't wanna be rude) but u got to keep a distance to old pilot stories.
Sometime i feel whole this game is made on stories (specialy when flying aganst spitfire)

WWMaxGunz
09-01-2004, 06:36 PM
'U' don't know much of Oleg, do 'U'?

p1ngu666
09-01-2004, 07:28 PM
kufy the 8 was the best merlin spit accordin to a few who flew that and the 9, a very slight margin tho so *shrug*

on the overheat thing, i flew a 109g2 back from a mission flat out all the way open rads, no overheat http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
on a humous note, i think u can fly the cr42 on "2" and never overheat. maybe newly added planes are more correct?

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

faustnik
09-01-2004, 10:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
kufy the 8 was the best merlin spit accordin to a few who flew that and the 9, a very slight margin tho so *shrug*

on the overheat thing, i flew a 109g2 back from a mission flat out all the way open rads, no overheat http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
on a humous note, i think u can fly the cr42 on "2" and never overheat. maybe newly added planes are more correct?

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are going to make a statement about overheat give a time and altitude. For all we know it was 2 minutes back to base for you. Please post a track of the 109 with 110% throttle that shows it does not overheat.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 10:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
If you are going to make a statement about overheat give a time and altitude. For all we know it was 2 minutes back to base for you. Please post a track of the 109 with 110% throttle that shows it does not overheat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont know if you guys have see the DIVE TEST stuff we have been working on.. But I learned something in that process.. The DeviceLink allows you to log the Oil In and Oil out temps and the Water In and Water Out temps. Therefore we could take any plane.. at any alt and do a flight test and graph how fast it over heats.. or doenst overheat. Just a thought.. Beat guessing at it or trying to read the guages.. Just get the actual numbers.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

faustnik
09-01-2004, 10:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by faustnik:
I dont know if you guys have see the DIVE TEST stuff we have been working on.. But I learned something in that process.. The DeviceLink allows you to log the Oil In and Oil out temps and the Water In and Water Out temps. Therefore we could take any plane.. at any alt and do a flight test and graph how fast it over heats.. or doenst overheat. Just a thought.. Beat guessing at it or trying to read the guages.. Just get the actual numbers.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
__TAGERT__
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Tagert, I have been following your post with much interest!

Does this mean you will make a great temp graph too. Please..please...please... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 10:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Yes Tagert, I have been following your post with much interest!

Does this mean you will make a great temp graph too. Please..please...please... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is EASY to make.. What is hard is to come up with a test that eveyone will agree on. That is to say I dont want to waste my time doing it if some dweeb is going to shoot it down by saying.. "Ah.. that is not valid.. you didnt do XXX and you did do YYY that makes it all bogus"

So.. If you and who ever else is interested can hash out a test.. And agree on it.. Then I would be glad to plot the graphs for you!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

faustnik
09-01-2004, 11:04 PM
I see your point Tagert. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif I'm not sure what the "best" test method would be.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 11:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
I see your point Tagert. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif I'm not sure what the "best" test method would be.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Be neat if you could find a historical reference to it.. Someting with alt and time mentioned.. Then we could try and recreate it.

Without that.. All we would be arguing over is GAME specs.. But.. it would be interesting to just run a few of the aircraft with heating problems at a specific alt for x amount of time to see how the heat guage moves.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

faustnik
09-01-2004, 11:12 PM
Yeah, I'd love to see the Spit IX and Spit V compared in level flight at 1000 meters, Crimea map, with WEP on radiator open on the Spit V and "auto" on the Spit IX. Perhaps run a Fw190A6 for comparison.

I pick the 2 Spits because the Spit V overheats easily and the Spit IX just doesn't overheat. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 11:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Yeah, I'd love to see the Spit IX and Spit V compared in level flight at 1000 meters, Crimea map, with WEP on radiator open on the Spit V and "auto" on the Spit IX. Perhaps run a Fw190A6 for comparison.

I pick the 2 Spits because the Spit V overheats easily and the Spit IX just doesn't overheat. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. sounds good.. Only thing I would sugest is change as little as posiable.. Thus making comparsions easier.. For example, if you use full open rad.. use it for all the different aircraft. If you want to test the effect the rad open has.. use the SAME plane and do a few tests where the only dif is the rad position.

If you do it.. Save the track and send it to me.. Prob is with a test like this it will take some time for it to heat up.. Thus a big track file!

Dive test happen pretty fast.. So the track files are prety small.. but overheat.. That could be a big track file! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WUAF_Badsight
09-02-2004, 12:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
So.. If you and who ever else is interested can hash out a test.. And agree on it.. Then I would be glad to plot the graphs for you!

__TAGERT__
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

max power + MW50 with Rads fully open

max power + MW50 with Rads fully shut

max power with rads full open

100% power with rads on spawn default

100% power with rads shut

for a WEP 109 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
09-02-2004, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
So.. If you and who ever else is interested can hash out a test.. And agree on it.. Then I would be glad to plot the graphs for you!

__TAGERT__
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

max power + MW50 with Rads fully open

max power + MW50 with Rads fully shut

max power with rads full open

100% power with rads on spawn default

100% power with rads shut

for a WEP 109 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
09-02-2004, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
So.. If you and who ever else is interested can hash out a test.. And agree on it.. Then I would be glad to plot the graphs for you!

__TAGERT__
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

max power + MW50 with Rads fully open

max power + MW50 with Rads fully shut

max power with rads full open

100% power with rads on spawn default

100% power with rads shut

for a WEP 109 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
09-02-2004, 04:53 AM
I think he means give him tracks, he will make the charts.

BTW, your clicky finger has a bad twitch.


Neal

hop2002
09-02-2004, 04:59 AM
Will you be able to tell when and if the radiators open from device link?

Also, will it show external temperatures?

IF so, we can do a very accurate comparison with the RAF testing of a Spit LF IX at 25 lbs, only at 18 lbs.

Their test method was to run for 10 minutes at cruising power (2650 rpm, 7 lbs boost), followed by 5 minutes flat out, all at 3000ft and 13,500ft. Radiators should be shut throughout.

Crimea is supposed to represent standard atmosphere, which should be close to the RAF's definiton of "temperate summer".