Please re-think engine time limits.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

That one is 13 seconds better from 1000-8000 m than my first and only test (which probably wasn't perfect) and doesn't say the radiator setting. I've no doubt that you can easily reach that time when you manually close the radiators in BoS for even a short period of time.

 

So i don't see how that's way better than what we currently have in BoS.

Ok, thought you made your test according to the book. You may ask Holtzauge, he has a programm that can measure the climb speed of every plane in here perfectly, we are currently discussing the 190 climb rate. My point was not, that it's not good enough in general, rather that the relative performance between the F4 and the G2 seems off

[Matt]

That's true. Like i wrote originally, the F-4 climb rate is optimistic, same with its speed. And that's a bit of a shame, because the G-2 is basically useless in BoS.

 

I'm hopeful that with the F-2, there'll be slight changes to the overall FMs of the F-4 and G-2 regarding the radiator modelling at least and that might make things better. 

[303_Kwiatek]

F-4 in BOS had too good performance at high alts which was previously proved in winter condtions in BOS also.  If G-2 is underperforming and F-4 overperforming in BOS thats why G-2 seemd to be worse like it shoudn't be expecially at high alts.

 

But the same is for Yak-1 and Lagg-3 which are also huge overpeforiming at high alts.   We got also underperforiming Fw 190 A-3 in climb rate expecially above 2 km we got some picture of situation in BOS comparing to RL data.

 

These things should be corrected by developers if they want to be taken seriously and have plan to add other campaings in BOS and also new planes. They  should clear these situation before.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

That one is 13 seconds better from 1000-8000 m than my first and only test (which probably wasn't perfect) and doesn't say the radiator setting. I've no doubt that you can easily reach that time when you manually close the radiators in BoS for even a short period of time.

 

So i don't see how that's way better than what we currently have in BoS.

Test a plane's practical data under the condition (engine overheat) which can render its engine to be damaged is meaningless. it does make more sense for me that such test http://kurfurst.org/...n_G1_blatt.html  was done with autoRad setting.  

You prefer the worse one which is being calculated instead of being measured.

Edited December 29, 2015 by III/JG2Gustav05

[Matt]

Actually, the 13 seconds from my post which you quoted are compared to the best German measured test avaliable. Not the one that's calculated.

 

And if my test is meaningless, feel free to ignore it.

[Xenunjeon88]

If I understand correctly, the way it works now is that if the RPM or pressure goes above certain limits that is written in the official manual of the engine, a timer starts, and when you exceed the time, the engine will break. This effects German aircrafts mostly, that have a hard coded 1 minute "expiry date" at full throttle.

 

In reality, however, the engine could have broken at full throttle any time between 1 minute, 3 minute or 30 hours. We have the luxury to fly new planes every time we take off, so removing these limits would be very unrealistic and unfair. Just as unfair as making the engine break 100% after the shortest time limit is exceeded.

 

It would be much more realistic if there was a random factor, like, if the limit now is 1 minute, then it could break anytime between 1 minute and 5 minutes, let's say.

 

Right now BoS is considering the most pessimistic outcome every time and this makes air combat very limited.

 

What do you think?

Agreed...