Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Venturi

  1. Why oh Why are the bomb controls in German Jabos not animated when the bombs are armed etc? Thank you in advance.
  2. Someone needs their meds, haha. Look up Gradient Echo Sequence and what it’s used for, k, bye.
  3. Yes but that Fokker does not have a supercharger - the engine is simply over compressed, by intrinsic design of the piston and cylinder head compression chamber, to compensate for thinning atmosphere as you climb. When you advance the throttle prematurely you are over compressing “thicker” air. So yes it is moving towards detonation, but it is slower onset and less severe than an aircraft with a true supercharger. Probably not a good way to model the onset in a much larger engine with a true supercharger. In these WW2 engines onset of detonation is very rapid and with little warning. Much safer to be slightly over rich, than too lean. Also much safer to advance the mix, before you advance the throttle... The exhaust smoke should be much more severe in German fighters than in Allied. The Germans did not have as effective anti detonation additives and they achieved the higher boost levels they did by over richening the mix, which was automatically done on most of their aircraft when the throttle was advanced (still, the boost levels were not even close to the levels western allied 150PN fuels allowed, unless Mw50 was used - artificially boosting PN even more). PS the correct terminology for “octane” levels is actually Performance Number or PN. Since, “Octane” rating is simply the percentage of Octane or eight-carbon linear chains in the hydrocarbon mixture of the fuel. In other words, it is a reference standard as the burning characteristics of octane are known. It is by definition it is nearly impossible to even get to 100% or 100 octane rating, as hydrocarbons are always a mixture of different kinds of hydrocarbons. When you get to numbers like “150 octane”, what you are really saying is it is 150 Performance Number - because there can be no such thing as 150% octane in a given solution of hydrocarbons. Semantics yes, but illustrative semantics.
  4. Really, the smoke was as a result of over richening during max boosting, to suppress detonation. In actual fact, if you reduced mixture inappropriately at even moderate boost levels, you would suffer pretty catastrophic and quick engine failure.
  5. I think the aircraft performance dynamic has shaped up to fit nicely with the actual history over the course of the IL2 BOS series. Now the western allies aka “Red” side, have at least parity and probably even a significant advantage, especially with the P38, Spit, and P51 when at altitude. Like most things in life, many people are not about fair play or principles, but rather taking as much advantage as they can get, especially in an online match. That means that you should expect the same folks who flew exclusively Blue in the early and mid war, to now fly exclusively Red in late war. Just like when a sports team starts to win in a season. “Nothing succeeds like success.” And that’s fine. You will find, I think, that those who fly ground attacker missions of whatever type tend to be more mission focused and more about server balance, so will also tend to move to the side with fewer players, for the most part. I personally have been flying Blue pretty exclusively in the late war setting. My opinion, a good reason to keep the Me262 regularly available (in a limited way) in online matches, is that it will bring a measure of parity and uniqueness to the late war Blue side. Especially with Jabo runs. Imagine that! Keep in mind that the ACM flying style it requires will be distasteful to those pilots who want to “turn and burn”.
  6. He’s just worried about hemorrhages on GRE
  7. AN/M2 was more like 800rpm. Later variant AN/M3 was up to 1200rpm or so. Hispano slightly slower, 725rpm.
  8. It was designed by North American Aviation.
  9. Realism, like buying classic styles in clothing, will never go out of style.
  10. I love it so far. Just need to ensure that the older birds like the IL-2 have directionality to the engine sound from different outside viewing angles.
  11. The intercooler vent controls are automatically controlled in the sim as of right now. Real pilots adjusted them based on carb air temps (more turbo spool, more air temp). Personally, I find the implementation to be consistent with other AC, and I do notice when the carb air temps are rising (I took the 38 up to 34,000 foot alt, where it maintained maximum continuous power).
  12. (assuming they want us to manage the carb air temps - which I'm fine with) PS - I love the 38!
  13. I think the stuck switch is a little joke from the developers. Hopefully soon fixed. :)
  14. The P-39 sounds awesome in this regard. The IL-2 not so much.
  15. Congrats to a new pilot physiology model :) , a new theatre, and the new allied plane set! Keeping WW2 simulator fans happy!
  16. All models are wrong, but some are useful.
  17. This means that at longer ranges, the 50BMG will hit harder and penetrate more, and this will be proportionately more apparent as ranges increase. All figures for armor penetration of a particular round being compared must specify a range and incidence angle.
  18. Another thing to consider is the muzzle velocity of the Hispano, while it starts out nearly equal with the 50BMG - 2800 fps (Hispano) vs 2900 fps (50BMG) - it loses its velocity more quickly with distance. At 300 meters, the Hispano round has lost 23% of its initial velocity. At 300 meters, the 50BMG round has only lost 15% of its initial velocity.
  19. The difference in armor penetration between the Hispano 20mm SAPI and 50BMG API is negligible.
  20. By the way, @unreasonable took the wrong probabilities from the paper. He took the "type B" column - which is fail to RTB within two hours. "Type A" is defined as a kill within 5 min and is probably more reflective of what we would see in the sim. The probabilities of a single hit, Type A kill on a Jug are: 0.50cal, API-T = 0.0170 (By the way, of the different systems which were looked at as possibly contributing to the kill, pilot kills by themselves were 0.010 - and engines were 0.0010, only 1% of the chance of a kill!) 20mm M97 HEI (Hispano) = 0.060 (Again, the pilot makes up 0.030, or half of the probability of a kill! The engine is only 0.005 or less than 10% of the probability!) So, let's re-run the numbers NOW, using the same data as above: 11/53 hits for the 50BMG: 1-[(1-0.0170)^11] = 17% kill within 5min 5/24 hits for the Hispano = 1-[(1-0.060)^5] = 27% kill within 5min We see again the same pattern - but again, more rolls of the dice, more chances to insta-kill. Interesting to note that of the rounds tested, the 37mm as found on the P39 had extremely high chances of knocking out the engine, and the German 30mm had extremely high chances of destroying the aircraft by structural damage. This should tell us that the "HE" round on the 37mm was actually very good at penetration - and the German round performed as expected with a large blastwave ripping structure to shreds. Also that overall, the 37mm round was only slightly more effective on a round per round basis than the 30mm German round.
