PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire FM in AEP. Game climb rate vs. real test



Kurfurst__
03-26-2004, 08:04 AM
The below graph shows the Spitfire Mk VB 1941 as in the game, vs. real climb results of the same type plane in flight test. Data taken from Il-2compare.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/w3134climb.gif

The Spit V is vastly overmodelled in climb rate at all altitudes, but especially above 15k ft, or 4500m. In real life, the single stage supercharger of the Mk V`s Merlin 45 was not capable of sustaining even moderate boost over ~15 500 ft. Above that altitude, it`s power output sharply fell.
In the game, it manages to have a critical altitude of 22 000 ft in climbs...

The game Spit V actually manage to match the high altitude climb rate of the improved Mk IX with the 2-stage supercharger..

No wonder there are reports from users about the Spit has unrealistically good climb rate even at altitude, something wasn`t so in RL.

Please fix.

Kurfurst__
03-26-2004, 08:04 AM
The below graph shows the Spitfire Mk VB 1941 as in the game, vs. real climb results of the same type plane in flight test. Data taken from Il-2compare.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/w3134climb.gif

The Spit V is vastly overmodelled in climb rate at all altitudes, but especially above 15k ft, or 4500m. In real life, the single stage supercharger of the Mk V`s Merlin 45 was not capable of sustaining even moderate boost over ~15 500 ft. Above that altitude, it`s power output sharply fell.
In the game, it manages to have a critical altitude of 22 000 ft in climbs...

The game Spit V actually manage to match the high altitude climb rate of the improved Mk IX with the 2-stage supercharger..

No wonder there are reports from users about the Spit has unrealistically good climb rate even at altitude, something wasn`t so in RL.

Please fix.

LEXX_Luthor
03-26-2004, 09:00 AM
Not sure, I thought Oleg said this was supposed to be a "1942" Spit or something and somebody typed in the wrong year digit thus causing mass Panic in the internet dogfight servers--could the "1942" Spit be the unlabled line on the right side of the graf? Anyway, I heard Oleg will be providing a real live crippled "1941" Spit for the internet dogfight servers. Not sure, just something I heard.

What is that unlabled line to the right of the graf? Also, can you post the climb rate data you measured yourself in cockpit including full written procedure for the Board to reproduce? Please fix.

__________________
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

BerkshireHunt
03-26-2004, 09:35 AM
Already acknowledged by Oleg.

Kurfurst__
03-26-2004, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
What is that unlabled line to the right of the graf? Also, can you post the climb rate data you measured yourself in cockpit including full written procedure for the Board to reproduce? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The climb data is not from climb tests done by myslef, rather I used the program il2compare`s values; these are direct extractions from engine`s FM, ie. the ACTUAL numbers w/o possible errors of testings.

The line to the right is not climb rate, it shows the manifold pressure boost vs. altitude. It shows how long the supercharger can maintain the required pressure for the engine, ie. from SL to 15 500 ft.

This is the key to the bug at high altitude performance climb rate; the supercharging is the limiting factor to increase that, the performance of no Mk V models is any better above 15 500 ft than on the graph. As years progressed, the boost was increased to +9, +12, +16 lbs on the Merlin 45 engine. However it only meant improvement below rated altitude, 15.5k ft. Simple because the supercharger was not changed, and could not provide more oxygene for the increased boost than it already did. Thus performance increase on later variants only happens below the rated altitude.

LEXX_Luthor
03-26-2004, 10:37 AM
I got it!

Line on right side. A handy side by side comparison. Awsum!

__________________
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

hop2002
03-26-2004, 11:16 AM
The problem is Isegrim using disimlar figures.

The original chart he's using shows climb at normal climbing power, ie a 30 minute rating.

The line he has taken from IL2 compare shows climb at WEP.

As you can see from the chart, at sea level the real life Spit V did just over 3200 ft/min, IL 2 compare gives a figure of 3050 ft/min

VW-IceFire
03-26-2004, 11:20 AM
As already mentioned...there are differences in the 1941 Spitfire Vb and the 1942 Spitfire Vb. IL2 Compare isn't 100% accurate either. Its better to do a real test in game and take an average of about 10 tries.

Apparently Oleg will add a Spitfire Vb 1941 plus the Spitfire Vb 1942 with the slightly different ratings.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

LEXX_Luthor
03-26-2004, 11:24 AM
hop2002:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The original chart he's using shows climb at normal climbing power, ie a 30 minute rating.

The line he has taken from IL2 compare shows climb at WEP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow! Kurfurst is this true?

__________________
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

Kurfurst__
03-26-2004, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
hop2002:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The original chart he's using shows climb at normal climbing power, ie a 30 minute rating.

The line he has taken from IL2 compare shows climb at WEP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow! Kurfurst is this true?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, it`s just the usual things from Hop 2002. He is a well known Spit dweeb ... he always argues the Spit should be lightyears better than what can be read from tests and other objective sources. But seldom he presents actual proof to those statements.


The line shows the 5 min combat rating as of 1941 until automn of 1942, that`s +9lbs, 2850 during climb. This was the maximum permissable performance allowed for the Spitfire at that time.( Later it increased in late 1942, with the time restricted to only 3 mins, but that`s not the version we are talking about.)

RPM was allowed to be increased to 3000rpm only over 24k ft in climb, or at any altitude in faster level flight (cooling issues again).
For climb between SL and 24k feet, only 2850 RPM was allowed to be used, with +9lbs boost. (5 min rating).

The reasons are mentioned in a previous test :

"..(c) The radiator is not quite suitable for English summer conditions on the climb.

.......(d) The oil cooler is suitable for English summer conditions on the climb. "


This is what the curve shows : a real test results in the state the Spit 5 was in 1941, vs. test results from il2compare as in the game.

The report the curve is from is also quite clear, to qoute :

"2. Results of tests.

(c) The __maximum rate of climb__ is 3250 feet per minute at 15,200 ft. "

ie. what you find in the curve. I guess Hop will come up with some extra in response to this, but you bet I won`t answer it because I know he never comes up with anything specific that would support his claims. It`s just a mere guessing coming from him, aimed to make the Spit look better than it really was.

BTW, his claim even if would be true wouldnt change anything about the performance at higher altitudes. Supercharger limits the performance, the superhcharger`s performance is directly connected to the engine`s RPM, and the engine is already running at Max. RPM all above 24k ft... there would be no improvment in climb rate at 24k at whatever settings or with the later boosts. It`s already the max. possible.

And if you notice, in the game at 24 000 ft this Spit V climbs 3400 ft/min, whereas in RL it supposed to climb 2000 even with increased RPM...

