[Aymar_Mauri]

The Spit V is off because they modelled the Russian ones, running on 87-octane fuel. The British Spit V ran on 100.

As with most planes' engines during the war, the MkV benefited from a power upgrade in 1942. Therefore, both climb and speed would be affected. The same would happen in case of a Russian (87 octane fuel) vs a British (100 octane fuel) model. Higher octane > higher compression ratio > higher power.

If what you mentioned is correct, the in-game model would have the 87 octane fuel MkV speed and climb rate. This does not happen.

If they wanted to model the 100 octane fuel MkV it would have the speed and climb rate of an 100 octane MkV model. This does not happen either.

What we have in-game is a MkV with the climb rate of the 1942 model (comparable to the 100 octane fuel British model) and the speed of the 1941 model (comparable to the 87 octane fuel Russian model). In no way is this accurate.

It is almost has if the in-game MkV is a 1941 version (or a Russian 87 octane fuel model) but with less weight than in RL, therefore the incorrect optmistic climb rate.

To have any historical accuracy, we would need two new slots for a 1941 (or Russian 87 octane fuel) and 1942 (British 100 octane fuel) Spit MkV.

oh come on, do you know how many engines the spitfire had? Im counting 20 vairiants(excluding MerlinII special 2,160hp and 27lb boost) BEFORE the introduction of the Merlin 61. (production period 1942-43) so how can you base any kind of comment on th climbing rate on a mk5 whether it had 85 or 150 octane? As far as im aware a typical octane for a spitfire was 100 anyway, so why the russions would want to put in lower grade fuel is beyond me, so as for oleg modelling it on russion version which were the British cast offs, in my opinion is poppycock. Speed for best climbing rate in spitfire is 170mph, try that for starters if your struggling. Infact gaining best climbing rate was not just a question of banging on full throttle you had to take into consideration certyain factors including delaying supercharger gear change
As for turning circles how can you come up with that conclusion? It mistifies me how anyone can say anything remotly judgemental on the characteristics of a warbird? can you back this up with hard evidence? I personnally know quite a lot about spitfires/variants etc etc but i could not say the turning circle was out by 1/2second on a specific variant so how could you say "it turns a little too good" ? please if you dont mind i would like to see your evidence..One known fact was that the newer versions of the spitfire carried more fuel and ammo etc and were generally heavier therefore were unable to turn as good.

Leave the spit alone. she is fine as she is

Ok. I think you're misleading your anger. Let's reply in detail...

• 1) I wasn't the one that said Oleg used the Russian specs for the Spit. rossmum did.
  
  2) I wasn't the one that claimed the Spit used 87 or 100 octanes fuel. rossmum did.
  
  I just used his reply to make an example of the performance influence of more powerful engines in similar airplane chassis. I do admit that I made generalizations to get my point across.
  
  3) Yes, I'm aware of the many, many versions of Merlin and Griffon that powered the Spits. I have books and warbird magazines detailing such info.
  
  4) The comments about the performance of the in-game MkV Spit are based on several years of tests and discussions with Crump (Kettenhunde), Tagert, Kurfurst, FatCat 99, Faustnik and alike in forums like the The Focke-Wulf Consortium, UBI, SimHQ, etc...
  
  Charts for climb rates and speeds for all altitudes for the several versions of the Spit, FW190, Mustang, Bf109, P-47, P-38, etc... were produced and compared. It became a general consensus that the MkV Spit had incongruent performance figures and that the game engine benefited T&B orientated planes, in regard to energy retention, much more than B&Z orientated ones.