Spit 25Lbs

[Fran13]

How much does climb? Thanks!

 

 

[[DBS]Browning]

It climbs all the way up.

 

Do you mean climb rate or maximum altitude?

[Fran13]

I was wondering about climb rates, just to compare with 190/109.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

7 hours ago, Fran13 said:

I was wondering about climb rates, just to compare with 190/109.

It is the quickest climbing plane in the game by a good margin. Sheriff tested the climb rates


The planes are at 50% fuel (except the P-51 which is less loaded at around 35%). The data is measured with Tacview so the absolute number might not be exactly like that in game (since it extrapolates data based on coordinates rather than the game sending it the speed/climb values), but for comparing relative performance it's reliable.

Edited October 2, 2019 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[GP*]

2 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

It is the quickest climbing plane in the game by a good margin. Sheriff tested the climb rates


The planes are at 50% fuel (except the P-51 which is lighter at around 35%). The data is measured with Tacview so the absolute number might not be exactly like that in game (since it extrapolates data based on coordinates rather than the game sending it the speed/climb values), but for comparing relative performance it's reliable.

Wow, what a beast...

 

Any chance you have similar charts for max speed and cruise speed? 

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

How long can it sustain 25lb boost before engine breaks? That is the bigger question.

[CountZero]

it lasts 5min, and then you have to fly either on combat or continuous for 15min to fully recharge this 5min of emergancy power.

So its 1 to 3 ratio, compared to 1 to 1 ratio on 1.98k4 where 10min of emergancy power gets recharged in 10min flying on combat or continuous. 

Seams strange for something like recharg time, that didnt exist in real world so no reason for it to be so differant, to be up to 3 time longer on one airplane then its on other, recharg time should be same ratio for all airplanes.

[Jade_Monkey]

9 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

It climbs all the way up.

 

Do you mean climb rate or maximum altitude?

 

All the way to 11?

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

12 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

it lasts 5min, and then you have to fly either on combat or continuous for 15min to fully recharge this 5min of emergancy power.

So its 1 to 3 ratio, compared to 1 to 1 ratio on 1.98k4 where 10min of emergancy power gets recharged in 10min flying on combat or continuous. 

Seams strange for something like recharg time, that didnt exist in real world so no reason for it to be so differant, to be up to 3 time longer on one airplane then its on other, recharg time should be same ratio for all airplanes.

 

Do you have experience with how long those engines could be run max power in real life? Maybe high oil pressures broke seals after a certain time in certain engines? Maybe higher compression for too long in certain engines cause pistons to develope overheated spots on the face which could cause melting? Maybe certain engines had a longer stroke so higher compression and higher RPMs wore on the crank more than on engines with a shorter stroke? Lots of stuff comes into play and I think you are discrediting the devs a lot more over this feature. I highly doubt they would randomly assign timers to these planes. 

17 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

it lasts 5min, and then you have to fly either on combat or continuous for 15min to fully recharge this 5min of emergancy power.

So its 1 to 3 ratio, compared to 1 to 1 ratio on 1.98k4 where 10min of emergancy power gets recharged in 10min flying on combat or continuous. 

Seams strange for something like recharg time, that didnt exist in real world so no reason for it to be so differant, to be up to 3 time longer on one airplane then its on other, recharg time should be same ratio for all airplanes.

 

Also I think you must remember that German boost values were created by MW35 or MW50 injection and that the supercharger was hydraulically coupled. It is a much different system than the allied aircraft if I'm not mistaken.

[HR_Zunzun]

Tempest climb rate in this chart seems low compared to this test.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tp.html

At 9lbs and 11400lbs of take off weight it was climbing at 4380ft/min (22.25m/sec).

In the game (in this chart)  it does the same, 22m\sec, while lighter (half fuel) and on 11lbs.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

28 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Tempest climb rate in this chart seems low compared to this test.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tp.html

At 9lbs and 11400lbs of take off weight it was climbing at 4380ft/min (22.25m/sec).