The claim is otherwise unneccesary to be debated unless Hop 2000 manages to present evidence that during summer 1941 when this test was done the Spit MkV was cleared for more than +9 lbs, 2850RPM during climbs. That won`t happen.

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Sat March 27 2004 at 04:33 AM.]

RAF74_Buzzsaw
03-26-2004, 01:36 PM
Salute Isegrim (Kurfurst)

That's pretty funny, you accusing someone of bias... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black perhaps..

And the figures you present are of course skewed.

The Merlin 45 had a maximum rpm of 3000 under full boost. So obviously your claim that a climb at 2850 rpm is equivalent to WEP is incorrect.

Fortunately, Oleg has been provided with detailed actual test reports on these aircraft and I'm sure he will provide us with an accurate Flight model.

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Fri March 26 2004 at 01:02 PM.]

LEXX_Luthor
03-26-2004, 06:18 PM
Wow! Thanks Kurfurst. Alot of stuff there. I dunno who is right--or even what Spit we have http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif , way too detailed for me. Thanks fellas/fellattes.


__________________
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

Ivank
03-26-2004, 06:18 PM
I have just flown a climb test using the AEP Spitfire VB Crimea. Speed schedule for the climb was taken directly from the report Kurfust quotes from. This report also includes Tabular data on times to ht. This IAS schedule was: 170MPH IAS to 6500feet
160MPH IAS at 10,000feet
150MPH IAS at 20,000feet
140MPH IAS at 26,000 feet
130MPH at 30,000feet.
Power setting was 100%, 3000RPM.

I do not believe actual Boost V RPM is appropriate in the test as these are simulated indications driven by the FM. Technique start at 50metres alt 130MPH, select 100%power, 3000RPM at 165MPH commence climb, establishing climb at 170, start clock

1000m/3280ft/1min 9secs
2000m/6560ft/2min 25secs
3000m/9850ft/3min 37secs
4000m/13,120ft/4min 46secs/vsi 3100fpm
5000m/16,400ft/5min 54secs/vsi 3000fpm
6000m/19,680ft/7min 1sec/vsi 2900fpm
7000m/22,960ft/8min 14sec/vsi 2500fpm
8000m/26,240ft/9min 42secs/vsi 2000fpm
9000m/29,520ft/11min 29sec/vsi 1600fpm
10,000m/32,800ft/13min 43secs/vsi 1100fpm

Boost observed dropping at 6,600m/21,648ft
Up to 8000m climb times are almost spot on.
Above 8000m the FB VB is performing a little better than the report tabular data. But yoou will recall that at the upper levels the FB atmosphere does represent re world atmosphere, so deviation from book figures is to be expected at the higher levels (8000m+)
So all in all prety good FM dont you think ?
fast time to ht may be because I used 3000RPM all the way.

Ivank
(10,000hrs RW http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)
FB BETA Tester

[This message was edited by Ivank on Fri March 26 2004 at 05:36 PM.]

[This message was edited by Ivank on Fri March 26 2004 at 05:37 PM.]

LEXX_Luthor
03-26-2004, 06:27 PM
Wow! Thanks Ivank, something substantial to chew on. Awsum!


__________________
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

Kurfurst__
03-26-2004, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ivank:

Boost observed dropping at 6,600m/21,648ft
So all in all prety good FM dont you think ?
fast time to ht may be because I used 3000RPM all the way.

Ivank
FB BETA Tester<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the Mk V can maintain boost up to 21 600 ft in AEP. If you look at the real test, it could only hold up +9lbs up to 15 500... if boost is higher (i.e. +12 or +16) then only to even lower ... Ie. +16 boost could not be maintained for over only 8800 ft... we have almost three times of that here..

Do you think a Spit VB climbing with a G-10 at high altitude is realistic?!

http://www.jagdgeschwader52.com/meyer/z3.jpg

There are some huge flaws in this FM, Ivan.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

LEXX_Luthor
03-26-2004, 06:41 PM
LOL you should use the quote from Dr. Strangelove in that movie

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When you merely wish to bury bombs, there is no limit to the size

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


or... "FB: Or how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Muzzle Flash"

Ivank
03-26-2004, 06:47 PM
Kurfurst you are using Il2compare for all your refrences. Your assumption is that everything in IL2Compare reflects in game FM completely, not comparing In game performance to Historical data. Out of intrest I communicate directly with Youss on IL2compare. I have had a bit to do with what lies behind the "additional charts" tabhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IL2 compare is a great utility but it has limitations.

Take the time and go and do a flight test yourself using the same criteria as in the VB test and see what you get. Post your results and lets see.

Ivank
03-26-2004, 06:51 PM
Also Kurfurst as I said in the post Displayed Boost is not indictive of power in FB. the Speed bar power setting is representive so 100% represents MIL power etc. The displayed boost is simulated to generate an appropriate indication.

Thres is a lot more going on the power versus altitude depatment in FB that you can see on the cockpit instruments.

LEXX_Luthor
03-26-2004, 07:03 PM
Ivank, do the Beta Testers have to do alot of this kind of FM testing when they test the game? If so, thanks. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

__________________
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

Ivank
03-26-2004, 07:35 PM
Yes Lexx_Luthor, the Beta testers spend repetitive hour after hour doing performance testing.

The FM is very complex, and to get everything exactly right with the specification is impossible. Change one thing and it will undoubtely change another. It also depends what refrence is used as the authority. In FB's case its usually many..... yes from all political sides.

Any FM argument on the forums is also complex as people use different refrences to say there position is right etc. An argument is only valid if the same refrences and criteria are used. Climb times are a good example.

Some people complain about this and that but ask them what speed schedule they were using and you are met with question marks and virtual blank looks.

LEXX_Luthor
03-27-2004, 03:39 AM
Thanks.

Well, just using Compare Kurf has a point--I was kinda stunned myself to see Spit~5 "Compared" climbing with G10 up high--unless that was hysterically correct I dunno, maybe Kurfurst can make some of his own climb tests for both aircraft...where is robban75 he/she seems to have vanished after getting the AEP. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Most astonishing at the ubi.com is anybody caring about what high altitude performance is like for anything.

__________________
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

robban75
03-27-2004, 04:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
where is robban75 he/she seems to have vanished after getting the AEP. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm still here LEXX. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Right now I'm trying to solve the relatively slow speed of the Ta 152 at low alts. I sent Oleg an e-mail with some of my findings on the subject, we'll have to wait and see if something happens! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

On the climb testing bit, I'm gathering strenght in order to continue!

