Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

96 Excellent

About Raven109

Recent Profile Visitors

181 profile views
  1. Looks like a fuel tank explosion, you can get this in SP as well. Just after the large damage update in April, I did some test runs against P-38s. One short burst of MG behind and left of the cockpit and the whole thing exploded.
  2. Yes, this is correct if you want to be an extreme expert (one that can consistently take down other human experts). However, I'd say that it's not necessary for dealing with the AI. A lead turn can be performed with any joystick, doesn't have to be the most precise. Most mistakes with lead turns occur because the attacker gets greedy, and thinks only about getting that shot, instead of setting himself up for a better position, if the current one is not the best for taking said shot. Anyway, more precise aiming can be achieved by changing your hardware's curves, so that they are less steep in the ranges where you operate the most. I think you might have a guide on this, which can be used by the OP.
  3. I'd argue that higher ATA does stress the engine more than lower. And maybe not directly, but with higher ATA more fuel is injected into the cylinder, which leads to more powerful explosions and an increase in CHT. An excessive increase in CHT can lead to pre-ignition and/or engine knocking. Perhaps we're in agreement and it's just a matter of semantics.
  4. I think we're in agreement here. Yes, RPM matters as well, and the game does model this. I was just giving an example where reducing ATA, but keeping RPM constant increases the in-game timer. The reason I chose ATA is because MAP starts dropping above FTH, so you can still have max admissible RPM at lower ATA, which in theory should allow you to run your engine for a bit longer than when running at max ATA and max RPM. Of course the time will not be as long as when running at a lower RPM. One more reason why I chose ATA is because IRL reducing RPM before MAP can lead to a catastrophic failure (not sure if this applies to the 109 as well, although I suspect it does). It is interesting to see that even though some pilots claim to have been running the 109 by looking at the ATA gauge, there are pictures showing 109 dashboards where the max allowable time limits were added to the RPM gauge, which indicates, that at least some pilots had a preference for RPM. There were some pics, but I can't find them now. ----------- Here is one (note the 3' limit marking next to the 2700 RPM marking): IRL it probably makes sense to watch the RPM gauge more than ATA. This is because you want to be conservative. High RPM still stresses the engine, even though your ATA is lower. Maybe this is one of the reasons why later 109 models have the RPM gauge moved higher up, and the ATA lower, but I don't have any sources to confirm this. In-game all you care about is to maximize performance (so what if you have to ditch in the wild Kuban forests?), so then considering ATA makes sense.
  5. Those limits were there to prevent extended wear and tear on the engines / sortie hour. They were issued for combinations of ATA and RPM. So, if reducing one of the parameters (ATA) reduces wear and tear, then it should logically follow that the time you can run your engine at the new setting should increase. Since above FTH you can't get the same ATA anymore to have the max power output, then you should be safe to run the engine longer at max RPM. There is a large discussion on these forums regarding the consequences of going over those limits (whether it's valid to have them as strict as they are implemented or not - there are good arguments both for and against). ----- You can actually do an experiment. Take a G6 for example to 2500m, well below FTH. Push the throttle to the max, set propeller pitch to manual, reduce the throttle, while using the propeller pitch controls to keep the RPM at maximum (2800). You can run the engine at 1.0 ATA and 2800 RPM for much longer than a minute. It's the same situation above FTH. Lower ATA will yield longer operation times. But, you will still not get the same time before the engine breaks as if you were running it at 1.15ATA and 2300 RPM, which shows that RPM matters as well.
  6. Ok, maybe my experience is different from yours. We get into a turning fight (which usually means that the AI is doing the same turn to the same side), I slowly gain on him, I get the lead and shoot. They never try to jink when I get close to shooting them. The annoying thing for me is that they have the same 4 maneuvers: a. If energy states are close, it does a continuous turn b. Not sure about the trigger, but they do split-S's sometimes, when they get bored of turning c. If the attacker AI has much more energy they will zoom up and then try to BnZ you; d. Sometimes they attempt a ~45* dive while also doing a lazy jink However, all these points seem to be futile, because even if they succeed in getting into a firing solution, they don't take the shot. In Il21946 it was almost a guarantee for the AI to jink when you got close enough and your sight was almost on top of him. I'm talking here about dead six attacks. I'm not saying that this was better, but at least the AI back then seemed more interested in surviving.
