Jump to content

Venturi

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    1277
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

450 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

3092 profile views
  1. The P-40s in Mediterranean Air War by Shores give good account of fighter on fighter combat in 1942. If you read a couple hundred pages of detailed daily combat accounts, German 109Fs were always at 15,000' plus - and dove on the P-40s which were lower (due to superchargers). The 109s who fought on even terms didn't have a clear advantage. The P-40s and Hurricanes had equivalent or better maneuverability in a dogfight. The favored German tactic - which makes sense - was for them to dive in, shoot, climb back up. Kind of like a certain simulator. They didn't want to
  2. Yes, you're right. That was my thread. The major problem is that the oleo legs are too long when the bird is on the ground. This results in too much of a "nose up" of the P-40. The oleo legs should be almost completely compressed.
  3. When FM improvements in realism are made, to avoid pilots thinking it is a bug rather than a feature, official explanation should be provided and multiple FMs adjusted simultaneously.
  4. Bomb effectiveness drops non-linearly and rapidly with range. Buildings are surprisingly resilient. This is why firebombing was performed after HE bombs. The fires did far more damage than the bombs.
  5. May I suggest, https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/data-base-japanese-aircraft-engines.19466/page-12
  6. The outer 2 gun barrels visibly move on the mustang. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=niJ82YCiuYU
  7. Hello, the M2 Browning uses a long recoil lockup system, and as such, the barrel ought to recoil during firing. You can look out the window and see the barrel tips protruding past the barrel tubes on at least the P-40 and P-51. These do not move while firing. i would recommend as a possible enhancement to the in-cockpit experience, to model barrel recoil on these weapons where the barrel is normally visible. Also, independent rates of fire for each weapon is recommended.
  8. Yes. Allison was making sure that it didn't have problems with the engines. Think about any manufacturing company which provides a warranty. They have specific parameters for operation, above which they no longer honor the warranty. Allison was being safe (from their perspective) with conservative power ratings for their engines. While this certainly makes sense in peacetime aviation, a different calculus is required in wartime. Remember, the Brits had been at war for three years by Dec 42, and they also had extensive aerial combat experience - reflected in their differ
  9. You can also book a flight in a P40... ...by the way. Increasing engine RPM while maintaining same throttle should REDUCE MAP as long as critical altitude for a given RPM has not been reached. This occurs because there is a pressure drop behind the throttle butterfly in the intake tract, as long as the throttle is not wide open.
  10. My only consideration is accuracy. Yes, the P51 was much faster and far better at altitude. That should be the case. But the rest of this discussion is not about speed or endurance.
  11. Additional consideration should be made to the relative weights of the differing Allied aircraft as well as their power to weight ratios and their historical reputations. The Allison V-1710-39 of the P-40E for instance was later rated to run higher MAP (with manifold pressure regulator installed) without actual mechanical change of the engine itself. This would have given it approx 1500hp (1470) at WEP. The P51 for instance did not have a significantly higher HP rating, and if you look at the wing section and planform, it was less ideal than the P-40E for dogfighting. It had a sign
  12. Weight is important in aerodynamic turning performance, insofar as it creates lift-induced drag. A higher wing loading will create more drag at a given angle of attack than a lower wing loading, at equal aircraft weights. This is simplistic as wing planform matters a huge amount, too. There is a lot more than that which creates drag penalties, though... airframe drag at high angles of attack are very significant. Up to 50% of the drag according to aeronautical engineer friends. There is also no easy way to calculate these since there is no “table” of aircraft planform drag
  13. Yeah the E4 weighs less but, it also has a lot less wing area. Recommend some consideration about instantaneous turn rate vs continuous. Also consideration to the relative weights of P-40, P-39, and P-51. As much as some people like to think, it is not the only factor in airplane performance. Yes Soviets had MUCH worse avgas in 1941/2. however we are modeling optimal considerations in the sim
×
×
  • Create New...