Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

188 Excellent

About Raven109

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

317 profile views
  1. I once got shot down by a La flying in parallel with me, about 100m wing to wing. I was actually glad he was overshooting me. Then he started shooting into thin air and he was hitting me. I put it down to heavy desync. Talk about an out of body experience.
  2. I didn't test with invulnerability on, so aiming was certainly affected by this since I did passes just like I would do against a normal opponent which can fire back. This should be much closer to what someone sees on the servers/SP/reality. I used a G6 to conduct my 109 tests, which raises the question why an aircraft with more powerful ammo only manages to bring down 4 bombers, whereas you in a F4 manage to shoot more down, but this could be put down to the test conditions, since your test seems to be more controlled. I ran several 109 tests, and the average revolves around 4 bombers shot down + 1 damaged. Had I enabled invulnerability I would've just camped behind the bomber with my P-51 at a distance equal to that of the convergence setting, thus increasing the chance of more victories. This certainly would be a more precise test of what the 50s can do if used at their optimum, but I think this optimum case can rarely be reproduced in a competitive setting. (On second thought maybe camping straight behind the bomber might not be the most effective way to inflict damage with the 50s - my tests indicate that shooting at an angle is much more effective) Then again, the test was not supposed to show anything about the 50s. It was more about how easy it is to set engines, fuel tanks on fire, and to show to myself that precise aiming really has benefits when compared to spray and pray, in a situation similar to everyday game play. My question above regarding the number of bombers was out of curiosity. Since my personal experience was to get 4 victories against bombers (and I'm not an expert shooter), I was curious about the expectations regarding victories against bombers. To me 4 bombers on one ammo load, in realistic war conditions where you are flying conservatively (i.e you care about your plane and pilot) is already a lot. My note about posters adding tracks to the weapon effectiveness threads was addressed to the OP. I think it's useful when creating a performance thread to clearly show what you think is wrong with the weapon system you're posting about. Otherwise the discussion will just go in all directions. The discussion of the 50s not inflicting as much drag as expected was not part of the original discussion. Since you took the time to do the tests I would like to see the tracks, if it's not too much trouble for you, of course. ---------------------------------------- Later edit, just to close the loop: you can attach your tracks to the forum Tumu, if you wish, of course, no need to send them to me in private, let's keep it transparent; I think many are waiting to see how an F4 can consistently destroy 7 Ju88s, I know I'm anxiously waiting, to see which tactic has been employed with a less powerful armament than that of the G6.
  3. It would be nice if they could use something to elevate his position so he could have a better view around. Maybe not allowed by regulations?
  4. Ok, then from what I can tell by looking at the above tests is that a D-22 when using the same 714-1C2-12 prop will have approx the same speed as the D-10 at 29000ft. It seems the 714-1C2-12 prop removes ~3mph from the max speed when compared to the Hamilton Standard. When compared to the Curtis 836-2C2-18 it seems to add ~6mph. So, the D-22 from the test data you posted would get to around 437mph with the Curtis prop at 29000ft, which is still ~13mph faster than the performance of the D-22 from the ww2 aircraft performance test with the same prop. But then again the D-10 from the data you posted is also faster by ~7mph than the D-10 from the ww2ap site, when using the same prop. Regarding the graph from AHT, I did find something similar (where speed si approximately constant over a range of altitudes), but it's for the P-47N.
  5. Ok, but with different props from the ones in the D-22 test, right? I mean the D-10 performance at 29000ft is close to the D-22 performance at 29000ft when looking at the data from this graph (if we consider the aircraft using the same prop Curtiss 836-2C2-18) : Your data also indicates that their performance was close at the same alt and same boost. Does the data you posted above show speeds for aircraft using the same prop?
  6. Well, I couldn't find much info on how the regulators worked. But I can also see a regulator being optimized for a certain range of altitudes and different models being able to regulate the waste gates for different altitudes. It's all assumptions, unfortunately.
  7. Yes, already noted the different engines. The only difference between the two seems to be the ignition system (magnetos). That could probably explain the difference in performance at the same altitude. Also, the supercharger ratio seems to be different, which could also account for the different FTH.
  8. You are right, however the difference between the D-10 and the D-22 is that they don't have the same turbo regulator. Unfortunately I have not found any spec for them, so I can't say whether the turbo regulators have an impact on FTH for 56"Hg or not. The only documented difference is that the turbo regulator on the D-22 is needed to run 64", which is not possible with the one on the D-10.
  9. Water doesn't increase the FTH of an engine. In decreases it. Water (as well as higher octane fuel) let you tap the power at lower altitudes which could not be tapped because of too high temperatures which result from over boosting. This can easily be seen in the D-22 power graph, where more power is available at lower altitudes where cooling off the charge via water injection and making it less prone to pre-ignite and/or knock allows the boost to be increased further and further. The D-10 report shows what a 56"Hg+WI engine can do at 29500ft. It shows a speed limit not far away from that of the D-22 at the same altitude. Unless there is something fundamentally different between the D-10 and the D-22 I don't see why the 22 would run better at the same altitude. The D-10 was using the -63 engine and the D-22 was using the -59 engine. The only difference between these two is their magnetos (as per their spec). They also have different boost regulators, with the difference that the A-13/23 boost regulator in the D-22 can be used to get to 64". Anyway, my answer regarding the D-22 being able to hold 56"Hg up to 29500ft was aimed at RoflSeal. Since it can hold 56"Hg up to 29500ft it should mean that it's using a 22000RPM turbo, just like the D-10.
  10. Well, I'm not sure how the D-28 in-game is modeled, since it seems somewhat confusing. You can't get 56"Hg on the gauge at 29500ft, but the speeds you get in-game seem to match the 65"Hg+WI speed curve of a 150 octane fuel D-22.
  11. The D-22 on ww2 aircraft performance can hold 56"Hg up to 29500ft.
  12. As expected. There are people who just can't stand (or understand) that others are better than them, and no matter what they will do, some will still be better.
  13. Are you using water injection? How high does your boost gauge go when at full turbo/throttle/RPM? With Water injection it should go to 64"Hg.
  14. I only have tracks of the 51 taking down 4 Ju88s, no videos. Here are 4 tracks showing what the P-51 with default ammo load can do: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y1ZL5Ud5vCKQfbqCiatznCKeC60TJMMZ/view NOTES: 1: I'm pretty much a beginner at the game, so I believe someone with more experience can take down much more than 4 Ju88s with the default load out. 2: the tests against the Ju88 were performed to get an idea of how easy it is to shoot down twin engine bombers by shooting exclusively at the engines and fuel tanks. However, since the cockpit of the Ju88 is very close to these and very exposed I sometimes get my aim wrong and hit the cockpit instead, which many times leads to the pilot being hit. This looks to be a much more efficient method of taking down Ju88s, when compared to shooting at the engines and I could probably get even more victories had I used it, but that was not the purpose of the test. 3: the tests prove that spraying and praying is not a good strategy. This can be seen in one of the tracks (the final victory in the 3xPK track), where for each pass on the same Ju88 I keep shooting at a different component. Once I focus on just one component it soon catches fire. (aka... aiming instead of spraying and praying is important in this game as it was in real life) 4: I make it a point to shoot at all targets until they reach critical damage; however, I think that shooting at the engines and letting them stream oil will make the target go down after a short while, once the engines seize, which means I can conserve ammo and in theory get even more targets; I also have tracks of 109s shooting down a maximum of 4xJu88s (and sometimes damaging a 5th), however since it was not me who claimed that you can take down much more than 4 Ju88 with the 109s default ammo load, I think it is only fair for you to post your findings to support your claim.
  • Create New...