Jump to content

Venturi

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    1150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

360 Excellent

About Venturi

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Southern California
  • Interests
    "Now the chief limitation (apart from mechanical ones) was detonation at high boost pressures." A.C.Lovesy, Rolls-Royce

Recent Profile Visitors

2101 profile views
  1. Venturi

    Thread to gather your suggestions

    Graphical, Interior display - P39 artificial horizon always displays "caged" Display "caged" should be removed from gauge when aircraft starts up...
  2. Venturi

    Thoughts on the P39...

    Yes, there are. Just not in the documents the devs chose for now.
  3. Venturi

    DM Test: P-47 vs 37mm and 20mm Flak

    For an engine like the R-2800 to be instantly stopped, the shell would need to directly impact the engine block and cause severe structural damage to major reciprocating parts: Not something I would necessarily expect from a HE shell impacting the skin or outer engine components first. Fragments would be unlikely to penetrate the engine block. There is an ancedotal story of a P-47 from Gabreski's squadron, if I recall, of a plane returning from a combat mission over Europe. The ground crew noted afterwards that it had sustained a hit from an armor piercing 20mm shell in the engine, which had penetrated one of the cylinders. The R2800 had continued running, although the shell was bounced round inside the cylinder by the piston at ~2500rpm, the remainder of the mission: The pilot had not noticed too much wrong. Nice tests. 👍
  4. From a realism standpoint, Detonation is the simple answer to these engine timer limits discussions. It has been a problem for at least a decade or longer in WW2 sims. IN GAME TERMS, Pilots should not have a timer unless you run into detonation territory of manifold pressure, RPM, and mix. Detonation was the true limiting factor of WW2 engine longevity IN A SINGLE SORTIE. Engine wear occurred over many sorties and thus cannot be easily implemented in a game environment like IL-2 BOx, given the devs' philosophy of "new plane every time". The performance limit that detonation imposes, is why intake manifold water/alcohol injection was invented in the first place... to delay the onset of detonation and thus be able to increase manifold pressure (power) higher than the fuel being used would otherwise permit. The problem... implementing such a detonation system essentially requires fleshing out a large aspect of the core simulation of IL-2. So it would require a lot of work from the devs considering the expansive number of aircraft in IL-2 BOx. A few factors they would need to implement for such a model to be satisfactory to the devs' own standards, I presume: Advantages: 1. Super conservative pilot's manuals which affect some aircraft much more than others, are eliminated as a consideration. Historical comparative performances are restored without strange FM tweaking. 2. Fuels can be adjusted in aircraft options given the timeframe the map is on, as an "aircraft modification". 3. Pilot behavior becomes more historical re: engine management, without tedious and immersion-breaking "timer watcher", "gamey-ness" is reduced.
  5. Can we see a simliar 7.5hr test document of 1.98 ata for the DB605? Actually...
  6. Venturi

    What will counter the K4 up high?

    But does this boost level have a scenario in which it is historical?
  7. Venturi

    Developer Diary 210 - Discussion

    Cheers Devs. A hard project to continue with a sometimes unreasonable customer base. Looking forward to evaluating the engine fundamentals of the P47.
  8. I find it to be one of if not the best attack aircraft in the game. It's ability to make quick turns at low airspeeds and almost hover over the battlefield is unmatched. If the centerline high velocity 30mm cannon actually performed as it should against tanks, it would be great. It does suck against anything other than tanks, however. The bomb load is pathetic.
  9. On the other hand, they modeled the tail of the P40E way too large, and it was pointed out, and wasn't fixed. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/24637-p-40-external-3d-model/?tab=comments#comment-379687
  10. Anything with a turbocharger will add an additional layer of complexity to engine management as compared vis a vis with a purely supercharged aircraft. Although vastly different in some ways from a P47, see the B17 manuals floating around out there - regarding turbo parameters and management. I agree with Farky that when comparing the -47 to the -38, the only real difference in management is the fact that all engine controls and gauges are duplicated on the -38. However, it's benign handling characteristics, due to the prop rotation cancellation - a huge deal - more than offsets that additional complexity to me.
  11. The days of Hartmanning are over.
  12. Venturi

    SpitIX FM and DM bugs.

    The only two questions that should be asked here are these: 1. Can the aircraft sustain enough lift with the remaining wing area to stay aloft, and can it sustain enough speed to maintain the lift needed? 2. Is the remaining aileron able to counteract the asymmetrical lift from the lost wing area? If the two answers above are yes, then what you're seeing in the video is accurate, and changing it to fit assumptions is creating inaccuracy...
  13. Venturi

    Can't boil the water in the Spit IX :-)

    ... and some people do not know what a NEGATIVE, versus a POSITIVE PEC means...
  14. Imagine... WIKI: "There were two P-38Ks developed from 1942 to 1943, one official and one an internal Lockheed experiment. The first was actually a battered RP-38E "piggyback" test mule previously used by Lockheed to test the P-38J chin intercooler installation, now fitted with paddle-bladed "high activity" Hamilton Standard Hydromatic propellers similar to those used on the P-47. The new propellers required spinners of greater diameter, and the mule's crude, hand-formed sheet steel cowlings were further stretched to blend the spinners into the nacelles. It retained its "piggyback" configuration that allowed an observer to ride behind the pilot. With Lockheed's AAF representative as a passenger and the maneuvering flap deployed to offset Army Hot Day conditions, the old "K-Mule" still climbed to 45,000 feet (14,000 m). With a fresh coat of paint covering its crude hand-formed steel cowlings, this RP-38E acts as stand-in for the "P-38K-1-LO" in the model's only picture.[115] The 12th G model originally set aside as a P-38J prototype was re-designated P-38K-1-LO and fitted with the aforementioned paddle-blade propellers and new Allison V-1710-75/77 (F15R/L) powerplants rated at 1,875 bhp (1,398 kW) at War Emergency Power. These engines were geared 2.36 to 1, unlike the standard P-38 ratio of 2 to 1. The AAF took delivery in September 1943, at Eglin Field. In tests, the P-38K-1 achieved 432 mph (695 km/h) at military power and was predicted to exceed 450 mph (720 km/h) at War Emergency Power with a similar increase in load and range. The initial climb rate was 4,800 ft (1,500 m)/min and the ceiling was 46,000 ft (14,000 m). It reached 20,000 ft (6,100 m) in five minutes flat; this with a coat of camouflage paint which added weight and drag. Although it was judged superior in climb and speed to the latest and best fighters from all AAF manufacturers, the War Production Board refused to authorize P-38K production due to the two-to-three-week interruption in production necessary to implement cowling modifications for the revised spinners and higher thrust line.[115] Some have also doubted Allison's ability to deliver the F15 engine in quantity.[116] As promising as it had looked, the P-38K project came to a halt."
  15. Venturi

    Bf 109 G14 v K4

    Gotta love that Combat MIssion Mg42 rate of fire though.
×