And I'm a he! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

LEXX_Luthor
03-27-2004, 04:30 AM
Right, I forgot I saw your avatar a few times recently. Although you did kinda go into hiding after the AEP. hehehe

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On the climb testing bit, I'm gathering strenght in order to continue!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yep. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

__________________
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

WWMaxGunz
03-27-2004, 04:36 AM
I don't see Ise deigning to admit that Oleg came up and posted that the Spit VB 1941 is actually a mid-42 model. Max boost 16psi for 3 mins, 12 psi for 5 mins, 9 psi for 30 mins. Error was a typo of the year.

it is understandable when the goal is to neuter an entire line of enemy planes if possible. A pursuit worthy of and in style with Herr Goebells who used ineffective words and wishes to fight with as well! Prop-a-gand-a!


LOL!

SeaFireLIV
03-27-2004, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I don't see Ise deigning to admit that Oleg came up and posted that the Spit VB 1941 is actually a mid-42 model. Max boost 16psi for 3 mins, 12 psi for 5 mins, 9 psi for 30 mins. Error was a typo of the year.

it is understandable when the goal is to neuter an entire line of enemy planes if possible. A pursuit worthy of and in style with Herr Goebells who used ineffective words and wishes to fight with as well! Prop-a-gand-a!


LOL!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed, I feel a cartoon coming up for the defence of the Spit....

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/resboo.jpg
BOO!

dahdah
03-27-2004, 05:15 AM
Your statement states very well Kurfurst's stance, Max.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Now why has he not admitted the mistake that the 41 Spitfire is a 42 Spitfire. He is trolling.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif


I like his self description:

"Nah, it`s just the usual silly things from Kurfurst. He is a well known 109 zealot ... he always argues the 109 should be lightyears better than what can be read from tests and other objective sources. His favourite sentence is the "absence of proof is not proof of abscance", as he always makes wild exxagerations but never capable of backing those up. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif etc."


In my short time here, one thing I have noticed is that when Kurfurst posts, the thread grows expotentionally, drawing in posters like flies to a pile of freshly excreted dung.

Kurfurst__
03-27-2004, 06:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I don't see Ise deigning to admit that Oleg came up and posted that the Spit VB 1941 is actually a mid-42 model. Max boost 16psi for 3 mins, 12 psi for 5 mins, 9 psi for 30 mins. Error was a typo of the year.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t see your constructive approach Neal, just your accusations, which happen to again and again in EVERY single thread about bugs. Or should the Mk VB really climb with a G-10, or a MkIX, Neal ? Is that what you say ? Obviously its just plain ridiculus as currently it is, but you have no trouble with that part. On the contrary, you do everything to distract the fixing of this bug. As others noted about your behaviour in these bug threads, the agenda is wearing thin.

BTW, since you did not take the time to read the posts about the simple technical fact that no matter what boost, 9, 12 or 16psi, the high altitude performance will REMAIN the same as the supercharger limits the max. boost pressure at altitude. That means, Neal, the Mk V in 1941, in 1942 AND in 1943 had the SAME altitude perfromance above 15 500 ft, regardless of the boost increase that only effected low altitudes below the rated altitude. And this rated altitude gradually went down from 15 500 ft at +9lbs to 8800 ft at +16lbs by late 1942 (as opposed to your statements, in real life 16 lbs was not yet cleared in mid 1942, only in the second half of 1942 during the automn).


Here`s the comparison of a 1941 test when the Spit V entered service at +9lbs maximum boost, and another done in 1942 when 16 lbs was just cleared. Real life Bf 109G-10 figures are also presented, as well as the data the Mk V 1942 behaves in AEP, as according to Il2compare.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/SpitV41-vs-42.jpg

Noticable things :

a, Increasing boost by no means increased the altitude performance, as excepted.
b, At +9 and +16 lbs boost, high altitude performance is very much the same.
c, The ridiculus climb rate in AEP vs. the real life docs is appearant.
d, It should be noted that the +16lbs tested Spit (on the right) is somewhat heavier, hence the lower climb rates at the same boost.
e, Decrease in rated altitude due to supercharger`s inability to maintain increased boost at the previous altidue is also noted.


And naturally under no circumstance will it climb with a G-10, not even with a G-2/6 at altitude... I doubt it could climb with an F-4 either, but I would have to check this one out for details.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
it is understandable when the goal is to neuter an entire line of enemy planes if possible. A pursuit worthy of and in style with Herr Goebells who used ineffective words and wishes to fight with as well! Prop-a-gand-a!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s not the first time you came up with similiar insults Neal, I won`t tolerate itand I won`t let this thread to degenerate into your nazi name calling, which is you purpose: to destroy this thread. I will let the mods deal with it.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

blabla0001
03-27-2004, 06:52 AM
You shouldn't judge about that Issy, I have seen you destroy threads with your personal attacks plenty of time as well.

trying to turn it into a flame war so it get's locked.

hop2002
03-27-2004, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't see Ise deigning to admit that Oleg came up and posted that the Spit VB 1941 is actually a mid-42 model. Max boost 16psi for 3 mins, 12 psi for 5 mins, 9 psi for 30 mins. Error was a typo of the year.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The boost gauge shows 16 lbs, the plane performs as if it was using 9 lbs.

Using 16 lbs, the real life Spit V should do 510 km/h at sea level. The AEP Spit V does 450 - 460 km/h at sea level.

Speeds are off all the way up to 15 - 20,000ft, then they become too fast.

Using 16 lbs boost, climb rate should be around 4,000ft/min up to nearly 10,000ft, as you can see from Isegrim's chart, at WEP the Spit V does 3200 ft/min at sea level, 3600 ft/min at 10,000ft.

The Spit Vb in AEP has too much power at high altitudes, too little for even the 1941 Spit at low altitudes.

Kurfurst__
03-27-2004, 07:05 AM
Regardless of the doubtful connection between your accusations and reality, still it`s the case WWMaxGlunz is clearly attempting to hijack the thread, and you are a supporting him along with "dahdah"(=Milo Morai) in this. Get real, Cappa, it`s Mr. Neal who calls me Goebbels and a Nazi here. So far the threads which were locked recently were complains about the MG 151 being too week, Spit FM being waay of (overmodelled). YOU have heavily participated in all of those, along with Neal, in the same manner you do here, aimed for turning it into personal. Axis weapon bugs are not to be fixed, but the Spit should stay in the ridiculus way it is. Aha, right. I do see a pattern here.

