Jump to content

LLv34_Flanker

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    2881
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

846 Excellent

2 Followers

About LLv34_Flanker

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Arctic Circle

Recent Profile Visitors

1116 profile views
  1. S! AI knows exactly where you are within it´s engagement sphere making those idiotic snapshots possible. Add to that the very fast position changes of gunners and the rest is pure frustration.
  2. S! I do not want UFO movements back either. Just need to test the G-limits on planes to see if they differ. Pony should have roughly 2G more tolerance over the rest of the planes in general due the G pants. The difference between IL-2 and "the other sim" is not big either. IL-2 is maybe a bit more abrupt and harsh. Now with the accelerometers should be easy to test IL-2 more thoroughly.
  3. S! Tested the G-effects on "the other sim" as it has AoA, G forces etc. displayed. Greyout/Black out starts at about 5,8-6,0G and wears off below 4,8G roughly. I flew the Bf109K-4 with full fuel load, no external stores. Began pulling when speed above 500km/h in a shallow dive, but kept the turn horizontal. The heavy breathing began earlier than grey/black out, same as in IL-2. Will try other planes on it later tonight: Pony, Spitfire IX and I-16. Spitfire is really sensitive in pitch so easy to black out. But with testing can get numbers if the threshold is the same on all planes and does the Pony have G suit modelled. An accelerometer and AoA readout in IL-2 would be great. Would help a lot with testing stuff. If "the other sim" has them I do not see any excuses for IL-2 not to have them as well.
  4. S! Because the RoC is exactly what is shown in those 3 lines. MS gear gives you a better climb at SL and a bit up, exactly as shown by the chart. Lets make an example. MS gear / radiator open vs FS gear / radiator open, 12000ft altitude. MS gear RoC is there ~3100ft/min. For FS gear it is ~4200ft/min. MS loses. Now if we look at 500ft as the peak of MS rad open vs FS rad open it is 5080ft/min vs 4200ft/min. MS wins this time. So how do I read the chart wrong? There is no "estimated increase" anywhere on that chart. For FS the difference is stated, 435ft/min increase with rads closed.
  5. S! You still do not get it do you? Look at the MS gear graph. Maximum climb is up to a "whopping" 500ft aka 166m. At 3000ft the FS gear with radiator closed surpasses the MS gear and with radiator open at 6000ft. After that MS gear is worse than FS at all altitudes.
  6. S! Damn you are thick headed. 2 stands for FS gear with radiator Open, 3 stands for Closed. You do not add this value to the MS gear aka 1. It is clearly written in the test values of different gears FS and MS. They do not add. And if you read the damn graph it is easy to see that MS gear is worse in climb at 3kft and 6kft respectively.
  7. S! Read the report regarding JL165 from 1.4.1944 at Boscombe down, which is the latest test on JL165. No 5500ft/min. You pick parts that suit your agenda. I scoured thru all those tests there. I took the latest official report. And again When you look thru all the IX tests the average is exactly what I have been saying all the time, around 4700ft/min.
  8. S! I posted the final test values of the supposed mega climber JL165, from Boscombe Down 1944. You make up values that were not even there, on that document. Highest official value for it was 5080ft/min up to 500ft. Not your "let me make up a fantasy value of 5500ft/min". The values are stated as improvement using +25lbs instead of +18lbs. Or do you add the summary as well to it?
  9. S! You guys seem to be unable to read a simple chart from both Spitfire performance and ww2aircraft performance. Same test, same values. The 543 was better than 165, but neither was stated to climb ridiculously high numbers. Not on MS gear or FS gear, rads open or closed. Highest attained was 5050ft/min for what, roughly 500ft. Read the chart right, even has numbers for each curve. And the estimated climb rate gain of 900-950ft was over the +18lbs vs +25lbs. Nowhere does it state that the climb rate is over 5500ft/min. Get real already. Seems you interpret technical documents to suit your agenda not for getting correct answers. Read this: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bs543climb.jpg Below 5000ft/min. Every frigging document states the IX, any model had climb of less than 5000ft/min.Or how about the following, JL165 again. Read and understand, do not add fantasy values or estimates. Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment Boscombe Down 1 Feb 1944 Spitfire IX JL.165 (Merlin 66) Trials at +25 lb/sq.inch boost with Rotol 4 blade propeller SUMMARY ..................Performance trials and a brief assessment of handling characteristics have been completed on a standard Spitfire IX with Merlin 66 engine, adjusted for maximum boost of +25 lb/sq.inch. 150 grade fuel to Specification RDE/F/253 was used through all tests. Engine conditions - 3000 rpm + 25 lb/sq.in. boost. Climbs Max. rate of climb in M.S. gear (radiator flaps open) 5080 ft/min up to 500 feet Max. rate of climb in F.S. gear (radiator flaps open) 4335 ft/min at 11,400 feet Max. rate of climb in F.S. gear (radiator flaps shut) 4750 ft/min at 11,400 feet Estimated increase in rate of climb below full throttle heights due to increase in boost from +18 to +25 lb/sq.in. 950 ft/min Level speeds Maximum true air speed in M.S. gear 364 mph at 2,800 feet Maximum true air speed in F.S. gear 389 mph at 13,800 feet Estimated increase in speed below full throttle heights due to increase in boost from +18 to +25 lb/sq.in. 30 mph. Conclusions ..................The increase in performance with the increase in boost from +18 to +25 lb/sq.in. corresponds to : 1) 950 ft/min. in rate of climb in M.S. gear 2) 900 ft/min. in rate of climb in F.S. gear 3) 30 mph in maximum level speed in M.S. and F.S. gear ..................There is also an increase in fuel consumption of approximately 24%. ..................No maintenance difficulties of the engine were experienced.
  10. S! @PainGod85 Whatever floats your boat I brought it up as not a single one here questioned the performance of the Spitfire +25lbs nor produced verified data it could ever achieve that, not even close. As long as it overperforms all is good, right? Maybe devs should add a feature like IL-2 Compare was in the original IL-2? Would lessen the waah waah and bring the discussion to a tolerable level with numbers in plain sight. Agree?
  11. S! While looking at the chart it seems the Spitfire JL165 climbs from about 4200ft/min with radiator open to 4670ft/min radiators closed at FS gear. And the FTH 11400ft has the peak climb 4250/4700ft/min after it dops. MS gear gives a boost in climb up to 3000ft or around 1km. After that FS gear is better with rads closed and up to 5000ft / about 1600m with radiators open. I think the 31m/s is pretty much debunked and can be forgotten.
  12. S! Earlier in the test with the other Spitfire543 there was a mention that climb on this 165 was estimated. At least the test I read from same page. And here a chart of the JL165
  13. S! I do not use nVidia Experience at all with my card. I prefer setting the settings myself and it is not that hard to do either. Sure nV GE offers easy updating and can "optimize" supported games easily. Friend who bought the 5700XT is happy. It took us less than 10min to get the correct settings for IL-2 over TeamSpeak. AMD drivers are not pig any more than nVidia ones.
  14. S! Devs could add an accelerometer to the instruments(HUD) and off you go and test to your heart´s content. Then one sees if something is wrong or not. Now it is next to impossible determining how much G your are pulling in any given situation.
×
×
  • Create New...