Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

46 Excellent

About EC_5/25_Corsair

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

643 profile views
  1. Time for them to switch then!
  2. They gave some good news a couple of months ago. Not every step of game/mod development is public news worthy, trust me. I wouldn't worry about it.
  3. Hi guys, just a message to share my hopes and wish you the best for your project. I guess I'll have to visit the Ilmavoimamuseo and try it out in their sim cockpit once it's done. Paljon kiitoksia työstänne!
  4. On the "settled" and "WEP doc requests" bit: does it regard the 601s or the 605A? On the 605A/G-6, it is indeed important to underline the time frame, and the two aspects of the WEP use on it: - complete ban of the 1,42 ata boost use, with provisional 1 minute limit (supposedly never enforced because the 1,42 ata setting simply was not allowed on the aircraft with manuals describing this provisional time limit) - use of the 1,42 ata setting allowed, with no time limit mentioned on the manuals for aircraft with cleared 1,42 ata. Now, it does not mean the engine is invincible, but limitations call for more complex modelling rather that this provisional time limit that was laid down in the context of the setting being banned entirely. The main argument is, it is nonsensical to apply a strict provisional limit that was written at the time the setting was not cleared, to aircraft in which the setting is cleared with no quoted strict limit of use in their manuals. That shift between ban and clearance of the 1,42 ata setting happened some time from mid 1943. It also implies that the fleet was mixed: some 605As were cleared, some other were not: there is a 1944 manual for a G-6/R2 (IIRC) with 1,42 ata ban and the provisional limit, but manuals from late 1943 with 1,42 ata cleared and no time limit. I will post later the manuals underlining both these aspects. One solution would be to add a DB 605A engine modification with the 1,42 ata setting cleared. Without the modification, it would be limited to 1,30 ata. This would allow to represent more accurately both the evolution in time regarding the 1,42 ata setting, and the fact that the engine fleet was mixed after the 1,42 ata setting was cleared some time around mid 1943. Something similar is done for the La-5: the base plane is equipped with the M-82, with a modification to replace it with the M-82F, namely with improved cooling, and lifted strict time limit. At least, that's how I understand and see the issue. Any remark or disagreement? Also, I didn't get quite into Il-2 since the addition of the G-14 and the K-4. How are their WEP modeled, and is there anything problematic about it? (beyond the fact that we are in need of a better engine extreme conditions modelling wrt time limits)
  5. Bold text is more than necessary since after dozens of pages, many do not seem to understand black and white text, i.e. on the 109 manuals... Where did I say that? Did you read my whole post? I selected the parts you missed. Fumes explains very well while a hard limit is a very poor feature, even as a stop gap. I shall also modify my post, "satisfactory" meaning being "temporarily satisfactory".
  6. It actually is quite unreasonable since autumn 1943 flight manuals mention the 1,42 setting allowance *without time limit whatsoever*. There is no reason why these documents would omit such an important engine management information for the pilot. Now I'm not saying the engine shouldn't be damaged from abuse. The thing is, this hard time limit is nonsense and unsupported for 109 G/DB 605 with the 1,42 ata setting allowed, as it was gradually from mid 43 One modification at 1,30 and another at 1,42 without limit as currently implemented (like La-5(F)) would lay out a temporarily satisfactory basis while the devs develop a more satisfactory engine damage model.
  7. Your reasoning looks like cherrypicking. Your document shows a ban of the 1,42 ata setting (ist blockiert). ⇒ The time limit is not a factor since it was purely banned. There is no time limit to enforce if the setting is blocked! There are on the other hand evidences from autumn '43 mentioning no ban, nor time limit. Why would these manuals omit such a crucial limitation for the pilot? Why enforce one single setting when multiple ones were around at the same time? Both settings co-existed, it is a fact. The best solution would be, IMO and in the similar fashion of the La-5 and the M-82F, to propose a Bf 109 G modification for DB 605 with & without the 1,42 ata ban. But no nonsensical hard time limit which was never enforced when the setting was allowed...
  8. Can you please, I don't know, actually read the manual.... For DB 605, the 1 minute limit was never applied because pre-mid '43 the setting was banned. On later manuals (post-mid '43), the setting was allowed (read: not banned anymore), and there was no time limit. I mean, we've gone thouroughly through all this since a couple of months now. That kind of post assessing stuff without even looking closely into what is written on the documents you present as evidence doesn't help much.
  9. Well for that reason they could have gone IL-2 1946-like and make a 'Bf 109 G-2 late (1,42 ata)'. .. well I'm glad they didn't. But my point is both G-2 and G-4 (w/ the same engine, DB 605 A) were concerned by the 1,42 ata boost bans and clearance. I wish they would have gone the same way than they did with the La-5 w/ M-82(F) and propose both banned and cleared boost engines as a modification. It's a shame to have the G-2 blocked some time in early 1943 when we know that a bit later and possibly within BOK timeframe it was cleared for 1,42 ata. Similarly, it's a shame to have only a depiction of the G-4 w/ 1,42 ata DB 605 A while it was not necessarily cleared for it in earlier in '43.
  10. What kind of data do they look for regarding the VDM prop ? I might have access to archived (Finnish) documentation with some on the VDM, and my Russian is too rusty to decipher what they need (and Google Translate might be misleading).
  11. the whole (valid) point of this thread is that the 1 minute figure, the 1, is nonsense.. and we are not talking about "DB60x", as you seem to incorrectly generalize.. but the 605 A specifically. I have not yet dug into the 601 characteristics and how it operated to have an opinion on it, although it appears it was more restricted on boost power than its later brother. whether an temporary removal awaiting an accurate engine model is a wet dream or not is your very own judgement.. it does not invalidate the fact that it would be the best way to get rid of this unsatisfactory current model. I'm not looking for a permanent remove of engine limitation, at all (as I previously stated). But to keep and/or tweak the current model as you suggest will only bring it further away from what it should be and would be a waste of ressources. and I still hope the whole DB 605 A family (thus all the current G ingame, and the upcoming G-6) should get an engine mod to either allow or completely ban the 1,42 ata boost setting, in the same way they added the M-82F modification - but this is a separate issue from the 1 minute discussion.
  12. No, a tracer round is merely a standard round for a small tracing pyrotechnic charge. They are as destructive as standard ammo (i.e. API vs API-T).
  13. It does a job, but it's definitely not a marvel of precision.
  14. Of course. But definitely not in the fashion that is currently implemented.
  • Create New...