In the game (in this chart)  it does the same, 22m\sec, while lighter (half fuel) and on 11lbs.

Sheriff's chart doesn't list sea level climb rate, it starts at 1000 meters altitude, so it should be compared roughly to the 3500 ft value of 3800 ft/min (19 m/s). That being said the Tacview data may not be 1:1 to the sim. Also in the report it says the boost regulator malfunctioned, and you can see +9 boost doesn't even have critical altitude above sea level, it just starts decaying. So it shouldn't be considered reliable for Tempest climb performance.

[HR_Zunzun]

1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Sheriff's chart doesn't list sea level climb rate, it starts at 1000 meters altitude, so it should be compared roughly to the 3500 ft value of 3800 ft/min (19 m/s). That being said the Tacview data may not be 1:1 to the sim. Also in the report it says the boost regulator malfunctioned, and you can see +9 boost doesn't even have critical altitude above sea level, it just starts decaying. So it shouldn't be considered reliable for Tempest climb performance.

 

My bad. I miss the starting altitude. Now makes more sense.

 

Regarding the boost control failure, it says only affected the speed test (didn't mention the climb test). In any case, if anything , I understand would be underestimating the results (gave less boost). Wouldn't it? Not that it would change much considering how it was unable to maintain boost as getting higher.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

3 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

All the way to 11?

 

I thought 10 was the highest possible?

[Cybermat47]

59 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

I thought 10 was the highest possible?

 

No, that’s just the highest starting altitude in the QMB.

[E69_geramos109]

4 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

it lasts 5min, and then you have to fly either on combat or continuous for 15min to fully recharge this 5min of emergancy power.

So its 1 to 3 ratio, compared to 1 to 1 ratio on 1.98k4 where 10min of emergancy power gets recharged in 10min flying on combat or continuous. 

Seams strange for something like recharg time, that didnt exist in real world so no reason for it to be so differant, to be up to 3 time longer on one airplane then its on other, recharg time should be same ratio for all airplanes.

I think this recharguing time with mw50 was taken from the manual. Cant tell about the 25lb but the normal IX lasted 7 mins to me at full power and the  Mw50 109s just broke lasted the 10 mim. 

[BraveSirRobin]

15 minutes ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

 

No, that’s just the highest starting altitude in the QMB.

 

Watch "This is Spinal Tap" and you'll get the joke.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Funny how no-one questions the too high RoC of the +25lbs Spitifre. Not even British tests on Mk.IX (BS543) show anywhere near 31m/s, even less on the JL165. Maximum achieved climb with radiators open from sealevel up to 500ft(FTH) was 25.8m/s. After that it drops to 24.6m/s and sharper with altitude increase. This while using the M.S. gear on the engine and +25lbs boost. When using F.S. gear and radiators closed maximum climb rate is roughly 24m/s up to 11400ft(FTH), after it drops. With radiators open the RoC is 21.5m/s at SL peaking out at 22.1m/s at 11400ft(FTH). Then dropping again. All this data from British test documents recorded between november 1943 to January 1944 using 150oct fuel.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

46 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

 Funny how no-one questions the too high RoC of the +25lbs Spitifre. Not even British tests on Mk.IX (BS543) show anywhere near 31m/s, even less on the JL165. Maximum achieved climb with radiators open from sealevel up to 500ft(FTH) was 25.8m/s. After that it drops to 24.6m/s and sharper with altitude increase. This while using the M.S. gear on the engine and +25lbs boost. When using F.S. gear and radiators closed maximum climb rate is roughly 24m/s up to 11400ft(FTH), after it drops. With radiators open the RoC is 21.5m/s at SL peaking out at 22.1m/s at 11400ft(FTH). Then dropping again. All this data from British test documents recorded between november 1943 to January 1944 using 150oct fuel.

As I said earlier the absolute values could get some distortions because of Tacview not getting the flight data from the game, but having to extrapolate it from coordinates. You can see a similar effect with the Bf 109s, according to one of Kurfurst's charts the G-14 should be doing 23,5 m/s and the K-4 at 1.8 ata around 22,4 m/s, at 1000 meters; but with Sherrif's Tacview test they climb at 27,6 m/s and 27,3 m/s respectively.

