Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lord_Flashheart

  1. How simplified? I tested the Yak just now and it can hold 30 degrees.
  2. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that an aircraft should stall regardless of speed if the critical AoA of the wing is exceed. I am also pretty sure that ww2 aircraft tend to have critical AoA pretty much universally of about 15-16 degrees, perhaps 20 with slats. I was watching a track in tacview today and noticed that aircraft were routinely pulling 30-40 degrees AoA. Yes, I know tacview has made errors in the past in this game, I know of no way to check this in game. Anyone know anything about this?
  3. Yak pilots, especially in berloga for obvious reasons, close their rads COMPLETELY during chases. This adds a ton of speed to nearly match the top end of the 190. I call it war emergency drag. They can operate like that for about 4min without damage, especially if they were flying around before with rads fully open to cool them.
  4. Yeah the 150 octane mustang would be a beast. It would be faster than either the K4 or D9 at most altitudes, and have competitive agility and climb. And combine that with the fact that the 51 is very low drag and therefore needs little power for a high-speed cruise....and people can take smaller fuel loads. reduced to 8460 lbs
  5. The other reason this is all significant for American planes, and why people are anxious about them, is because the American planes in ww2 sims are never done properly. Ever. Every sim I have ever played, going back to the early 2000's, has never given the American fighters the 150 octane fuel that was standard for planes operating out of the uk from mid-44 on. All of those sims featured every odd and end German, British, or Russian fighter and every little upgrade for them. We are already getting unicorn like the 1.98ata 109. The P-47 so far does not have 150 grade ratings like 70". A P-51D with 150 grade fuel is a 1900bhp Pony. It goes from 3600ft/min at SL to 4300ft/min, putting it roughly on par with a 109K or 190D for climb rate. Top speed at altitude is the 450+ region, and speed on the deck is in the 380+ region. Most of the mustang fighter groups were operating out of the UK. Which means most P-51's were operating at these settings. By comparison, 1.98ata is nearly mythical and the 190D with full 2100bhp boost was rare and showed up much later in the war. So between the nonsense of the time limits, the historical treatment of this by sims of the past, and what has been shown so far from BOBP early access, I think its quite understandable to be anxious.
  6. 190 is faster on deck. They trade blows at medium heights, with 51 gaining upper hand above 22k or so Personally I think 190d with mw50 should be a mod that is rare. D models operated initially at 1700hp, then up to 1900 in october44. Mw50 didn't show up till November. By 1945 only like 60 of the mere 180 or so d models had mw50 The first thirty production aircraft were delivered to the unit (III./JG 54) at the beginning of October 1944. [...]In September 1944 an equipment kit was installed which raised boost pressure and increased the Jumo 213 A's emergency output from 1,750 to 1,900 h.p. The installation was carried out on-site by Junker's Tecnical Field Service (TAM). This increased emergency power could be used at altitudes to 5000 meters. At the same time, use of takeoff power (1,750 h.p.) was extended to 30 min., while authorization was given to use combat power (1,620 h.p.) without restriction. The Junkers technical field service visited III./JG 54 monthly. In October the number of Fw 190 D-9s on strength with the Gruppe rose to 68. Of these, 53 had been converted to 1,900 h.p. and one was delivered by Focke-Wulf with the MW 50 system. The remaining 14 were in the process of being converted and completion was imminent. [...]In its November report, Junkers noted that all the aircraft of the three new Gruppe were being converted to 1,900 h.p. and that the work was significantly more difficult at frontline airfields where there were no hangers. By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service. *
  7. Just to add to this... The 1min on the f4 is particularly absurd. A engine with a power limit within 1 min of destruction would be useless. We're such insanely narrow margins for error operationally doable the german s would just have allowed 1.7 ata on g6's without water. That would also probabaly last about 1min
  8. Regarding the various comments about throttling back or up a P-38 engine to increase maneuverability I can only repeat that this was not practiced as far as I know. When I was overseas in 44 and 45, flying the J winter thru summer, the policy was to drop tanks and push up MP to 45 inches when German fighters were spotted in a position where an engagement was likely. When you actually went for them, throttle up to WEP, 60 inches or so, rpm all the way up too, up past 3000 rpm. And there it would stay until the engagement was over and you remembered to throttle back. You could easily be at WEP for 20 minutes or more."
  9. So your admitting you want unrealistic engines because people will fly like Mario. I can think of several other mechanical things we could screw up in game because people dont use them realistically
  10. Yes and I dont want a 1700bhp p40. The main issue of contention is time limits of aircraft with regulated MP. Not allowing higher than authorized settings. The p40 and planes like it would likely need their own solution.
  11. Completely different things are being discussed here. The P-40 is a special case of what is to be done, because it does not have a MP regulator. It is a totally different discussion between the P-40 running MORE power than was authorized for LONGER than was authorized and letting other planes run rated power for longer periods. The 1780hp P-40 moreover, proves exactly the opposite of what you contend. No 1100bhp or 1300bhp P-40 was going to die in 5min if planes were successfully run for 4 times that duration at 61% higher power. "if P-40's/Allison's could really have been operated like that for more than a few minutes don't you think Allisons would have replaced all Klimov's and featured heavily on the allies radar considering what HP axis aircraft were producing at that time? " That above quote is just gibberish. There are any number of reasons why this was not the case -Did they have the supply of allisons to replace all the Klimovs? -Power is not the only metric behind engine selection -The Allison DID feature heavily in the allies radar. It powered just about every early war non-radial american plane. It didnt feature as high on the radar in the later stages because reasonable solutions to its high altitude performance that werent a turbo didnt come about till later, such as the P-63s hydraulically coupled supercharger. The reason the allison didnt take off is well documented.
