Jump to content
Porkins

P-38 Lightning Speculation Thread

Recommended Posts

I prefer "Thirties Modern" to "Art Deco".   Art Deco actually refers to the styles of the 1920s.  The 1930s, specifically the mid to late thirties, ushered in cleaner, less ornate, styling, in everything we made.  Buildings, cars, home appliances, etc...   Remember, this was the time of streamlined locomotives, and pencil sharpeners and toasters that looked like they came out of wind tunnels.

 

p8S8ki.jpg

 

y4eC6u.jpg

 

 

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
spelling
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The P-38 isn't an airplane.

It's a flying Art Déco sculpture!

Amen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2019 at 9:26 PM, Stoopy said:

 

 

Abso-frikkin'-lutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I mean , all this blabbering and yapping is great and all, don't get me wrong... but I'm just gonna leave these here so we can admire 'em all in one place...

 

_P38_1.jpg

 

_P38_2.jpg

 

_P38_3.jpg

 

_P38_4.jpg

 

_P38_5.jpg

 

_P38_6.jpg

 

_P38_7.jpg

 

_P38_8.jpg

 

P38_1.jpg

 

P38_2.jpg

 

P38_3.jpg

 

P38_4.jpg

 

Trio_1.jpg

 

Trio_2.jpg

 

P-38_1.jpg

 

GF_USA.jpg

 

Visibility_1.jpg

 

Visibility_2.jpg


 

Goldarn it, I just accidentally quoted the above post from the bottom of the previous page. Now the beauty of this bird will be visible near the top of this page of the thread for a while so we can continue to admire it - accidentally of course - as the days 'til release wind down....

 

My apologies!

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the dive flaps? If i understand it correctly, the J-25 series were equipped with them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

Where are the dive flaps? If i understand it correctly, the J-25 series were equipped with them. 

flaps.jpg

Here. Faintly visible.

 

p28a-jpg.393440

 

Edit: Really looks like Wile E. Coyote tacked those things there underneath. "ACME-save-your-neck-flaps".

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

flaps.jpg

Here. Faintly visible.

 

Also check the second picture in the post at the top of this page showing the early 3D model.  You can see the outline and slightly raised surface on the bottom of the wing, about 1/3 down the chord of the wing, outboard of the engine nacelles.

Edited by Stoopy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2019 at 5:30 AM, Bremspropeller said:

The P-38 isn't an airplane.

It's a flying Art Déco sculpture!

 

And it's _awesome_. :)

 

One thing that I always found fascinating about the P-38, is that as a twin-engined fighter, it resolutely remained a true fighter.

 

Sure, it also made a good attack craft, but there was never any doubt that it remained a fighter, and was used as such to attain air superiority... as a twin-engined aircraft. Not many others can make the same claim. Sure, the Me-110 is a twin-engined fighter, but it didn't do too well in air superiority, and a clear concession to "it's big and heavy and probably won't make a great stand-alone fighter" is its rear turret. There were a few other heavy "fighters", like the Ju-88, but ultimately they were clearly skewed towards the attack role. 

 

But the P-38 remained a fighter to the end. Twin-engined, no turrets, vying for air superiority against the best the axis had to throw at them. And that's why it's maybe the fighter I'm the most excited about.

 

Of course I'm going to hug the Pony and squeeze it and hold it and pet it and call it George when I get it, but I am super intrigued by the P-38, and am really looking forward to see what it can do. 

Edited by 71st_AH_Yankee_
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

 

And it's _awesome_. :)

 

One thing that I always found fascinating about the P-38, is that as a twin-engined fighter, it resolutely remained a true fighter.

 

There were plans being made. Not a very sleek looking airplane, was it?

 

image.png.4c0a51cc814c8b067b3f1768ae7b86b5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's ready!? This plane will make me fly red.....but the 410 will bring me back to the dark side.....