About the real climbrate, there is one chart showing 27.2 m/s at 3k feet looks like from that JL165 plane you mentioned, in a similar weight configuration to our LF Mk IXe at half fuel, don't know about radiator configuration.

 

Edited October 3, 2019 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Talon_]

7 hours ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

How long can it sustain 25lb boost before engine breaks? That is the bigger question.

 

5 minutes. Engine modes in IL-2 are based on cumulative timers.

[CountZero]

6 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

I think this recharguing time with mw50 was taken from the manual. Cant tell about the 25lb but the normal IX lasted 7 mins to me at full power and the  Mw50 109s just broke lasted the 10 mim. 

Turn on instrument panel in realisam settings so you can see messages when timer expired and when is recharged, its always 5min, that extra time is random on any airplane, sometimes it brkes exactly when timer is expired sometimes it can last few min longer. 

Thats why its important to be able to see techchat messages that inform you when exactly timer expired so player know hes now in random failuer time. But still thouse messages are buged and only visable when that instrument panel is on. In game where engines will blow out after timer is expired its important that messages informing player are visable in all techchat, as in real thouse timers were not deadly for engine so pilots didnt have to count min and sec like its in game where if you go over limits your engines brake.

Edited October 3, 2019 by 77.CountZero

[FTC_Riksen]

12 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

it lasts 5min, and then you have to fly either on combat or continuous for 15min to fully recharge this 5min of emergancy power.

So its 1 to 3 ratio, compared to 1 to 1 ratio on 1.98k4 where 10min of emergancy power gets recharged in 10min flying on combat or continuous. 

Seams strange for something like recharg time, that didnt exist in real world so no reason for it to be so differant, to be up to 3 time longer on one airplane then its on other, recharg time should be same ratio for all airplanes.

 

"Recharge" time did exist for the MW50 system, at least, in the 109. The system can be used continuously for 10 min but needs, at least, 5 min interval between uses. You should therefore be able to reuse it after the interval and as long as you still have the MW50 in the aircraft.

[Hawk-2a]

You can use MW50 3 times for 10 minutes. After each use, the engine should run at combat mode or lower for 10 minutes.

keep an eye on the Mw50 pressure gauge and make sure when u use it, that pressure is above 0.5 on the scale. If it drops, do not use MW50. Also don‘t use it above 6k altitude

 

after 3 uses of 10 minutes straight, your Mw50 tank is dry.

the k4 has an instrument for pressure and Liters left and the g14 only has a pressure gauge

Edited October 3, 2019 by =FC=SteelFalcon

[Fran13]

So the +25 climbs better than any other fighter, is that historically accurate?

[Talon_]

39 minutes ago, Fran13 said:

So the +25 climbs better than any other fighter, is that historically accurate?

 

Absolutely. Until we get a Spitfire XIV on +21lbs anyway ?

[CUJO_1970]

3 hours ago, Fran13 said:

So the +25 climbs better than any other fighter, is that historically accurate?

 

If the chart posted is accurate, the Spit +25 is over modeled by a good margin when compared to historic tests.

 

Interestingly, Spitfire fans seem to have suddenly lost interest in historical accuracy ?

[MiloMorai]

How big of a margin?

 

At 0ft it is 5740f/m.

[Legioneod]

8 hours ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

"Recharge" time did exist for the MW50 system, at least, in the 109. The system can be used continuously for 10 min but needs, at least, 5 min interval between uses. You should therefore be able to reuse it after the interval and as long as you still have the MW50 in the aircraft.

Same could be said for the P-47 since it had 15 min of water injection yet we cannot do this in-game.

Sorry for the OT.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Legioneod

[FTC_Riksen]

Just now, Legioneod said:

Same could be said for the P-47 since it had 15 min of water injection yet we cannot do this in-game.