  21. Probability doesn’t work like that. It is in fact the probability that nothing happens in “x” number of tries. And so you minus that from 1. Ex: Say a Jug and a Tempest each fire a burst at a “target Jug” for 0.5 seconds. Assuming average rate of fire, which is 725rpm x4 for the Tempest and 800rpm x8 for the Jug - (600-850rpm (725) for the Hispano, 750-850rpm for the AN/m2 (800)) - then the Tempest will place 24 rounds in the “target zone”, and the Jug will place 53 rounds in the target zone. Let’s assume that of those rounds in the target area, only one in five actually hit the target. That means 5/24 20mm Hispano rounds hit, and 11/53 of the 50BMG rounds hit. Thus, using the CORRECT probability formula, 1-[(1-p)^x] , and the probability statistics from your post, we get the following information: 50BMG, 11 hits 1-[(1-0.037)^11] = 0.34 or 34% fail to RTB 20mm Hispano, 5 hits 1-[(1-0.120)^5] = 0.47 or 47% fail to RTB This is of course, assuming that the of the extra six hits that the 50BMG has, one of them wasn’t directly through the cockpit of the target or severing the elevator control cables or pulleys... remember, statistics only work reliably when dealing with a group of data that is larger than n=30, in general. In any one particular instance, having extra hits means extra rolls of the dice to instantly disable the aircraft, which has a quality all its own... Now let’s compare the Spit with 2x 20mm Hispano and 4x 303, or the Bf109 with 2x 8mm and 1x MG151/20...
  22. No the Soviet’s weren’t stupid. But, they placed a premium on aircraft maneuverability and besides which, they didn’t have a lot of spare weapons to go around. Anyways, the IL-2 was a ground attacker. And like I said before, if you're not shooting at high deflection, fast moving targets, then area saturation isn’t as important as the effect on target - and the Hispano and other HIGH velocity cannons were better than the 50BMG at effect on target per round, IE, hitting ground targets - which could be and usually were targets that needed more pounding than aluminum-skinned aircraft. It’s not about the US not developing a 20mm cannon. It’s because the right weapon for the job was the 50BMG. The other nations were more concerned about intercepting BOMBERS and that is why they went with a MG/cannon setup. The MGs originally being for the fighters (fast moving targets with snap deflection shots) and the cannon being for tougher targets. This is why the Brit’s went away from 303s to a mix of cannon and MG. By the way, the mix of MG and cannon was a European philosophy - not better or worse, just different trade offs. In the interwar years, the US experimented with such a mixture of armament, with the 50BMG filling the role of the cannon in the Euro planes (a good example is the original Brewster Buffalo, with armament of 1x50BMG, 3x30BMG). This when the contemporary Euro planes had only rifle caliber MGs, no heavy MGs or cannon. It just turned out that it was simpler and more efficient while being just as effective to replace rifle caliber MGs throughout all mounting points with heavy caliber MGs on most fighters. And, the 50BMG damn sure was effective. Is 8x50BMG better than 8xHispano 20mm? Probably not. But that’s not the comparison. The comparison is 8x50BMG vs 4xHispano 20mm, or more likely to be found in the anti-fighter role, 2xHispano and 4x303. The 8x50BMG wins over the 4x cannon in the anti-fighter role due to simply the greater number of projectiles in the air - all of which may be lethal, individually - while losing in the anti-ground role. 8x50BMG is even more markedly superior to the 2x cannon setup in the anti-fighter role. Keep in mind that all these were very effective set ups, though - as proven historically. It’s just that a large amount of lead is needed to saturate a given area, at one point in time, for maximally effective slashing attacks. And high altitude attacks were generally slashing type gunnery solutions with much higher closing speeds and with far less aircraft maneuverability than at low altitudes. I will say that the 4xHispano is no slouch in the air (although inferior to the 8xBMG setup), and better then the Jug’s 8x 50s in the ground attack role (and better for bomber intercept, for similar reasons - although this point is moot given the historical situation). Even so, I invite you all to examine some photos or videos (or even better get up and go to a museum and see for yourself) of the numerous venting areas on the top decks of many tanks, and actually the vast majority of non-tank AFVs, of the WW2 period (which after all was a large portion of the panzerkorps/red army tank division). Look for areas that might be cripple-able by a hundred or so rounds of heavy caliber MG using AP. I think you would find there are areas on that engine deck that are conceivably vulnerable even to supposedly lowly 50BMG. Additionally I would challenge the idea of the calculations in that ”weapon effectiveness” webpage which seems to be taken as gospel here on these forums. Actually, it is far more complex. The major reason that page is wrong, although it is interesting, is that the author of it is simply using “energy” as a metric for effectiveness on target. But as any student of physics will tell you, energy can be converted into different forms, but not all forms are the same in their ability to do work. For instance, the KE of the cannon shell explosive blast is reduced by the inverse square law, and much is spent on empty air - and a large portion of that energy is lost. Similar to fragments - they will not all hit the plane when the shell bursts. In fact, a majority may not hit. Whereas the KE of the projectile is always, if it hits the plane at all, used to bore a hole through whatever is in its way (engine block, radiator, pilot, control cable).
  23. Outstanding work guys! The P-38, I can’t wait!!!
  • Create New...