 

 

FB_IMG_1566518684772.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a 38 your licensed to kill, anything approaching aggressively or head on.  If it is allied, they deserve whatever is coming their way, no one can miss identify this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me, like pilots were overwhelmed with operating the manual intercooler controls amidst the high pilot workload, combined with poor cockpit heating and few hours of training in type. The problems went away with automatic intercooler vent controls.

Sounds like it ought to climb and turn like hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Venturi said:

Sounds to me, like pilots were overwhelmed with operating the manual intercooler controls amidst the high pilot workload, combined with poor cockpit heating and few hours of training in type. The problems went away with automatic intercooler vent controls.

Sounds like it ought to climb and turn like hell.

 

I believe these issues were resolved in the  J-25 model we are receiving. Just like compressibility and roll rate at high speeds. The earlier models also had some very strange inlet/intercooler design that made for a lot of potential malfunctions.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Venturi said:

Sounds to me, like pilots were overwhelmed with operating the manual intercooler controls amidst the high pilot workload, combined with poor cockpit heating and few hours of training in type. The problems went away with automatic intercooler vent controls.

Sounds like it ought to climb and turn like hell.

 

P-38 gets a bad rap based on size and being a twin.  Actual procedure is pretty straightforward:

 

Release the pressure-activated interlock to twist the intercooler induction control knob counter-clockwise while holding down the flanged override lever, making sure to align the knurled collar of the pressure output regulator cam and then just pull upwards on the coupling ring to lock it into place against the shaft casing.  From there it's a simple matter of turning the slotted spindle on the end of the Johnson bar and engaging the spring-catch of the sequencing levers on the right-hand switchbox to activate the semiautomatic controls which then allow for (limited) free manual adjustment of the boost pressure fulcrum, of course making sure to avoid any interference between the connecting socket shank and the strike plate.  

 

Repeat for #2 engine and you're in business!

 

 

Edited by Stoopy
  • Haha 12
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can´t wait to go locomotive hunting with this fork-tailed devil.

 

 

3e24880f52779f0f7efc3fb4b907d87f.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 1:31 PM, Stoopy said:

 

P-38 gets a bad rap based on size and being a twin.  Actual procedure is pretty straightforward:

 

Release the pressure-activated interlock to twist the intercooler induction control knob counter-clockwise while holding down the flanged override lever, making sure to align the knurled collar of the pressure output regulator cam and then just pull upwards on the coupling ring to lock it into place against the shaft casing.  From there it's a simple matter of turning the slotted spindle on the end of the Johnson bar and engaging the spring-catch of the sequencing levers on the right-hand switchbox to activate the semiautomatic controls which then allow for (limited) free manual adjustment of the boost pressure fulcrum, of course making sure to avoid any interference between the connecting socket shank and the strike plate.  

 

Repeat for #2 engine and you're in business!

 

 

 

Or this...

 

page.png

 


pg2.jpg


pg3.jpg

 

 

pg1.jpg

 

 

 

On 9/6/2019 at 12:54 AM, Venturi said:

Sounds to me, like pilots were overwhelmed with operating the manual intercooler controls amidst the high pilot workload, combined with poor cockpit heating and few hours of training in type. The problems went away with automatic intercooler vent controls.

Sounds like it ought to climb and turn like hell.

 

Actually no. Before the J model, the intercooler operation was automatically controlled. The intercooler was changed to manual operation to avoid the automatic controls malfunctioning in earlier models.

 

 

Edited by Jaegermeister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ultimately, we may get a new key binding for all that. Unless I'm overlooking one that exists for this use (which well could be th'case...)

 

On another note this video popped up in my YouTube feed, I can't understand why, but even though it's an older video with low volume I think it's unique in that it's a live demo flight that goes into a fair amount of detail...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I just noticed that the P-38 will be the J-25 model. For some reason, I thought it was going to be the L model.

Edited by cardboard_killer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

You know, I just noticed that the P-38 will be the J-25 model. For some reason, I thought it was going to be the L model.

 

Don't worry, it will have Allison engine, and if there is one thing we know, is that it sucks in this sim. (Just look at P-40 and p-39 we currently have). 