In any case, the guy already owns me a favour for I have not sent a PM to the mods about his nazi-insulting, which under the rules of the forum, and that applies to everyone, should result in an immidiate baning.. File closed on my part, from here, the mods will deal with your behaviour if it gets along the same path as earlier.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

Kurfurst__
03-27-2004, 07:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Using 16 lbs, the real life Spit V should do 510 km/h at sea level. The AEP Spit V does 450 - 460 km/h at sea level..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the 1941-marked Spit does about 460 km/h at SL, which is about correct for 1941 and +9 lbs. The boost gauge is simply wrong and shows +16lbs instead of +9. The 1942 one is slightly faster by about 20 km/h, admittedly less than it supposed to do.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Using 16 lbs boost, climb rate should be around 4,000ft/min up to nearly 10,000ft, as you can see from Isegrim's chart, at WEP the Spit V does 3200 ft/min at sea level, 3600 ft/min at 10,000ft..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are reading the boost line in the chart instead of the climb curve.. its not ~4000fpm, but a +9boost line. Actually its about 3700 fpm up to 9000 feet at +16, if you read it correctly, and that`s what the text of report also says.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Spit Vb in AEP has too much power at high altitudes, too little for even the 1941 Spit at low altitudes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct, in the general sense. Hmm, the climb seems to be almost okay at very low alts, the speed is way off, if we stipulate for +16 boost being used. High altitude model is that of what a Mk V would be if fitted with Merlin 61 w/o any extra weight plus a hydraulic coupling drive for the supercharger.. In other words, pure fantasy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif And it`s just as surprising the plane doing no less than 609 km/h at 7300m..!!

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

blabla0001
03-27-2004, 08:15 AM
Ya Issy, you are always neutral in your debates.

Completely none biased and always completely right. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Just because you have a reputation as a serial whiner over here is all your own doing, and now you act like it's our fault?

LMAO.

Happy cruisading anyway.

WUAF_Badsight
03-27-2004, 08:42 AM
ok i dont wanna tread on anyones flame-fest but the thing about the spits isnt really their speed

their speed would be fine if their DM & weapon power was the same as the Bf109's comparativly

the G2 v any SpitV we currently have is a close run thing in flight performance but the scales are tipped in the spits favour by . . . .

1) the Spits DM can handel far in excess of what the Bf109's can (the fact that Bf109's have weak motors comparativly is something that will never change tho)

2) the G2's 20mm is bugged as it is now against fighters . . . . . its lost power & is back to spitting marshmellows again

im not saying that the Hispanos are too powerfull .... no we all know that they had excellent hitting power for 20mm but when these two things are balanced against how the G2 takes & gives out damadge gets people anti-Spitfire

when one groups fav plane is neutered slightly or their least liked plane is slightly better than what the spes say it should in some way tends to start crusades here at this forum

Badsight out

hop2002
03-27-2004, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You are reading the boost line in the chart instead of the climb curve.. its not ~4000fpm, but a +9boost line. Actually its about 3700 fpm up to 9000 feet at +16, if you read it correctly, and that`s what the text of report also says. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AA 878 did 3700 ft/min when ballasted to the weight of 4 20 mm and 480 rounds of 20 mm.

According to Spitfire the History the same aircraft when tested with 2 20mm improved by 300 ft/min

That's 4000 ft/min for a Spit Vb at 16 lbs boost.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>ok i dont wanna tread on anyones flame-fest but the thing about the spits isnt really their speed

their speed would be fine if their DM & weapon power was the same as the Bf109's comparativly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not fine, it's far too slow.

It's currently 12 mph too slow to be a 1941 Spit, 37 mph too slow to be a 1942 Spit (which is what Oleg says he's going to reclassify it as)

SeaFireLIV
03-27-2004, 09:03 AM
Why this attack on the Spit? It`s not that good. I flew the German G2 (cos I had to to balance sides), I hardly ever touch LW, so I took this plane cos I heard it`s the easiest for a newish guy to LW planes.

I shot one Spit down easily after chasing it into a turn. I knew he could outturn me, but I was able to hold behind him long enough (quite long), before I shot him down. To be honest I had much more fun in the G2 against the Spit than I expected. It seemed a VERY balanced fight.

Also, bear in mind this was a Squadron fight on a private server. So it wasn`t like these guys didn`y know what they were doing.

I really believe there`s an unconscous/conscous (probably) wish to nail the Spit just for the hell of it. You can guarantee all the `kill Spit` people are the ones NOT flying or liking it.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Old1.jpg

It`s not about the Machine...
(aka: You CAN teach an old dog new tricks!)

SeaFireLIV
03-27-2004, 09:05 AM
whoops double thread.

WWScout
03-27-2004, 09:08 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
ok i dont wanna tread on anyones flame-fest but the thing about the spits isnt really their speed

their speed would be fine if their DM & weapon power was the same as the Bf109's comparativly

the G2 v any SpitV we currently have is a close run thing in flight performance but the scales are tipped in the spits favour by . . . .

1) the Spits DM can handel far in excess of what the Bf109's can (the fact that Bf109's have weak motors comparativly is something that will never change tho)

2) the G2's 20mm is bugged as it is now against fighters . . . . . its lost power & is back to spitting marshmellows again

Amen!
I feel this more than anything has gotten people turned off by the spit. Personally I don't know the figures of the aircrafts ratings and top speeds. What I do know is how hard it is compartively to shoot down as opposed to other aircraft. The spitfire appears to absorb way too much damage. I've never read anything about them being that stout of an ship.

WUAF_Badsight
03-27-2004, 09:14 AM
rgr the G2 v any SpitV is a very close fight in flight performance

the main bug bear is that the Bf109 family are all in possesion of weak engine DM & the 20mm is also bugged as it is

if the Bf109's are going to have this kind of limitation put on them why are other non-german planes so darn tuff ?


seriously the Spitfire MkV's have a really really strong DM

this is showen thru their flight performance after recieving hits especially

yes its true they are too slow now . . . . thats a fact down low especially , maybe not true for higher alt tho

but the do posses excellent zoom ability & general E-Retention in v2.0 without doubt

hop2002
03-27-2004, 09:21 AM
Here are some graphs showing the data from IL 2 Compare against the real life Spit tests done by the RAF.

Firstly, speed.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1080400234_spitvspeeds.gif

The Spits in this test are all using the Merlin 45.

When it first came out, the engine was rated for a maximum of 9 lbs boost, 3000 rpm. This is represented by the blue line.

In summer 1942, it was rerated to 16 lbs boost, 3000 rpm. This is shown by the red line.
This plane is several hundred pounds heavier than the AEP Spit V, because it has the C wing, 2 cannons, 120 rpg, and ballast weights to simulate another 2 cannon also with 120 rpg.

It also had the larger wing blisters fitted to Vc aircraft, so had more drag.

The IL2 Compare Spit V is shown at WEP. Both the 1941 Spit Vb and the 1941 Spit Vb have almost the same speed, there is a small speed increase from removing the wing tips, but the 1943 Spit Vb CW is still running at 9 lbs boost, a year after the real Spits had switched to 16 lbs boost.

