Jump to content

=362nd_FS=RoflSeal

Members
  • Content Count

    745
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

428 Excellent

About =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1023 profile views
  1. 109s WEP and Combat timers are two seperate timers with WEP being able to recharge whilst using Combat The Allied aircraft need to go to continuous to recharge timers, and even then combat timer recharges first till it is complete before the WEP timer recharges. WEP also uses up the combat timer as well, which results in the P-47 (and every American aircraft) going 5 minutes WEP and 5 minutes combat followed by the engine blowing up. Meanwhile the K-4 can go 10 minutes WEP 10 minutes Combat 10 minutes WEP 10 minutes Combat 10 minutes WEP 10 minutes Combat Aircraft out of fuel The Russians aren't hurt because they use only 1 timer only on some aircraft. The British aren't affected as bad because their manual limits are 5 minute WEP, 1 hour combat in comparison to Americans 5 minute WEP, 15 minute combat. The discrepency between these number have nothing to do with engine durability.
  2. Bit of a meme. P-51's wing were in theory laminar, but reality was otherwise. Manufacturing techniques were not quite there yet to ensure a smooth surface on the aerofoil and aircraft in service would get dust and grime that would ruin the laminar flow anyway. What made the P-51 less draggy is multiple factors and the main one is probably the cooling system. P-51's oil, intercooler and coolant radiator were all in the same place, so while there is no redundancy, it is very slick compared to the Spitfire that had 2 radiators areas and the Bf-109 that had 3. The P-51s radiator intake was also some distance away from the fuselage of the airplane unlike the examples listed above. The only aircraft I've seen in this time period do this as well is the La-7's oil radiator but I believe that is by accident for manufacturing reasons rather then by design. This ensures that the air coming into the radiator is away from the boundary layer created by the fuselage, increasing mass flow. This allows a smaller intake for the same mass flow of air into the radiator and therefore less drag. The reason why I don't think the La-7 utilizes this on purpose is that the distance from the intake to the fuselage body is too small and the radiator would still be under the influence of the boundary layer. Couple this with a flush body that has no bumps and blisters like late Bf-109s and Spitfires, landing gear tyres were completely covered by wheel well doors and rear wheel completed retracted, you just have to look at the speed difference of the Bf-109K vs the 109Gs to see such features easily add 30-40kph + to the top speed
  3. I believe the ingame P-47 currently i believe is marginally better overall then the FW-190A-5/8. Not better then the D-9 however
  4. Solution would be modelling multiple types of engine degradation instead of 1 engine damaged mode that will always lead to seizure. Higher temperatures, higher fuel or oil consumption, less power output etc.
  5. Not really. Area rule only saw significant application in underpowered jets of the 50-60s so aircraft to get past the transonic region of M0.8-1.2 in level flight. After advances in jet technology including intake design, area rule became less important, as modern jets don't really have a problem brute forcing past it with aircraft such as the F-22 and Eurofighter able to go past the transonic zone in military power. MiG-25 and MiG-31 certainly don't follow the area rule, yet they are among the fastest conventional jet aircraft to exist.
  6. In multiplayer all maps are available, so you can play a server running a map on Kuban, but you can't play the singleplayer Kuban campaign.
  7. Yeah, the La-5(F) now has the Ash-82FN and La-5FN now has ASh-82(F)
  8. That would be the only way to reach 1.82 ata as listed on some performance charts.
  9. No it is far easier. Our P-38 should have manifold regulator, max turbo rpm limiter, auto radiators and intercoolers, RPM lever should move up with the throttle (but not down). There is not much difference at all between a late J and L. The only visual difference you can tell an L from a J is that the L has a Leading edge landing light on the port wing and a the tail warning radar. They have same effective powerplant (2x 1600hp) but is about 1000lbs lighter. L has extra equipment as mentioned plus can carry 10x HVAR rockets and pylons are cleared each for 2000 lbs ordnance. As a fighter aircraft, the J-25 is better, as a multirole aircraft, L is better.
  10. I don't think that is right http://www.americanairmuseum.com/unit/455 Plenty of serial numbers in 474th FG correspond to P-38Ls
  11. C.202s continuous power setting is actually the Bf-109E-7s 30 minute power settings (both 1.23 ata @ 2300 RPM)
  12. M4A2's gunsight has no inbuilt range finding capability and this is depicted in the Armored Force Manual FM17-12
  13. I love how the 7 ton P-47 looses all speed and gets thrown about about by 8mm bullets
  14. Easy enough with 70s-later IR missile, probably even with Gar-8 at closeish distance. EGT of a high power radial is still 450-700 C
  15. Mustang is much faster then the P-38 at all altitudes and a good 30 mph faster on the deck. It is in fact one of the fastest piston engined aircraft of WW2 on the deck, close with the Tempest V, La-7, Bf-109K-4 and FW-190D-9 which are all in the ballpark of 370-385mph at standard boost settings.
×
×
  • Create New...