Jump to content

JtD

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    3505
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2330 Excellent

About JtD

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

4224 profile views
  1. As per usual when AnPetrovich makes the DD, an extremely interesting read. I'm very much looking forward to these DM changes. It will make me play BoX again, even if it only was to check the improvements.
  2. Imho the problem is not with exactly matching numbers, it is with getting the concept right. It is particularly difficult if you go for aircraft of a different nation and/or different culture. You can see this for instance with the current engine time damage model - US aircraft are messed up, because the US concepts of power settings based on thoughts of maintenance and engine life don't translate well to the Eastern front concept of 20 hour life expectancies and thus appear to have been lost in translation. The risk for concept errors goes up if you have fewer, in particular fewer original sources. The risk is not really with getting stall speeds accurate down to the last knot, or climb rates or top speeds or anything. It's about what "agile" means, what "harsh" means, what "safe" means - which either requires a full set of numbers, or to understand the thoughts of the designers, or a good mix thereof.
  3. I've spent some time in the past looking for detailed information on the internet about these props and failed, so it is indeed a bit hard to come by. Generally, it might make sense to contact the Curtiss company about their archives, the Smithonian national air and space museum, for their archives, or to contact people on the internet who have in articles or forum discussions provided some insight. They may have useful sources or contacts. My own motivation wasn't high enough to do this on this subject. If you come up with anything, please write an article and publish it on the internet. You've made me curious already.
  4. Now I feel bad... Thank god everything is relative, so maybe it helps that earth travels 30km/s around the sun. It means your van is doing 100000+km/h all the time without even consuming a single drop of fuel. Great car you've go there. 👍
  5. Beaufighters had 280rpg standard. Which is more than the Mosquito 150/175 standard/max for all versions I have data for. That also applies to the F.II version the article mentions, both early and late war. You don't design ammo counters or any other standard instrument for a particular application, where end of scale means maximum achievable. Just look at the speedometer of your car. 😉
  6. Because real life air combat is not a computer game. They add very little, if anything, to the combat effectiveness of a ww2 fighter, but make the aircraft more expensive to built, maintain and service. On the bottom line, it's a waste of resources. Most nations came to that conclusion. Even as a pilot you hardly ever need to know how much ammo exactly you carry. You may care about if it is sufficient to make another attack, and for this you'd have other options, such as different ammo loads in the guns (one pair runs out first, indicating what's left in others) or tracers (last 50 or 20 or whichever you like rounds have more tracers belted in). Plus, a rough estimate can be made by the firing time. You know you carry enough ammo for 15 seconds of fire, or whatever, and in many cases, you'd know if you've fired for 4 seconds or 12. If you don't, you probably don't have time to look at ammo counters anyway.
  7. Since I don't have TC I'm limited to T-34/1942 and Pz.IIIJ. On the Pz.III it is about 15rpm. Which is high, but to my knowledge accurate. It would probably require a well trained crew, but not a super-well-trained one.
  8. Thank you very much for the link and the summary. I agree with your thoughts, and yes, a big improvement came with the new turret. High time I fresh up my Russian, this site appears to hold a lot of interesting information around the T-34. Or let google help me for a quick assessment. These two are pretty interesting, too: https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://t34inform.ru/doc/1942-11-03_NII-48_T-34.html&usg=ALkJrhiGzOPAgDSQrgSHF4jSgofpIxVdew https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://t34inform.ru/doc/1944-03-20_%20NII-48-NKTP-15-1.html&usg=ALkJrhho5PcMUC1YyQjVX4YPLTl3UHpjbQ
  9. I've read similar things in books, nominal around 8rpm, trial around 4rpm from the rack, around 2rpm thereafter. But I've never actually seen any trial data as such.
  10. Does anyone have an actual firing trial, in which the T-34 manages the rate of fire it can sustain in game? Given the poor ergonomics of the T-34, I find it incredibly high.
  11. If you take a 10kg shell hitting a 50t tank at 500m/s, with the projectile being stopped dead by the tank and no splinters created (momentum remains constant), the speed of the tank will change by 0.1m/s. Very noticable, but really not much more.
  12. I don't think the fuel type was the issue, sounded to me as if the issue was the poor fuel tank installation.
  13. A tank somewhat infamous for exploding was the T-34, which held the fuel tanks in the sides of the chassis. Half empty tanks contained an explosive air-fuel mix, which could lead to T-34's literally blowing up after a penetrating hit. Compared to other causes of loss, still a rare thing to happen.
  14. This is a chart for German fuses. The Germans, as opposed to all other nations, mainly used electric fuses. They were activated by a switch in a cockpit when the bombers approached the target. Until then, the bombs were safe. The switch had two voltage settings, 150V and 240V. 150V were for horizontal bombings, with longer arming times, 240V were for dive bombing, with shorter arming times. Additionally, it could be selected if you wanted the fuse to work without delay, or with delay. Specifics were depending on the fuse. If you look at fuse 28A, you can see if you select 150V without delay, it would need 1.6 to 2.8s to arm and then detonate instantly, if you selected 150V with delay, it would need 2.1 to 3.3s to arm and then detonate after 0.15s. Interestingly, this fuse has a fallback, if the arming time is too short, it activates a third option. After 0.7 to 1.3s it would already be armed, an detonate with a 14s delay. So if you selected 150V with mV setting, and it dropped more than 1.3s but less than 2.1, it would definitely go off with 14s delay. After that, there's an increasing chance the mV setting has armed, until at 3.3s there's a 100% chance it goes off with just 0.15s delay. These Vz option was intended for low level attacks, so that there'd be a short time for arming, but a long time for the aircraft to get away from the blast (including squadmates). However, with the particular fuse, standard arming times were so short, that using it was forbidden for low level bombing. No delay explosions could occur after a drop of only 5m (1.0s in the 240V oV setting). Other fuses had more options, including a setting where only long delays were possible. Neat stuff, it gave the German pilots a lot more options than their Allied counterparts, it was more reliable and safer to operate. Also not really more complex, yet more flexible, reducing logistic requirements. Unless of course you were only using three types of bombs in a single type of attack anyway, in that case the flexibility would be wasted. Other types of fuses/arming devices were built around clockworks, vanes, aerodynamic forces or safety wires attached to the aircraft pulling pins out of the bomb. Chemical fuses (long time fuses) also existed and it's mostly these which make WW2 duds dangerous even today. Broken mechanical stuff is likely to stay broken, but with chemicals you never know.
  15. If you are pulling the same g at the same IAS up high as you do down low, you're pulling a larger radius at a higher true air speed (TAS) at the same drag. Not only will you require more power to sustain it (drag * TAS), you'll also go through a larger circle (g ~ TAS² / radius), which will take longer. Assume TAS to be 30% higher at the same IAS up high (roughly 5km), and at the same g your turning circle is 69% larger (1.3²). It also means you'll need 30% longer to go around this 69% larger circle once (1.69 / 1.3), so obviously your turn rate is down by just as much. And you'd still need 30% more power to achieve all that. Now if you're saying "I'll just pull more g" - given that the best turning speed usually is near the stall speed, you can't really do that while going "at the same IAS". Maximum g at the same IAS is not higher at high altitude. And you'd need an even more powerful engine on top of everything else.
×
×
  • Create New...