As you can see, the Spit Vb 1941 is too slow to be a real Spit Vb 21,000ft, by about 10 - 12 mph. Oleg has said this plane will be reclassified as a 1942 aircraft, but as you can see it is nearly 40 mph too slow at low altitudes to be a 1942 Spit.

Now climb:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1080402859_spitclimb.gif

There are 4 planes represented.

Red is the Spit V at 16 lbs boost from 1942. The climb rate has been corrected to the weight of the Spit Vb we have in AEP, because the tests were done at a much higher weight.

I made a mistake on the graph, it declines to an uncorrected weight at high altitude, so the climb rate should be 100 ft/min higher at 15,000ft and above. In other words, it should be closer to the blue line.

There is no correction for the extra drag this plane has over the AEP Spit V.

The orange line rpresents the AEP 1941 Spit Vb at WEP. As you can see, it's a lot slower at low altitudes than the real 1942 Spit V, but at higher altitudes it has a rate of climb that is probably as far off as the 109 K4 is in game.

Above 10,000ft the Spit V climbs too well.

The blue line represents the 1941 Spit V at normal climb power, not wep.

The green line represents the AEP Spit V at normal power, not wep.

Up to 15,000ft, there is close correlation between the 2, above that the climb in game should be falling off, but isn't.

WUAF_Badsight
03-27-2004, 09:30 AM
so if you climb away from AEP SpitfireMkV's & drag the fight up over 3000m (doesnt take long) your at a even bigger disadvantage ?

Kurfurst__
03-27-2004, 09:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
so if you climb away from AEP SpitfireMkV's & drag the fight up over 3000m (doesnt take long) your at a even bigger disadvantage ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. I did the thing vs. some Spitty who tried to gain on my K-4... I did what is to be done in real life, ie., I fly a late war plane with excellent high alt characteristics, he flies an early war one with poor altitude performance. So lets drag him up and see if he still wants to play.

Then I was surprised I cant shake him of nearly as fast as I could all the rest, Mustangs, Lavochkins, whatever. He couldnt gain on me, and eventually realised he is not going to wing the spiral climb contest and *tried* http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif to disengage and get away though.

The core is, because of the totally off high alt model for this plane, real life tactics dont work at all. He climbs with you easily if you drag him up to high alt. See the G-10 comparison curves.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

JG52_Meyer
03-27-2004, 09:40 AM
Exactly Badsight, even with a G-10 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

hop2002
03-27-2004, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Exactly. I did the thing vs. some Spitty who tried to gain on my K-4... I did what is to be done in real life, ie., I fly a late war plane with excellent high alt characteristics, he flies an early war one with poor altitude performance. So lets drag him up and see if he still wants to play.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 109 K4's climb rate is even more off than the Spit V's.

The Spit V has a climb rate that is too low at low alt, too high at high alt. The K4 climbs much too well at all altitudes.

The K4 should do 17.5 m/s at 6000m, it actually does 23.5 m/s. At 8000m it should do 12.25 m/s, it actually does 16 m/s.

To compare the real life planes, at 8000m the K4 should climb at 3.8 m/s more than the Spit V. It actually climbs at 1.8 m/s better.

At 4500m, the K4 should climb at 4 - 5 m/s better than the Spit V. It actually does 10.25 m/s better than the Spit V.

robban75
03-27-2004, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
It's currently 12 mph too slow to be a 1941 Spit, 37 mph too slow to be a 1942 Spit (which is what Oleg says he's going to reclassify it as)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's funny is that most planes in FB are 10km/h faster in-game than what the IL2compare says. Remember to do your speed tests on the Crimea map, it's very important.

Here's my results.

Rads closed on the Crimea map, 10m altitude.

1941 Spitfire

466km/h @ 16lbs, 110% throttle + boost.
456km/h @ 12lbs, 110% throttle
443km/h @ 12lbs, 100% throttle

Pretty disappointing speeds I'd say. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

1942 LF Spitfire

527km/h @ 19lbs, 110% throttle + boost
514km/H @ 16lbs, 110% throttle(matches the chart pretty well)
497km/h @ 16lbs, 100% throttle

Unfortunatelly the Spitfire isn't the only plane in need of more speed.
The Ta 152 is 35km/h too slow at sealevel, and the D-9 '44 is 15-16km/h too slow at sealevel aswell. Will it be fixed I wonder? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

[This message was edited by robban75 on Sat March 27 2004 at 01:30 PM.]

Kurfurst__
03-27-2004, 10:37 AM
Using the same methods as was used in German tests (ie. Radiators half open at 4-6, climb speed 270 IAS, automatik pitch ), I get very close results in AEP as were supposed to be in real life. In real life, one could make an 1000m climb in 40 secs, in AEP it`s very close to that, usually I measure 39 or 40. One just has to compare like with the like.

The dataset in AEP for 109s refers to fully closed radiators, this means a lot less drag, especially with the 109`s radiator design which creates minimal drag when closed. If the rads were closed in climb, the plane would overheat quickly, but at the same time climb would be also greatly increased.

I checked your K-4 numbers vs. real life tests papers of the type. Your numbers refer to closed radiators, the test paper shows worser numbers, BUT, the radiators being half open as usual. Still, I found that your numbers from the game are very close to the real numbers, considering closing the rads should add at least 2 m/sec to the climb rate.
Ie. you refer to 4500m. There the Spit V should climb about 15.75 m/sec (it does 19.8). The real life K-4 would climb about 22.5m/sec at that altitude with MW50 and radiators half open, so in real life, it should outclimb the Spit V by 7 m/sec. By closing the rads, it`s should climb but by just about 10 m/sec, as in Il-2. In any case, the Spit is supposed to be outclimbed by a huge margin. This is what happens in il2. Except at high altitude... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Really, stating the 1941 Spit V could compete with the 1944/45 K-4 is kinda like stating a Mini Morris is actually competitive to a Mercedes SLR. Especially in the high regime. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

The big picture, regardless of the details, is that the 109K`s rated altitude is correctly modelled. In real life, the K-4`s climb was very much the same up to 4900m. In AEP it starts to fall of above 4700m. Very close.
Fact is, the K-4 brings the apprx. historical charactertics of the plane, being relatively better in climb at high altitudes than other planes, and being MUCH better at low and medium altitudes. (This is apprx. how it is in the game, relative to other plane`s performance. As I said, I checked the game numbers vs. the real numbers under the same conditions, and they match rather well at tested low alttiude. The subject however should not be investigated in detail in this thread, that is not the purpose of this thread.)