  12. Those who want timers are forgetting that the main purpose of a simulation is the tactical result. It is already unrealistic to have engines that do not fail at max continuous. Higher power settings merely increase that possibility, but as a matter of scale not quality. Simply put, things under greater stress tend to fail more often. It is stupid in a video game to model random failures. Random failures are not a simulation of anything. They are a statistic regarding deterministic failures that were not expected. So if a engine rated for 1000hp to fails during a long use, it is not because the power itself killed the engine. High power use could kill through wear, but not in a single mission if using a rated power. The reason engines fail at rated powered is because some assumed condition the rating is based on is not present. Factories sometimes put out bad parts, mechanics forget maintenance, the engine might already be super worn out, pilot error, etc. ALL of these can happen at even continous settings. They are more likely at higher settings because at higher approved ratings it takes less of a deviation from a ideal engine to cause a problem because tolerances are less. The key here is that these failures are not part of the engines design. They occur because something not planned happens. Which means they should not be part of the simulation because they are not explictly part of the engine. The same could be said of every mechanical object in this game. Yet I dont see anyone asking for factory deviations on other systems. The timers are not a discrete model of the engines function. They are a model of factors that are NOT designed into the engine. Arguing for timers to control unrealistic in game behavior is not an argument for realistic mechanical modeling. It is an attempt to smuggle secondary conditions into the engine model as if they are primary engine failure mechanisims. What this does is make all planes not perform correctly when it actually matters: in combat. What matters in this game is speeds, climb rates, turn rates, etc. When you introduce a timer to control for extraneous factors related to engine reliability, every planes combat performance on the whole is degraded because it is no longer being modeled as the plane, but as the plane plus external factors that are not explicitly modeled. The time limits, excepting water, were dictated by operational and strategic concerns, not tactical ones. All of which are beyond the scope of this game. This is why the same engines were sometimes uprated. For example, the p38 had no less than 3 different recommendations for what it's appoved settings should be. The official rating was something else entirely. This was entirely due to disagreements on what was practical for long term use. The bottom line is that flying around at wep all the time is a player behavior problem, not a discretely mechanical one. And the engine model should never be altered to enforce behavior. I typed this on my phone, please forgive all the punctuation and other errors.
  13. I sometimes wonder why the only thing you seem to do on this forum is harass people who complain about the game. Its really all you do on the other forums I've seen you on. No more than 3 seconds after anyone says anything negative about the state of a game, and LukeFF will be there to make sure you know the supposed error of your ways. I will say this though: if the devs screw up the 150 grade issue, they will hardly be the first ones to do it. I have not ONCE in the last twenty years seen a simulator that had 150 grade available for American planes.
  14. Aces high had a cool option where there was a little red line on the guage that moved independently of the actual guage, showing TAS. They should add that too
  15. I would rather have no limits at all but....... An easy compromise between the two camps that would take all of 5 seconds to put in the game: -All WEP/Emergency/Boosted timers set to 10min or water limit, whichever comes first. -Military/Combat Unlimited for all planes. -WEP recharges at a rate of 1.5x the amount used. So 5min of WEP usage takes 7.5 min to recharge. -Either throttle auto retards when the time is up, or a message comes up exactly 30 seconds before failure so the player is never confused about how much is left. This compromise solves the problems of unrealistic advantages going to some planes and not to others, and also gives every plane a reasonable and useful amount of WEP time. At the same time, it should make the limits camp happy because it prevents everyone from flying at WEP all of the time.
  16. Let us not forget the even the Yak1b could not maintain a climb without having to stop and level out to cool the engine. Yet this is nowhere to be found in the game.
  17. Your record so far: -The world is divided into supplicants and assholes. -Farmers saying something about logical fallacies seems contradictory to you. It aint lookin good for ya bud. I think you might be a farmer.
  18. No, let me help you "Personally I have no experience of flying or operating liquid cooled In line high performance aero engines so cannot really compare " Second, there is nothing in the post that demonstrates expertise on the subject we are discussing. Lots of SPECIFC documentation on the subject has been posted however. I mean there is tons of engineering and anecdotal WW2 data that tells us how these engines really operated. A person's incidental experience with equipment really means jack and shit on its own, and it certainly says nothing of how something should be modeled in general. Again this is like saying that a person who drove the crown vic as a taxi for 20 years is an expert on the engine of the crown vic, and by extension all other engines, and all contexts in which this engine could be discussed. What is evidence? Knowledge of the engineering behind the engines, documents pertaining to the testing and design of the engines, the BULK experience of people using them. You know, the stuff I and others posted. If I do need anecdotes from pilots, ill take them from people in the war flying the planes, thanks.
  19. Its rather remarkable that you see the world as "forum assholes" and "thankful supplicants"
  20. Which is like saying a taxi cab driver is an auto-engineer. -Knowledge is not exclusive to hands on experience. -Much of the counter is based on OTHER PEOPLES real world experience, so why should Dak-Pilots opinion matter more than theirs. -Pretty sure Dakpilot was never spent any of that RL time intentionally breaking his airplanes engines just to see what they could do, and I am also fairly sure neither was a Yak1 or a 109. -If I need to talk to someone who has hands on ww2 plane experience I already have direct contact with people flying those birds today. Weird how they dont agree with dakpilot when I talk about this issue to them. but anyways, nice argument from authority. Translation: I am a good little boy who is not ungrateful. Stay in your place!
  21. Incidently, the Yak1B with the PF engine could not maintain a climb without overheating. In il2 you can just open up the rads and keep going, something I imagine they would have done if they could have. You can also close the Yak rads COMPLETELY in game for over 4min even in the summer. IRL it was only 2 min.
  • Create New...