Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

285 Excellent

About -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina

Recent Profile Visitors

455 profile views
  1. P-40 vs P-39

    It is important to have the radiators in the optimal position, 60% for the water and 45% for the oil, if you close them more than that they will cause more drag and make the plane slower (and also less cooling efficiency).
  2. P-40 vs P-39

    At 37" 2600 RPM (the listed continuous mode) the top speed is 466 km/h at sea level, you can increase the throttle a bit up to 39.5" and it's still considered continuous, in this settings the top speed is 478 km/h The 15 min Combat mode is at 42" 3000 RPM, with a top speed of 497 km/h. Combat mode goes on up to 46", but it will last less than 15 mins (don't know how much), top speed at 46" is 518 km/h The 5 min Emergency mode is at 51" 3000 RPM, with a top speed of 540 km/h, then you have the 2 min Emergency mode at 60" and full rich mixture and it's top speed is 570 km/h. It is the same as it was before.
  3. Problemas con 3.0

    Yo ahora tengo el 390.77, pero uso una 1070. Otros dos miembros de phx tienen la 1060 y les anda bien, les pregunto que drivers usan. Probaste con el método de Alt + Tab?
  4. Tactical Air War

    The problem with the Pe-2 s35 is that the engines most of the time just stop when trying to start (similar to the mixture bug with the Hs 129, but it's because they are just too cold to start), so you have to retry the whole start process 2 or 3 times (including waiting for the pilot to switch off and on the electric power switches, which isn't neccesary in this situation), sometimes it takes long enough that you get kicked while waiting in the spawn. It would be easier if the player could operate some of the basic engine start controls like magnetos, fuel valve and engine starter, so restarting the engines after they fail is done quickly (the other needed steps like manually pumping fuel was done earlier during the first attempt) , with the automatic start process it turns off all the electric controls (and then turns them on again) taking extra time.
  5. Problemas con 3.0

    Yo tenía el mismo tipo de error y era por el programa GeForce Experience en Windows 7, lo desinstalé y ya no se apagaba el juego luego de la pantalla de inicio. Cuando cambié a Windows 10 ya no me da problemas el GeForce Experience. Otra solución (antes de averiguar que era el programa de Nvidia) era darle Alt + Tab repetidas veces para ir cambiando las ventanas mientras el juego se iniciaba, a veces se apagaba pero otras veces arrancaba bien después de hacer eso.
  6. Machine gun damage effect on wings

    Oh, I'm on the phone and the images don't show in a high enough resolution to read the text.
  7. Machine gun damage effect on wings

    Do you have a mission log showing how many rounds impacted? These guns have rather high rate of fire, but you aren't hitting all of the rounds. It would be interesting to see how the other rifle mgs compare (ShKAS, Breda 7.7mm, Browning .30 cal and .303s)
  8. Operation Barbarossa Plane Set

    I voted for the DB-3 because it would be the medium bomber the VVS currently needs, being comparable in speed and payload to a He 111, preferably the DB-3F variant, the I-153 and Hurricane are good contenders as well and I really like them but if I had to choose only one, I think a true Soviet medium bomber is needed the most. The IL-4 is a later plane so it wouldn't fit in Barbarossa, I think it's the same case with the Do 217, it would have been used at a later date in the Eastern Front. The He 100 only existed in prototype-pre-production state and didn't see combat service, so I think these three planes should be out of the poll.
  9. Another look at turn times

    Nice info JtD, if you want to test the most restricted engine limits, you can check the difficulty option "Unbreakable" and you will be able to use any engine setting for unlimited time. The option "unlimited fuel" also makes fuel consumption non-existent, so fuel consumption during prolongued flight doesn't affect the numbers because of lower weight, those are the settings I use for my speed tests They will still overheat though, the engine won't die but it will start to run rough in the RPMs decreasing performance so you still need to take care of the temps.
  10. Would you buy a premium I-153 Tchaika? Here's why you should!

    Yes! And with silver skin please
  11. HS129 users: does the Mk103 is underpowered?

    With the MK 103 I needed around 9 hits to kill a T-34 from the side (9 kills with 80 rounds), I missed a couple of times so maybe with a bit more practice I can get to 10 with a full ammo load. Using the BK 37 you can get a T-34 with 3 rounds yep, with the single firing cannon in the 110 G-2, although they have to be well aimed, if not they it would need 4 or 5. With the NS 37 against T-34 you need 8 rounds to destroy it, got 10 tanks destroyed with the full ammo load of the IL-2 1943 (100 rounds) but I missed some and I could see tanks getting destroyed after 8 hits at least. Against the Panzer IV it needs 6 hits usually. The 23mm needs around 33 rounds to kill a Panzer IV (9 kills with 300 rounds). Thanks to the rate of fire of 600 rpm and having two guns you can do it in a single pass, with a 1.6 sec burst or so (1200 rpm effective). The MK 103 has a rate of fire of 400 rpm, so it needs a 1.2 sec burst to destroy a T-34 in one pass, however this is difficult because the cannon has quite a bit of dispersion in the gunpod so you need to fire at close range if you want to have all of your shots hit the tank, the best I could get was like 5 hits in a single pass without missing, so against the T-34 you need to do two passes.
  12. P40 coolant leak