The Spit is the exact opposite of that. When running at +16 lbs boost, the Spit V`s climb rate is supposed to drop off already at 2700m (LF variants even worser, practically start to drop off just above SL).

In AEP, the Spit`s climb rate doesn`t drop off until 6400!! meters... this is 2.5 times the rated altitude it supposed to have ! It supposed to climb at ~2000 ft/min at 21000 ft. It climbs almost 4000 fpm, DOUBLE the climb rate it should have.

It bascially makes historically effective tactical considerations vs. the Spit V completely stupid in the game. Why start climbing to 6000m in a G-10, if the Spit`s performance doesn`t drop off at all as in real life ?

The Spit V has absolutely no connection with the real life altitude characteristics of the plane. It supposed to be a good climber at low altitude, performance falling off rapidly with altitude. Regardless of actual, absolute numbers... the RELATIVE PERFORMANCE is way off. In Il-2, it acutally maintain performance 2000m higher than the K-4 with specially developed high alt engine... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Sat March 27 2004 at 09:56 AM.]

Ivank
03-27-2004, 04:34 PM
Kurfurst I am still yet to see your in game flight test figures. You are still using IL2Compare as your game refrence.
As for you G10 data what is the source, would be nice to see it to http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hoop2002
Great graphs, are your MKVB lines from flight test or IL2c. If from flight test can you post your technique.

WWMaxGunz
03-27-2004, 05:15 PM
<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 WWMaxGunz:
I don't see Ise deigning to admit that Oleg came up and posted that the Spit VB 1941 is actually a mid-42 model. Max boost 16psi for 3 mins, 12 psi for 5 mins, 9 psi for 30 mins. Error was a typo of the year.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t see your constructive approach Neal, just your accusations, which happen to again and again in EVERY single thread about bugs. Or should the Mk VB really climb with a G-10, or a MkIX, Neal ? Is that what you say ? Obviously its just plain ridiculus as currently it is, but you have no trouble with that part. On the contrary, you do everything to distract the fixing of this bug. As others noted about your behaviour in these bug threads, the agenda is wearing thin.

BTW, since you did not take the time to read the posts about the simple technical fact that no matter what boost, 9, 12 or 16psi, the high altitude performance will REMAIN the same as the supercharger limits the max. boost pressure at altitude. That means, Neal, the Mk V in 1941, in 1942 AND in 1943 had the SAME altitude perfromance above 15 500 ft, regardless of the boost increase that only effected low altitudes below the rated altitude. And this rated altitude gradually went down from 15 500 ft at +9lbs to 8800 ft at +16lbs by late 1942 (as opposed to your statements, in real life 16 lbs was not yet cleared in mid 1942, only in the second half of 1942 during the automn).


Here`s the comparison of a 1941 test when the Spit V entered service at +9lbs maximum boost, and another done in 1942 when 16 lbs was just cleared. Real life Bf 109G-10 figures are also presented, as well as the data the Mk V 1942 behaves in AEP, as according to Il2compare.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/SpitV41-vs-42.jpg

Noticable things :

a, Increasing boost by no means increased the altitude performance, as excepted.
b, At +9 and +16 lbs boost, high altitude performance is very much the same.
c, The ridiculus climb rate in AEP vs. the real life docs is appearant.
d, It should be noted that the +16lbs tested Spit (on the right) is somewhat heavier, hence the lower climb rates at the same boost.
e, Decrease in rated altitude due to supercharger`s inability to maintain increased boost at the previous altidue is also noted.


And naturally under no circumstance will it climb with a G-10, not even with a G-2/6 at altitude... I doubt it could climb with an F-4 either, but I would have to check this one out for details.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
it is understandable when the goal is to neuter an entire line of enemy planes if possible. A pursuit worthy of and in style with Herr Goebells who used ineffective words and wishes to fight with as well! Prop-a-gand-a!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s not the first time you came up with similiar insults Neal, I won`t tolerate itand I won`t let this thread to degenerate into your nazi name calling, which is you purpose: to destroy this thread. I will let the mods deal with it.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I go through the html to be able to view your charts I see your 42 Spit climb chart is for a VC. There wouldn't be any weight difference in the test plane from the 42 VB that Oleg used, would there? It would amount to nothing I suppose?

I see you edited your post I quoted from about 3 hours ago but you still don't have it so accurate in that I only said your ignoring what was posted was WORTHY of Herr Goebells. I didn't call you that name or mention the N-word. Just a comparison in ability to ignore things going on that don't fit the desired plan. I could have said Churchill but he wasn't so basically wrong. I could have said other names from the US, France and maybe some other countries even Germany but they really don't fit the degree let alone the direction nearly so well as Hermann. WORTHY OF, NOT IS/ARE.

And the exaggerations in description you push and your followers adopt then spread put the lie to all your claims of constructive and reasonableness. It's the same with any fanboy camp, just in case you think I play favorites. There's people who think the same flaws in the sim that affect the 151/20's are aimed at their guns as well when it's really the damage model more than any supposed bias at fault.

There's a patch coming out. If you presented the facts alone and laid off the judgemental adjectives then I would have to agree with you about being constructive and reasonable. Well no, you would also need to at least acknowlege when people post reasonable objections. After so many posts where you did not, I took as much offense of what I read from you as you did should have from what I posted in response. But you didn't and I did read your reply before you edited it, in style you go the extra mile.

You stick to the facts like have been *mostly* the last weeks and I'll respect that.

BTW, I'll wait to see what Oleg has to say about your take of the charts. He has ways of coming up with good reason or showing others wrong that sometimes he gives. Other times he doesn't and once or twice now I'm in disagreement with his decisions but you know what? I still accept the sim and no one but 1C can make changes. I also trust him to make more balanced decisions and choices than you, any day. He knows more than you on the subject matter. He knows deeper how aircraft behave. He knows things all the charts in any library can tell so hey, you make your case in between your claims and descriptive phrases and if he agrees then it's good. But I don't have to like your opinion parade or be silent about it any more than you have to not post your data and opinions.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
03-27-2004, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Get real, Cappa, it`s Mr. Neal who calls me Goebbels and a Nazi here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoops, there it is! Please show me a quote where I did that? Spin it how you want, Mr. Isegrim. Perhaps Faustnik can say it's me with the spin. Repeat it enough times and it become somebodys' version of truth.


Neal

WUAF_Badsight
03-27-2004, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

A pursuit worthy of and in style with Herr Goebells who used ineffective words and wishes to fight with as well! Prop-a-gand-a!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


in some countries , insinuating that someone is a Nazi is a very abusive thing to do

WWMaxGunz
03-27-2004, 07:27 PM
I did not do that. Learn to read what is written.

dahdah
03-27-2004, 08:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Spit is the exact opposite of that. When running at +16 lbs boost, the Spit V`s climb rate is supposed to drop off already at 2700m (LF variants even worser, practically start to drop off just above SL).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that so?