 

The operation of this plane will be, probably, word for word of the conservative peace time/early war manuals. Ignoring all the stress and torture testing done during wartime, that has amply documentations, on Allison power plants. 

 

I really do wish the current timer base mechanics would actually model the real reason why engines had time limit recommendations.. like carb temp and oil tems and water temps... And the damage to engine was not a catastrophic failure if you went one millisecond over the time, like in a game, but a profuse oil leaks from damaged seals, cylinder misfires and general loss of power and oil pressure, like in real life. Not the full engine seize, that you get, if you gun your allison a pubic hair over its limits set by some manual.

 

Engines rarely fail in real life like they fail in this game, unless you shoot out the oil pan right under them, or mangle up the gear box or shoot out magnetos.

Abrupt engine halt needs usually total loss of lubrication or total failure of power transmission.  Even a total loss of a cylinder or two did not, in all cases, stop the engine, if the damage did not unbalance the crankshaft too much. Unbalancing something that spins fast usually led to spectacular failures if the RMP was not reduced and fast.

 

Well, fear for the worst, hope for the best. I do want to be positively surprised. 

 

 

 

Edited by Cpt_Siddy
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

Don't worry, it will have Allison engine, and if there is one thing we know, is that it sucks in this sim. (Just look at P-40 and p-39 we currently have). 

 

The operation of this plane will be, probably, word for word of the conservative peace time/early war manuals. Ignoring all the stress and torture testing done during wartime to engine, that is amply documents, on Allison power plants. 

 

I really do wish the current timer base mechanics would actually model the real reason why engines had time limit recommendations.. like carb temp and oil tems and water temps... And the damage to engine was not a catastrophic failure if you went one millisecond over the time, like in a game, but a profuse oil leaks from damaged gaskets, cylinder misfires and general loss of power, like in real life. 

 

Engines rarely fail in real life, like they fail in this game, unless you shoot out the oil pan right under them, or mangle up the gear box. 

 

 

 


Ya and how much money will you give me to spend years building this amount of detail?? My engineering team wants to know. You live in LaLa land Siddy. EVERYTHING costs money and time, of which I have a limited supply. Clearly our product is not for you. I suggest you go elsewhere for your happiness and ours. Hammering us day and day out does not do anything to make your wishes for our product to come true and it drives a wedge between the team and our customers and makes this forum a miserable place. You drive people away with your constant complaining which only make what you perceive to be our weaknesses worse. Stop campaigning, we are well aware of your feelings about tour product.

 

And you don't know anything about our P-38.

 

Jason 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jason_Williams said:


Ya and how much money will you give me to spend years building this amount of detail?? My engineering team wants to know. You live in LaLa land Siddy. EVERYTHING costs money and time, of which I have a limited supply. Clearly our product is not for you. I suggest you go elsewhere for your happiness and ours. Hammering us day and day out does not do anything to make your wishes for our product to come true and it drives a wedge between the team and our customers and makes this forum a miserable place. You drive people away with your constant complaining which only make what you perceive to be our weaknesses worse. Stop campaigning, we are well aware of your feelings about tour product.

 

And you don't know anything about our P-38.

 

Jason 

 

 

You got a die hard fan base here that you can leverage. Many fans in here are educated professionals in fields that have good overlap in subject at hand. And communications from you on why engines behave like they do, is more than welcome. We are all fans of very niche field in here, namely ww2 aviation and all that goes in to it. 

And please, don't mistake my wishes for carb temp meter in cockpit to mean something one day for ill will towards IL-2 or people working on it.  

 

But like you said, i know very little about your take on P-38, tho i wish it lives up to its fame. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 6:54 AM, Venturi said:

Sounds to me, like pilots were overwhelmed with operating the manual intercooler controls amidst the high pilot workload, combined with poor cockpit heating and few hours of training in type. The problems went away with automatic intercooler vent controls.

Sounds like it ought to climb and turn like hell.

