Jump to content

JtD

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    3541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2365 Excellent

About JtD

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

4458 profile views
  1. All aircraft are modelled after tests and historical references of dive speeds (safely) obtained, not after the manual figures. In some cases, historically, manual figures may conincide with actual maximum (safe) performance, in most cases, actualy limits are higher than the manual limits.
  2. I don't think pilot physiology is effected by fuel and oil systems.
  3. Yes, it is possible. You can see them at airshows or if that's not possible, on youtube.
  4. I just went into a quick fight and shot down some planes with a P-39L, using only 0.50, a Yak-7, using only the 12.7 and a La-5, using 20mm AP munitions only. In order of firepower, theoretically, the La is about twice as good as the P-39, and the Yak somewhere in between. On the bottom line, I typically needed two passes for a kill with the P-39, same as the Yak and typically just one pass with the La-5. So in terms of killing power, the game is pretty much OK imho. The guns are as effective as I'd expect and the relation to each other is also OK. Maybe the issue is that with 8 guns in a wing, you don't get four times the hitting power, because you're not as accurate with them as you are with just two nose guns. Using HE shells in the 20mm or API in the 0.50 would certainly change things. But as long as the conditions are comparable, the relative performance seems OK. WRT to the historical performance - the 0.50 certainly was effective, but it wasn't the most efficient gun around. That's looking at it from a technical perspective. It was very (cost) efficient in an industrialized, all out war.
  5. For reference, in a Bf109K calculation for a maximum performance turn at 6000m altitude, Messerschmitt uses a "cl = 1.13 ~ clmax". Speed in this turn where this cl applies is decreasing from ~160 m/s to ~130 m/s.
  6. I think the conflict was that he implied something (i.e. same g) which I didn't say or mean, which turned my true statement into a wrong one. Unfortunately his response then left out the bit he implied, which made his reply wrong, as written and as understood by me. I hope things have been clarified sufficiently by now (we have the exact two options spelled out by unreasonable) and the topic can move on, in particular as the 1.98 do improve the turn rate in game if you fly them both full throttle at 280. Point worth moving into - what was the cl the Finns tested their 109G at? Sustained and maximum, first and second half turn?
  7. I was looking at 1.8 and 1.98 ata turning at the same speed and getting the same load and the same turn rate. Because in the test, the speed is fixed and turn time and g-load both are results. Which of course are related. It's really difficult to misunderstand this.
  8. Ok, do the best sustained turn you can do in whatever plane you like, then reduce the throttle to say 80% and try to maintain it, while keeping speed constant. Good luck!
  9. An aircraft with more power will turn faster at the same speed, unless it is turning at stall speed with the low power configuration already. It may sound like rocket science around here, but it's really basic physics.
  10. If the Bf109K-4 does indeed not gain anything from the extra power, it is worth looking into airscrew efficiency, as suggested earlier. Unless it stalls at this speed. Thank you for doing these tests and sharing your findings.
  11. LE slats on the outer wing do little for improving turning performance, as the inner section will still stall and limit performance. The significant improvement is controllability. Also, engine power doesn't translate 1:1 to thrust produced. Prop efficiency matters here, a lot, just as much as wing drag. So it might be worth looking into that as well.
  12. The P-47 had a manual pump for the hydraulics system in case the engine fails. The pump lever is to the left of the pilot seat. It is a bit odd that in game there's no noticable penalty when using manual/emergency mode for the hydraulics.
  13. No, 29500ft is not higher 30000ft. 31000ft for instance are. With a power gradient of about 100hp per 1500ft of altitude, it is lacking 100hp due to the low full throttle altitude alone. And it used water injection at altitudes above 30k and obtained less than 420mph at 31k. Yes, 100hp less. Below full throttle altitude. Give it a good full throttle altitude, a bare metal finish and the best prop available, and you'll have it go 435@31k.
  14. At 56" it is still lacking compared to other P-47's tested, which maintained 56" up to altitudes > 30k.
  15. Interesting report, thanks for linking that. On your above sentence - it would be at the limit if it used a RAF14 airfoil. However, with the airfoil it used, the safety factor is 2 and 3 for front and rear spar. It should also be mentioned that once you pull out of the dive (produce lift), the moment in the wings should be reduced and you gain some margin for a pull out g-load (unless the safety factor on the rear spar is smaller than that on the front spar in the diving condition).
×
×
  • Create New...