For a Spitfire VC with Merlin 45

16,000/4900m 2800fpm, boost 9.8
18,000/5500m 2540fpm, boost 8.2
20,000/6100m 2290fpm, boost 6.8

For a Spitfire VC with Merlin 50M

16,000 2910fpm, boost 6.0
18,000 2610fpm, boost 4.5
20,000 2320fpm, boost 3.2

For comparison, the Merlin 46 Spitfire VB (high altitude rated engine)

16,000 2710fpm, boost 8.4
18,000 2730fpm, boost 8.4
20,000 *2550/2780fpm, boost 8.6 (*2850/3000rpm)

These numbers show the low altitude rated M powered Spitfire with a slightly better climb rate at 4900m-6100m than the higher altitude rated 45 engine.

The test of a VB with a Merlin 45 showed a slightly better climb rate but the rate of climb was ~constant til 16,500ft/5000m being 3240 to 3250(10,000 to 13,000ft) and then dropping to 3020. At 20,000 ft it was 2440fpm. 9lb boost was held from SL to 15,000ft. This is definately not a drop off at 2700m/8800ft, as claimed.

So you don't complain that it is a 45 compared to 50M, the 50 had the same power output as the 45, 1470hp @ 9250ft. The only difference between a Merlin 45 and 50 is the fitting of a "negative g" carburettor and a fuel de-aerator.

climb data from http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spitv.html

faustnik
03-27-2004, 09:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Perhaps Faustnik can say it's me with the spin. Repeat it enough times and it become somebodys' version of truth.

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Neal, I backed off on that! Don't get me fired up again! 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=25)

WWMaxGunz
03-27-2004, 09:21 PM
Okay! CC! Sorry there!


Neal

WWMaxGunz
03-27-2004, 09:33 PM
Ah dahdah you'll have to check (and I think hop may know what was wrote) but Oleg wrote that at least one of the LF's had an 'a' version engine, maybe both. That would be 45a and/or 46a. The difference as explained was that the supercharger impeller(s) were cropped. Whether for faster turning or less load on the engine or both I'm not going to try and say but the suckers were really good at low alts where low is still a nice ways up and not practically just above sea level. Just how not I won't say without text but then it's posted somehwere here in UBI-land. Maybe in the first pages of the How to Outclimb the Spitfire thread....

Again, I'm going off what Oleg posted. I doubt he pulled the info from nowhere or somewhere just as good as that.


Neal

Ivank
03-27-2004, 10:14 PM
Dahdah post (good one too) provided this Vb performance:

"For comparison, the Merlin 46 Spitfire VB (high altitude rated engine)

16,000 2710fpm, boost 8.4
18,000 2730fpm, boost 8.4
20,000 *2550/2780fpm, boost 8.6 (*2850/3000rpm)"

The FB AEP Flight test I detailed earlier provided these figures:

16,400 3000fpm VSI
19,600 2900fpm VSI

These AEP numbers are pretty close, the fpm figures I quote are taken direct from the VSI and are not calculated Vertical speeds from time to height values which would be more accurate.

pourshot
03-27-2004, 10:56 PM
The 50M had both the neg-G carburettor and the crop impeller,reducing the impeller diameter allowed a maximum of +18 pounds boost at only 5900ft and gave a speed of 350mph at this alt

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

dahdah
03-28-2004, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Ah dahdah you'll have to check (and I think hop may know what was wrote) but Oleg wrote that at least one of the LF's had an 'a' version engine, maybe both. That would be 45a and/or 46a. The difference as explained was that the supercharger impeller(s) were cropped. Whether for faster turning or less load on the engine or both I'm not going to try and say but the suckers were really good at low alts where low is still a nice ways up and not practically just above sea level. Just how not I won't say without text but then it's posted somehwere here in UBI-land. Maybe in the first pages of the How to Outclimb the Spitfire thread....

Again, I'm going off what Oleg posted. I doubt he pulled the info from nowhere or somewhere just as good as that.
Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is what the AEP Spitfires are:

Spitfire Mk.Vb (Merlin 45) 1941

This a/c should be a 42 Spitfire, as per Oleg.

Spitfire Mk.Vb (Merlin 46) 1942 clipped wings

This a/c has the high altitude Merlin engine with the increased diameter impellor. Why it has clipped wings is anyones guess.

Spitfire LF.Mk.Vb (Merlin 50) 1943

If this is a LF, then the a/c should be fitted with a M motor.

Spitfire LF.Mk.Vb (Merlin 50) 1944 clipped wings

Why this is a 44 a/c is anyones guess. There was no VBs built after Dec 42. It should have a Merlin M motor installed since the a/c is a LF and be a LF VC.


Now what are these 'a' designations? The motors that had the M designations were the engines with the cropped impellor.(ie 45M, 50M, 55M) There was though a 50A and 55A motor but these were installed in F Vs, not LF Vs. Maybe Hop can give more details on these engines but as they were only installed in F a/c, would say they were 50 and 55 engines with some slight design change.



For those trying to get top speed at low atltitudes with the so-called 'wep' engaged, there was an automatic boost control that would only allow the carb's butterfly valves to not be open fully until the critical altitude was reached.

[This message was edited by dahdah on Sun March 28 2004 at 08:40 AM.]

WWMaxGunz
03-28-2004, 10:37 AM
I must be mistaken which rev letter or at least I can't find a post from Oleg about it. And I did some digging. Merlin 45M then!

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

There's a 9 page thread called Climb result - Bf-Fw190-Spitfire with last post 22-03-04 down now on page 3 that has answers to many issues re-raised here (since they were raised and answered if at least to say it's being looked into in that thread if not before as well...). I guess there's a new thread when the answers in an old one are not to taste? Answers are at least better than none, they ofetn tell us about the sim. Answers there include things like the overheat issue also raised elsewhere since then.


Neal

EDIT - ADD:

Here's a link to data which Oleg pointed to so I assume from his comments that it's satisfactory to him.

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

That's supposed to show the same RAF data Oleg used for AEP Spits, I believe.

Kurfurst__
03-28-2004, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dahdah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Spit is the exact opposite of that. When running at +16 lbs boost, the Spit V`s climb rate is supposed to drop off already at 2700m (LF variants even worser, practically start to drop off just above SL).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that so?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dah-dah / Milo Morai,

if you would have put 1/10th of the energy in reading rather than flaming on a detail... you could spare a lot of typing about +9lbs boost rated altitude. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Well try to read again:

When running at +16 lbs boost, the Spit V`s climb rate is supposed to drop off already at 2700m (LF variants even worser, practically start to drop off just above SL).