The clover leaf, I believe it to have been called..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

Don't worry, it will have Allison engine, and if there is one thing we know, is that it sucks in this sim. (Just look at P-40 and p-39 we currently have). 

 

The operation of this plane will be, probably, word for word of the conservative peace time/early war manuals. Ignoring all the stress and torture testing done during wartime, that has amply documentations, on Allison power plants. 

 

I really do wish the current timer base mechanics would actually model the real reason why engines had time limit recommendations.. like carb temp and oil tems and water temps... And the damage to engine was not a catastrophic failure if you went one millisecond over the time, like in a game, but a profuse oil leaks from damaged seals, cylinder misfires and general loss of power and oil pressure, like in real life. Not the full engine seize, that you get, if you gun your allison a pubic hair over its limits set by some manual.

 

Engines rarely fail in real life like they fail in this game, unless you shoot out the oil pan right under them, or mangle up the gear box or shoot out magnetos.

Abrupt engine halt needs usually total loss of lubrication or total failure of power transmission.  Even a total loss of a cylinder or two did not, in all cases, stop the engine, if the damage did not unbalance the crankshaft too much. Unbalancing something that spins fast usually led to spectacular failures if the RMP was not reduced and fast.

 

Well, fear for the worst, hope for the best. I do want to be positively surprised. 

 

 

 

This is just a guess but I'm assuming it will have the same limits as the P-47 and P-51, iirc nearly all American aircraft at this stage had the same 5min WEP and 15 min military rating.

 

13 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:


Ya and how much money will you give me to spend years building this amount of detail?? My engineering team wants to know. You live in LaLa land Siddy. EVERYTHING costs money and time, of which I have a limited supply. Clearly our product is not for you. I suggest you go elsewhere for your happiness and ours. Hammering us day and day out does not do anything to make your wishes for our product to come true and it drives a wedge between the team and our customers and makes this forum a miserable place. You drive people away with your constant complaining which only make what you perceive to be our weaknesses worse. Stop campaigning, we are well aware of your feelings about tour product.

 

And you don't know anything about our P-38.

 

Jason 

 

Understandable and believe me if I won the lotto I'd give a couple mil to the team for improvements like this.

That being said there are plenty of good ideas that the community has come up with that may not require a complete overhaul of the timer system and may cost significantly less.

 

You know the product best of course but I don't see anything wrong with at least testing some of the ideas put forth, like extending timers or having an option to remove them, or have more leeway once engine timer is exceeded that way engines don't die within 30 secs of timer limit.

 

I understand though, everything cost money and I know the team is doing the best that they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people forget that IL2 since 2001 is just a game. I myself have been in it since the beginning, and I'm more than happy what other people have to do to make us have fun.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2019 at 7:21 AM, Jaegermeister said:

 

Or this...

 

05674-B5-F-7-E38-4-EB9-AAEF-AD183-C0-A10

 

 

356-FABD6-B777-4-C01-8-CEB-CA61-A4838-CE

 

4-A75-BC5-E-6-E9-E-4488-A8-AD-14-BA0-A4-

 

66-DFD659-D5-B0-4987-9071-14-AA21496794.

 

 

Actually no. Before the J model, the intercooler operation was automatically controlled. The intercooler was changed to manual operation to avoid the automatic controls malfunctioning in earlier models.

 

 

 

The leading edge intercoolers were inadequate to the task, although cool in design. You are conflating technical inadequacy with pilot work overload.

 

The point being made is that the manual control was a lot for pilots to manage and that was responsible for the later problems. 

 

The timer seems to have been overhauled aince back in the day. Still, detonation remains outside the realm of realization. It would be easy to implement. I have already provided the source documentation for the P38, but it could be extrapolated to all engines as the basics of piston engine design are not unique to the P38.

And yes, *I* live in LA. But I don’t think that my particular suggestions are out of the realm of possibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Venturi said:

 

The leading edge intercoolers were inadequate to the task, although cool in design. You are conflating technical inadequacy with pilot work overload.