    Btw Farky, do you know which was the ambient temperature in the "temperate summer" and "tropical summer" conditions? In game summer is around 25°C at sea level
  13. Comparing the MG151 to the ShVAK ingame

    Very nice test I did a similar test in July 2017, but with the flying Bf 109 F-4 target in the 72 AG training server, and the results were similar for the MG 151/20: in my case 3.6 rounds average against the F-4. What I noticed in my case is that generally there is quite a bit of dispersion, enough to make all of the averages more or less the same (not enough to give a significant difference). I calculated the deviation with your tests and made a little graph with them. Funnily enough with the MG 151/20 HE against the Bf 109 F-4 we got the same dispersion, 1.17 I think you should try your test including the Hispano and the VYa-23, and see how they compare with their different ammo as well. Another interesting test would be with the heavy machine guns, the MG 131, UB, M2 and Breda. My overall impression is that the dispersion is too big to compare within the same ammo types at least with the MG 151/20 and ShVAK cannons. Also we can see in this case that HE would be better than AP specially against the Yak-1B wing, at least for these two cannons. Maybe with the high velocity VYa-23 and Hispano this is the other way around (AP better than HE).
  14. Fumes, in game the engine limits are for a specified manifold pressure and RPM, if you change one (or both) of these settings the time limit will go up or down (as the engine will be more or less stressed). How much this does depends in how far away are the specified timers in the RPM and manifold pressure range. For example for planes like the Spit, P-40, P-39, Ju 87, Ju 88 and He 111 you can change both RPM and manifold pressure and experiment with different combinations. This doesn't normally happen with the German fighters because they have determined RPM/manifold pressure, but when they hit critical altitude the manifold pressure starts to drop while the RPM still go on. You will have more time at full throttle than at sea level at high altitudes because the engine runs at a lower manifold pressure, however by keeping full RPM it will still be a rather shorteish time because that tends to be the more important parameter (like allied planes have in their 3000 RPM emergency regimes). You can try for example using manual pitch in the F-4 to test say 1.3 ata at 2500 RPM vs 1.3 ata at 2700 RPM, and then 1.42 ata at 2500 RPM vs 1.42 ata at 2700 RPM and see which parameter has more weight, I guess the RPM would be the most important. While there aren't official limits for these intermediate settings the devs create a continuous function so intermediate settings give intermediate time limits (otherwise how would they code when the 30 mins ends and the 1 min begins? it's a too abrupt change). Also once you have more than 2-3 min limit there is a good amount of randomization and you will need to do several tests for each setting because there is some variation to it (some planes more than others, and the F-4 particularly does have plenty of variation on intermediate settings). This is how the in game system works basically, I personally think it's too strict but the way it works in the intermediate engine MP/RPM combinations seems logical to me.
  15. Thoughts on the P39...

    Imho the 4k-6k thing is mostly because of the less performance loss of the engine with altitude than it should have, It's just that this 2000 meter gap gets compensated by the less drag caused by closing more the rads if you want to mantain the temperature limit, if the 1B had a more abrupt decay, you would be able to notice it even when closing the rads a bit looking for the optimal temperatures. Even if you change the radiator behaviour so that they have the same cooling capacity at max speeds between low and high altitude you still get less performance drop than it should (for example in the fixed "by airflow" position speed graph, which is they way the devs said the real speed tests were done). In the case of the 1B at least for what I could read in a translated technical description/manual the Yak radiators were meant to keep the temperatures within the upper limits at sea level in standard 15ºC temperature at maximum level speed, this happens in the sim with the 1B, 50% oil and 35% water mantain around 108ºC both oil and water. At 4k you need 43% oil and 29% water, at 6k you need 26% oil and 16% water. In the case of the G-2, at maximum speed at 1.3 ata at sea level the automatic water radiators keep 105ºC at 14% open position, at 7k they mantain 100ºC at 12% position, almost the same. The MiG needs to open them more with altitude, 5% oil and 20% water at sea level in continuous, and at 7k it needs 40% oil and 35% water. With the Yak-7B it's the oil radiator that causes the overheating problem, the water radiator works ok at sea level in it's neutral setting, but once the oil starts overheating it brings the water temperature up as well (before that it appears the water stabilizes around the 110ºC mark), which I suppose it's that way because it would have the older oil rad design from the earlier Yak-7s. The Fw 190 A-5 with outer wing guns at full throttle does around 675 km/h at 9k with the cowling shutters open enough to avoid overheating, and with full open shutters it does around 640 km/h. There is a German graph showing around 615 km/h for an A-5 with the four cannons at 9000 meters, but I don't know the shutters settings they used, so it varies from a 25 km/h to a 60 km/h overspeed possibility. So I think first there should be corrected engine performance with altitudes, by comparing them with tests in the same specific conditions as real life (the same radiator positions for example), and once that's fixed then we can advance with radiator parameters such as cooling efficiency, drag penalization, etc. Because otherwise you have both engine and radiators as unknown variables which makes it harder to correct.