  7. I don't think points 2 and 3 apply to this version of Il-2. In forgotten battles, yes as soon as you placed your sight on the enemy plane and were in shooting range, the defender would start jinking. Also in Il2GB the AI does G-LOC. Try going against a Tempest, you'll see him G-LOC-ing quite often, even if set to ACE. If the AI can always pull inside your lead angle it might be that you're coming in too hot, or that the enemy AI has a plane which turns better than yours. If you're coming in too hot, don't just pull on the stick towards the target, but level a bit out and pull out of the plane of the defender, then come back in (basically transform that energy into height, thus dropping speed, and also flying a longer path through the air, both of these lead to reducing your closure rate towards the defender - search for out of plane maneuvers: Hi/Lo YoYo, displacement roll, etc). How much you need to pull out of plane depends on a lot of factors, and getting it right comes with time. Online pilots choose their tactics based on the plane they fly, the plane their enemy flies, the situation at the time of the merge and also on how comfortable they are when performing some maneuvers. If you know your plane cannot out-turn the attacker, then your next option is to try and extend and run, or to try and force an overshoot. Video for Hi Yo Yo (you should really check-out this channel, it has a lot of good info on basic maneuvers): Also, keep in mind, that usually the experts publish videos where everything has gone right, because it's usually more entertaining to watch. This will give you the impression that they always lead their target successfully, which is not the case. However, the experts will know more often than not, when a situation will allow them to pull lead and when to not even try and just push through the attack.
  8. Nice, very crisp image and good flying.
  9. I think he's talking about oil starvation, which is unrelated to whether the fuel was injected or not. Oil starvation was a real thing, even for the German aircraft. Take a 109, fly inverted for a few seconds, your engine will start losing power and then after a while shut down after 20s at -1G. Same for the FW.
  10. I only said 700km/h to suggest that the initial state of the defender is unknown, just to underline that an observer cannot tell which plane is better just by looking at this video, since it lacks context. I could've said 650km/h or 499.35km/h, and you cannot prove me wrong. Anyway, let's just ignore the initial state. Let's consider the kinetic state at 1.29, where both planes <<seem>> to be close to a stalling speed, and thus seem to have an equal kinetic state. They both dive, the Mustang is accelerating faster in the dive, misses the shot and then starts climbing. A few seconds later, the Mustang seems to be in an accelerated stall at 1.49, an thus losing more speed (you can see a wing drop). But let's just ignore that wing drop (which would be enough of a reason for the 109 to close the distance) and instead just watch the video and you'll see, that what seems to be a 109 catching up is actually just an illusion, they are just flying away from the camera at a different angles, which makes it look like it's catching up. Bottom line, the video cannot be used to determine aircraft performance. All it can be used for is to say that an unknown 109 model shot down a Mustang after reversing the situation. To simplify: the maneuvers are not performed in the plane of the camera, so accelerations, distances are not what they seem to be.
  11. I think Yogiflight offered the best answer why you should use RPM in the D9 rather than ATA. In the D9 ATA is not constant up to FTH, while in the 109 it is, due to its hydraulic coupled compressor.
  12. Actually, why don't you tell more? I already said enough to explain the situation. Saying that the 109 is OP without providing any evidence is just like saying that the earth is flat because you looked out the window and it seems flat from your window.
  13. Fair enough, I've flown the 109 sometimes just by RPM and sometimes just by ATA. In-game, if you want to be conservative you use RPM, if you want max performance you use ATA. Meaning that, if you're at 9k and fly at max RPM in a G6 you will expect the engine to last just 1-2 minutes, however in reality it will last ~3.5 minutes. By using just the RPM you are being conservative. If you fly by ATA, you will see that even if you're at the max permissible RPM for that engine, the engine will last longer, since the ATA is lower at higher altitudes. But, as I've said, these things only apply at mid to high altitudes, at lower altitudes (below FTH) you can use either the ATA or RPM to manage your engine.
  14. I think you're being deceived by perspective. The initial state of the 109 is unknown, he could just have come out of a 700km/h dive, and you couldn't tell. Furthermore, if you watch carefully at 1.29, the kinetic energy states of both planes are almost equal, they are both stalling, but the Mustang has potential energy on his side. When the kill takes place, the perceived altitude difference between the two is the same as before (when the kinetic energy was equal), it's just that the 109 got a valid solution this time. It could also be that the 109 pilot is handling his bird with higher efficiency, meaning less slip, ball centered, less aileron roll, lower AoA in turns etc. As Chuck Yeager put it, (most times) it's the man, not the machine.
  • Create New...