*** When running at +16 lbs boost,***

Not +9 lbs boost, dah-dah.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

+16 lbs boost in the Spitfire V with standard engine (not cropped SC one) was impossible to maintain higher than 8800 ft/~2700m.
As shown on this curve : http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878climb.gif

You wouldn`t tell in Il-2. The Spitfire V easily holds the same climb rate up to ten times of that, up to 21 500 ft http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif according to Hop 2002`s climb chart.


If the boost fells, so does power, so does climb rate. If the Spit`s climb rate would resamble the real one, it would start dropping off at 8800ft. http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878climb.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

609IAP_Recon
03-28-2004, 11:30 AM
") the Spits DM can handel far in excess of what the Bf109's can (the fact that Bf109's have weak motors comparativly is something that will never change tho)

2) the G2's 20mm is bugged as it is now against fighters . . . . . its lost power & is back to spitting marshmellows again"

I would have to agree 100% with these comments.

I've had no issue fighting the spitfire - my only frustration has been when I get in a great position, 15m off his tail, splashing him repeatedly with my 109G2 20mm - and nothing significant happens - the spit is tougher than the p47 right now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Salute!

JG50_Recon

----
http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com

Kurfurst__
03-28-2004, 11:40 AM
I did some tests.

Conditions : Spit VB 1941, WEP, 110% power, radiators fully open (exact conditions of real life RAF tests), 100% fuel.

Climb speed 260-270 km/h IAS (as recommended by Ivan, il2center, RAF).

Climb altitude 4000 to 6000m. Crimea map.
Start at 3000m to set perfect trim and steady climb angle. Snapshots to record cocpit instruments.

Note before that +16 lbs is NOT possible to be used over 2700m in real life.

At 4000m, 270 IAS, VSI shows 3900 ft/ min climb ratem +16 boost.

For this altitude, RAF tests show
for Mk VB : 3250 fpm, +9lbs possible/2850RPM
for Mk VC : 3200 fpm, +12lbs mainaiable/3000 RPM



Climb from 4000m to 5000m takes 54 secs : translates 3645 fpm avarage climb rate.

For this altitude, RAF tests show
for Mk VB : 65 seconds needed

At 5000m, IAS = 260 kmh, VSI shows 3850 fpm, +16 lbs maintained in the game

For this altitude, RAF tests show
for Mk VB : 3020 fpm, +7.2 lbs possible/2850RPM
for Mk VC : 2700 fpm, +9.8 lbs mainaiable/3000 RPM

Conclusion of 5000m.
Climbtime 11 sec too fast.
VSI is 1200 fpm too high.
Permissable boost is 6.2 lbs too high.



Climb from 5500m to 6000m takes 28 secs : translates 3515 fpm avarage climb rate.
note : stopper was started to late, sao only last 500m was measured

For this altitude, RAF tests show
for Mk VB : 45 seconds needed = 2666 fpm avarage climb
for Mk VC : 48 seconds needed = 2500 fpm avarage climb

At 6000m, IAS = 260 kmh, VSI shows 2950 fpm, +14 lbs maintained in the game

For this altitude, RAF tests show
for Mk VB : 2440 fpm, +4.6 lbs possible/2850RPM
for Mk VC : 2040 fpm, +5.2 lbs mainaiable/3000 RPM

Conclusion of 6000m.
(500m climb) Climbtime 17-20 sec too fast.
VSI is 500-950 fpm too high.
Permissable boost is 9-10 lbs too high.


Conclusions :

1, Spitfire 1941 can use much higher boost in AEP at high altitudees than it could in real tests (on which FM is supposed to be based)
2, Plane can hold boost to unrealistically high altitudes -&gt; plane has way more power at alt than it should
3, Under normal conditions w/o any tricks, pilots can obtain climb speeds that a Mk V, in no possible configuration, RPM, supercharger type, whater could not hope to get.

The plane is vastly overmodelled, and has WAY better high altitude performance than it ever had. In NO configuration could a MKv obtain such high climb values at altitude.

It should be note the tests were done under most pessimistic condition, radiators being fully open.
Evidence of screenshots can be posted if proves neccesary (that exludes the rantings of dah-dah/Milo Morai as a cause).
But you can do the tests for yourself, too...

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

dahdah
03-28-2004, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Dah-dah / Milo Morai,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst, is this Milo your wannabe lover? The spite you show towards him would make it seem so. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif It is easily understand why he would want nothing to do with you. Went back and read some of your old posts as Vo101 Isegrim. You had some pre-occupation with the anus. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
if you would have put 1/10th of the energy in reading rather than flaming on a detail... you could spare a lot of typing about +9lbs boost rated altitude. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A flame? You would not know what a flame was even if someone lit a match under your arse.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Well try to read again:

When running at +16 lbs boost, the Spit V`s climb rate is supposed to drop off already at 2700m (LF variants even worser, practically start to drop off just above SL).

*** When running at +16 lbs boost,***

Not +9 lbs boost, dah-dah.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

+16 lbs boost in the Spitfire V with standard engine (not cropped SC one) was impossible to maintain higher than 8800 ft/~2700m.
As shown on this curve : http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878climb.gif&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878climb.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)

If you had read the report, you would see that the data I posted is for the same a/c, AA878, a VC, which AEP does not have. At 10,000ft/3049m the boost is at 15lb boost in climb(Table I) - big deal, 1 less pound(less 0.07ata) - http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif but at 13,000ft/4000m is at 16lb boost for level speed(Table III). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Now what is this bs about 8800ft?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If the boost fells, so does power, so does climb rate. If the Spit`s climb rate would resamble the real one, it would start dropping off at 8800ft. http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878climb.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fells? Do you mean falls? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif As can be seen, and if you could read, your statement was wrong for the M motor, with the cropped impellor, had a slightly better climb rate, well after you say it should be suffocating. In fact, you are so full of it since W3228's(50M) climb rate was not surpassed by AA878(45) until 22,000ft. All your blathering because of your inability to read.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

This spiteful paranoia you have blinds you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

[This message was edited by dahdah on Sun March 28 2004 at 04:05 PM.]

FW190fan
03-28-2004, 06:22 PM
One has to wonder how many different user names Milo-Morai can turn into mud. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

He must hold some kind of record.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

dahdah
03-29-2004, 09:57 AM
Would you mind telling me who this Milo is Fw190fan. You, Magister Ludi and Kurfurst have one big hate on for him. Why is that.

WWMaxGunz
03-29-2004, 09:59 AM
Opposite sides of different coins?

Kurfurst__
03-31-2004, 12:23 PM
Now how about a bump for today ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...