Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1822 Excellent

About JtD

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3258 profile views
  1. Maybe the postwar US study that has already been linked on this forum several times?
  2. JtD

    Mk108 Damage model (Not accured)

    As a general statement regarding structural failure, not limited to MK108 shrapnel.
  3. JtD

    IL2 firend loss

    Really sad news. :( His bombers models were great, his background knowledge amazing - and he was a great guy to chat with on the net. RIP.
  4. JtD

    I thought the bf109 could fly inverted?

    Both oil and fuel pump don't work in negative g. So after some seconds the engine quits. I don't know any WW2 fighter which could fly inverted for extended periods without facing these problems. On the early Merlin engines as used in early Spitfires, the carburettor did not work under low/zero/negative g, which means almost instant loss of engine power. The Bf109 had fuel injection and did not have these problems.
  5. You think that at a time where the Luftwaffe fighter force had a turnover of 100% every 3 months or so and the ETO US fighters did the same every 9 months or so, the Spitfire XIV squadrons lost about 25% over a period of more than a year?
  6. Now this sounds like an interesting update! Thank you.
  7. Why not go a bit further and give them all the same FM altogether?
  8. All of them. In case you can't connect to the enginehistory.org site, DB605 production figures vary, sometimes below Bf109 production, mostly however significantly higher. Also, I don't suppose that "air frame" in this context refers to cells only, I think these are complete aircraft possibly short of some special/military equipment.
  9. I thought that B-17 lost a wing because the bombs of the aircraft above it hit it. Most WW2 aircraft attached the wings at two points, four points as on the P-47 can in that regard be considered as very reliable.
  10. I think that's a US thing. Soviet/Russian and most European designs use 27mm or 30mm cannons and did so for the last decades.
  11. Regarding the 7.5 hour WEP test. IIrc, this is basically a condensed 100 hour type test. Those type tests typically contained power cycles, like 25min continuous, 30min combat, 5min WEP - rinse and repeat. The 7.5 hours are the accumulated time the engine spent in this whole test at WEP, for instance, 10 hours run in, 90 hours with 5 minute WEP each. In both types of test the engines received inspection, maintenance and possibly even repair throughout. No one should think that a 7.5 hour WEP test means you switch the engine to WEP and keep it there for 7.5 hours straight. This is also evident from the fact that the 7.5 hour test mentioned in the doc was begun on May 2 1944 and finished on May 5. It's still a very demanding test. (Writing from the top of my head, so details might be wrong.)
  12. Because the manuals say so, or are assumed to be saying so. Literally, not technically. The MW50 system allows "10 minutes of WEP, and at least 5 minutes at a lower power setting before it can be used again" so this is what you get. Same way you get 10 minutes of increased emergency power but only 3 minutes emergency power on a Fw190A-8. Or 1 minute of emergency power on a non-MW50 DB60x or 5 minutes of water injection on a R-2800 or 42" on an Allison. Some number on a piece of paper somewhere is being used against all common sense and technical reason. The modelling of the R-2800 of the P-47 is just in line with that philosophy. A more realistic engine model or even gaming mechanism is long overdue.
  13. The Me210 Bedienungsvorschrift is available here. It's dated November 1942. The DB601F engine is basically an E with a different reduction gear, which is the reason Viks used it for the Bf109F-4. For Notleistung it gives a 'permitted duration' of 1 minute. Technically there obviously are differences between a 210 an a 109, still it was the best and only reference that gave any time limit for Notleistung on a 601E/F.
  14. Looking at testing it appears the difference between 20k and 22k turbo rpm is about 3000', about 1000m, about what I think is missing. Maybe Gavrick could clarify this, too?
  15. Quickly browsing through this topic, yet not the entire forum - so I might have missed something. Why do the in game P-47 and the reference given by Gavrick use such a low full throttle altitude? In every official document I had seen so far, the rated altitude for 64" boost was given in the range of 26500' (8000m). Some considerably more. Is the data from the model description, which I don't have, for lower turbo rpm than the 20-22k the model should have? Also, why is 7000m the in game critical altitude when the (conservative) source already gives 24500' (7500m)?