 

I never argued about the P47 as I do not know much about the plane. If you read my post above, I was explaining why we have those numbers in the Bf-109 K4 which are actually in its manual of operation and are not just random numbers. If there is such operational limits for other planes and those are described in their manuals then I'm also in favour of having them in game.

[Jade_Monkey]

16 hours ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

 

No, that’s just the highest starting altitude in the QMB.

https://youtu.be/uMSV4OteqBE

[PainGod85]

On 10/3/2019 at 6:53 PM, CUJO_1970 said:

 

If the chart posted is accurate, the Spit +25 is over modeled by a good margin when compared to historic tests.

 

Interestingly, Spitfire fans seem to have suddenly lost interest in historical accuracy ?

 

Except that every plane overclimbs in these graphs as the implementation of Tacview introduces an error margin, and that those historical tests were usually conducted with full internal fuel while @-=PHX=-SuperEtendard stated every plane except the P-51D was flown @50% fuel.

 

But why care about portraying facts accurately when they might as well be distorted to fit your narrative, right?

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 @PainGod85. Quite a margin if 10m/s over historical values no matter how you look at it. The 50% fuel or less trick was what USA did when marketing the Curtiss Hawk 75A. They took a plane that was stripped of paint, guns, radios, safety equipment, armor etc. and fueled just enough so it could do the climg tests and land. Engine was a write off afterwards. These values are in the marketing brochures of the Hawk. When tested with paint, guns etc. the values differed quite a bit from what was told in the said brochure. This was argued and proven correct ages ago over at WW2 Online where Hawk was modelled after some let´s say optimistic values. I dare you to present any data that says a Spitfire +25lbs climbed over 30m/s or even 27m/s. There was not a single plane in WW2 that could achieve that, not the dear Spitfire or even 109K-4. Quite tired of the "within a margin(fitting your own narrative)" and other excuses with the evident bashing of being a Luftwhiner or anything. I could not care less how a plane performs as long as it does it within historical values, not exceeding them with tens of percents.

Edited October 9, 2019 by LLv34_Flanker

[JtD]

12 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

I dare you to present any data that says a Spitfire +25lbs climbed over 30m/s or even 27m/s.

 

Here you go.

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165-rr-climb.jpg

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Earlier in the test with the other Spitfire543  there was a mention that climb on this 165 was estimated. At least the test I read from same page. And here a chart of the JL165

Edited October 9, 2019 by LLv34_Flanker

[PainGod85]

7 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

 Earlier in the test with the other Spitfire543  there was a mention that climb on this 165 was estimated. At least the test I read from same page.

 

Climb at +18 PSI was estimated from real data obtained from flying the plane at +25 PSI.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html

E: Also, this test proves radiator flaps in FS gear need not be open at all to still provide adequate cooling for the engine.

 

As all values have been corrected to 95% of the takeoff weight, climb performance at altitude would actually still be a bit higher, too.

Edited October 9, 2019 by PainGod85

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 While looking at the chart it seems the Spitfire JL165 climbs from about 4200ft/min with radiator open to 4670ft/min radiators closed at FS gear. And the FTH 11400ft has the peak climb 4250/4700ft/min after it dops. MS gear gives a boost in climb up to 3000ft or around 1km. After that FS gear is better with rads closed and up to 5000ft / about 1600m with radiators open. I think the 31m/s is pretty much debunked and can be forgotten.

[PainGod85]

25 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

 While looking at the chart it seems the Spitfire JL165 climbs from about 4200ft/min with radiator open to 4670ft/min radiators closed at FS gear. And the FTH 11400ft has the peak climb 4250/4700ft/min after it dops. MS gear gives a boost in climb up to 3000ft or around 1km. After that FS gear is better with rads closed and up to 5000ft / about 1600m with radiators open. I think the 31m/s is pretty much debunked and can be forgotten.

 

You brought up that mythical 31 m/s figure as a point of criticism on a graph where planes were flown at substantially less than their weight with full internal fuel. You started arguing about how that just wasn't feasible without appreciating all the facts pertaining to said graph.