 

The point being made is that the manual control was a lot for pilots to manage and that was responsible for the later problems. 

 

And yes, *I* live in LA. But I don’t think that my particular suggestions are out of the realm of possibility

 

No I’m not. My point is that you have your facts reversed.

 

On 9/6/2019 at 12:54 AM, Venturi said:

The problems went away with automatic intercooler vent controls....

 

This is where you have it backwards. The earlier models had an automatic intercooler control to reduce pilot workload. That was the technical problem, as it sometimes failed to function, causing other problems. The solution of switching to a manual control in later models to solve the technical problems actually increased pilot workload. It didn’t prevent them from effectively using the aircraft though.

 

I’m quoting directly from the P38 J/L pilot manual, you’re apparently speculating. I guess it is a speculation thread though, isn’t it?

 

I also don’t know what living in LA might have to do with it. 😳

Edited by Jaegermeister
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P-38L had an intercooler that was basically a radiator. The air entering each boom was divided into three areas or separate flows. The outer two were oil coolers and the Middle One was intercooler air.

 

Do you see now my point???

 

 

image.png.5815fc143b552f122b9afdd7e18802c1.png

image.png

Technically, the earlier intercoolers were fine. They just weren't rated for the whole power output of the uprated Allisons. And pilots would run the engines hard at high altitude for long times, resulting in too high of a air temp.

 

And also, technically, the later intercoolers were fine, too. They just needed good pilot control. Or they could overcool the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Ya and how much money will you give me to spend years building this amount of detail?? My engineering team wants to know

People certainly want a lot for their 50 bucks. Even as a RL pilot, I accept the limitations of the genre and enjoy it the way it is. At the moment, my go to airplane is the Spitfire Mk 9. I'm hoping to love the Lightning. 

But I'm smart enough to know that it probably is not going to be as accurate as a study sim would do it. It just can't be. And I really don't want to wait the five years it would take to turn out a single airplane. I think that's about how long I've been hearing about the developement of the DCS P-47. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

Didn't the L model have same inter cooler position as J model? 

 

Namely, in its beard?

 

Yes. But, the picture illustrates the point nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

People certainly want a lot for their 50 bucks. Even as a RL pilot, I accept the limitations of the genre and enjoy it the way it is. At the moment, my go to airplane is the Spitfire Mk 9. I'm hoping to love the Lightning. 

But I'm smart enough to know that it probably is not going to be as accurate as a study sim would do it. It just can't be. And I really don't want to wait the five years it would take to turn out a single airplane. I think that's about how long I've been hearing about the developement of the DCS P-47. 

I am ENTITLED to a proper modeled airplane for my 10 dollars*. ENTITLED!!!!

 

 

 

 

😇

 

 

*Pricing adjusted for complete package.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

10 hours ago, Venturi said:

The P-38L had an intercooler that was basically a radiator. The air entering each boom was divided into three areas or separate flows. The outer two were oil coolers and the Middle One was intercooler air.

 

Do you see now my point???

 

 

image.png.5815fc143b552f122b9afdd7e18802c1.png

image.png

Technically, the earlier intercoolers were fine. They just weren't rated for the whole power output of the uprated Allisons. And pilots would run the engines hard at high altitude for long times, resulting in too high of a air temp.

 

And also, technically, the later intercoolers were fine, too. They just needed good pilot control. Or they could overcool the air.

 

Actually no, I don't see your point.

 

I'm not sure if you are intentionally being contrary or if you just aren't reading the posted information or doing actual research. 

 

Your previously posted image is incorrect regarding the intercooler ducts. Your image has highlighted the radiator coolant ducts on the side of the booms under the turbosupercharger. The intercooler air never enters the booms. It does come in under the engine nacelle where the oil cooler radiator is also located and exits through the ducts that are controlled by the pilot. I have marked them for you with a red circle below.

 

Shutters.png

 

In addition, this would be the actual intercooler issue.

   

From ; http://www.aerofiles.com/JBlock-p38j.html

 

   Earlier P-38s had passed the compressed air from the turbosuperchargers through a hollow passageway lying along the leading edge of the wing all the way from boom to wing tip and back in order to cool it down before it entered the carburetor. There were problems encountered with this arrangement. The difficulty in controlling the superchargers caused frequent engine backfires, some of which actually caused changes in the shape of the wing leading edge. The large area of these wing intercoolers also make them vulnerable to gunfire. The P-38J (Model 422) introduced a revised powerplant installation, with the intercooler being changed to a core-type radiator located below the engine. The air intake for the intercooler was sandwiched between the oil radiator intakes in a deeper, lower nose. The core-type radiator took cooling air through the central duct behind the propeller and exhausted it through a controllable exit flap, thus permitting a considerable amount of control over the the temperature of the air entering the carburetor. The leading edge tunnels were eliminated and were replaced by additional self-sealing fuel cells in the outer wing panels. The modification was initially tested on P-38E [41-1983].

 

That's all I have on this particular issue. If you can't grasp the concept, I'm obviously not the one to convince you. 

Edited by Jaegermeister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2019 at 12:30 AM, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

Don't worry, it will have Allison engine, and if there is one thing we know, is that it sucks in this sim. (Just look at P-40 and p-39 we currently have). 

 

The operation of this plane will be, probably, word for word of the conservative peace time/early war manuals. Ignoring all the stress and torture testing done during wartime, that has amply documentations, on Allison power plants. 

 

I really do wish the current timer base mechanics would actually model the real reason why engines had time limit recommendations.. like carb temp and oil tems and water temps... And the damage to engine was not a catastrophic failure if you went one millisecond over the time, like in a game, but a profuse oil leaks from damaged seals, cylinder misfires and general loss of power and oil pressure, like in real life. Not the full engine seize, that you get, if you gun your allison a pubic hair over its limits set by some manual.

 

Engines rarely fail in real life like they fail in this game, unless you shoot out the oil pan right under them, or mangle up the gear box or shoot out magnetos.

Abrupt engine halt needs usually total loss of lubrication or total failure of power transmission.  Even a total loss of a cylinder or two did not, in all cases, stop the engine, if the damage did not unbalance the crankshaft too much. Unbalancing something that spins fast usually led to spectacular failures if the RMP was not reduced and fast.

 

Well, fear for the worst, hope for the best. I do want to be positively surprised. 

 

 

 

 

Exept that when an engine runs in a regime that causes detonation (running high boost) catastrophic failure is fairly instant. 

 

Engines that are making 1000-1500+ hp have to run in a fairly concise temp range, when you run above those temps at high power settings things tend to skyrocket exponentially.. creating 1000 odd HP generates a LOT of heat  and when unchecked will cause real damage very quickly that is likely permanent (and catastrophic) 

 

It is perhaps better (generalising) to compare WWII fighter engines to racing engines of the time (when abused out of limits they go bang pretty quickly) than what most people are familiar with in general experience i.e. a fairly modern car engine. 

 

Trouble is, if things were modelled with more leniency it would be abused (I assume by people like siddy) with continued combat right up to point of failure. It is bad enough to watch a group of aircraft all continuing combat   with multiple streams of coolant and fuel leaks streaming away "to just get that last kill!" 

 

This is just my general opinion having flown millions of miles in R/L mostly in war zones and a lot in WWII era a/c having blown many many big radials all of which were catastrophic and required imidiate shut down or pretty much instant failure. 

 

Damage to engine puts you out of the fight. But a lot of MP monkeys don't want that, they feel the need to re-enact the one in a million "lost two cylinders and carried on flying example" but in combat in every single mission (sort of joking but you may get my point) 

 

Feel free to nit pick with extreme examples but I AM generalising based on experience 

 

Better detonation and cooling modeling have been mentioned by devs as an intention and I look forward to when they have time and resources to implement 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...