 

And it seems you appear to have an issue understanding that lower wing loading on the same airframe producing the same amount of power by the same means invariably translates to proportionally higher rate of climb at the same CAS, both due to higher p/w ratio as well as a reduction in alpha and thus lift induced drag.

Edited October 9, 2019 by PainGod85

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 @PainGod85 Whatever floats your boat I brought it up as not a single one here questioned the performance of the Spitfire +25lbs nor produced verified data it could ever achieve that, not even close. As long as it overperforms all is good, right? Maybe devs should add a feature like IL-2 Compare was in the original IL-2? Would lessen the waah waah and bring the discussion to a tolerable level with numbers in plain sight. Agree?

[312_JS]

32 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

 @PainGod85 Whatever floats your boat I brought it up as not a single one here questioned the performance of the Spitfire +25lbs nor produced verified data it could ever achieve that, not even close. As long as it overperforms all is good, right? Maybe devs should add a feature like IL-2 Compare was in the original IL-2? Would lessen the waah waah and bring the discussion to a tolerable level with numbers in plain sight. Agree?

Nobody questioned the graph, because everybody knew it's not reliable due to the way it was created (Tacview, 50% fuel, etc.).
Stop accusing everyone of being biassed.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

3 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

 While looking at the chart it seems the Spitfire JL165 climbs from about 4200ft/min with radiator open to 4670ft/min radiators closed at FS gear. And the FTH 11400ft has the peak climb 4250/4700ft/min after it dops. MS gear gives a boost in climb up to 3000ft or around 1km. After that FS gear is better with rads closed and up to 5000ft / about 1600m with radiators open. I think the 31m/s is pretty much debunked and can be forgotten.

Jesus christ the cope.

4 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

I dare you to present any data that says a Spitfire +25lbs climbed over 30m/s or even 27m/s. There was not a single plane in WW2 that could achieve that, not the dear Spitfire or even 109K-4. 

I love how you changed your tone to 31 m/s when you got absolutely humiliated on the 25lbs Spitfire Mk IX not being able to do 27-30 m/s

Just to be clear

JL.165 tested by Rolls Royce climbed at 5700 fpm which is 29m/s with radiators closed

JL.165 tested slightly later by A&AEE did 5100 fpm with radiators opened, adding 415 fpm based on the second supercharger stage which tested both closed and open, means that with closed radiators the climb rate would be 5515 fpm which is 28m/s near sea level

As A&AEE concludes, these results are in agreement.

 

Furthermore what A&AEE write is that JL165 is a rather underperforming example compared to other Mk IX spitfires, with direct comparison to BS.543

BS.543 is 20 mph faster then JL165 and at low altitude has a climbrate of 4700 fpm, compared to 4200 fpm at 18lbs boost. If we add on top another 500ft, to represent a better produced/conditioned Spitfire Mk IX at 25lbs boost, we get over 6000 fpm which is 30.5 m/s

Edited October 9, 2019 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

[PainGod85]

1 hour ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

Jesus christ the cope.

I love how you changed your tone to 31 m/s when you got absolutely humiliated on the 25lbs Spitfire Mk IX not being able to do 27-30 m/s

Just to be clear

JL.165 tested by Rolls Royce climbed at 5700 fpm which is 29m/s with radiators closed

JL.165 tested slightly later by A&AEE did 5100 fpm with radiators opened, adding 415 fpm based on the second supercharger stage which tested both closed and open, means that with closed radiators the climb rate would be 5515 fpm which is 28m/s near sea level

As A&AEE concludes, these results are in agreement.

 

Furthermore what A&AEE write is that JL165 is a rather underperforming example compared to other Mk IX spitfires, with direct comparison to BS.543

BS.543 is 20 mph faster then JL165 and at low altitude has a climbrate of 4700 fpm, compared to 4200 fpm at 18lbs boost. If we add on top another 500ft, to represent a better produced/conditioned Spitfire Mk IX at 25lbs boost, we get over 6000 fpm which is 30.5 m/s

 

I unliked your post just so I could like it again.