Jump to content
dkoor

So who else is looking forward to P-38 ?

Recommended Posts

Hard to tell from the pics but there were five lined up that day - all flyable. Lol maybe the only five flyables left. Chino, CA 2013...:cool:

 

 

 

 

p-381.jpg

P-382.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

having grown up in Burbank California, the home of the P-38, i'm thrilled to get my hands on this aircraft 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cockpit view perspective in VR is what i am really looking forward too, especially on my wide FoV Pimax. To look out and see those 2 props spinning forward of me will pretty amazing I think. Current twin props we have are more to the side and not so forward. Also they seem to be stepping up their graphic/texture/modelling abilities and it should shine like a diamond with their latest and greatest tech since will be last plane to arrive it appears. Very excited for it to arrive for us all to enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am. I love the P38. And yes I know itll be outclassed by a lot of planes but theres just something about the bird.

The P51D has nice lines and I can fly it (learning kn DCS fixed that) but its actually rather underwhelming..  Im definitely getting Bodenplatte but I may get the premium version to get the P38 and all the other planes. I say this because I dont really like late model 109s.  Maybe the K as it went back to its roots somewhat but even then most my 109 experience in all games isnt late war.  The 190 D is beautiful of course. The P47 Im interested in.  Otherwise many of the Bodenplatte planes dont excite me as much. The Spit looks cool of course. The me262 is cool but not my type of plane to fly.

However adding the western planes and new map - Im all about it.  Plus itll flesh out the Eastern Front somewhat.

The P38 is funny - just like Corsairs (its very debateable) but Ive heard convcing arguments the F4 corsairs wouldnt have faired as well. In the ETO. Regardless I do hope we.ll see a PTO GB some day just for the corsairs. Though other planes are welcome too :)

I remember being in love with the Corsair that switched its 50s for 4 20mm cannons. Oh mann..

but yes of a the planes Bodenplatte has coming out Im aware of - and the Dora does look great - the P38 Im by far most excited about.

but I can be weird sometimees about my flying tatses. For example Im that weirdo in DCS that loves flying his huey to do CSAR

Share this post


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

I am. I love the P38. And yes I know itll be outclassed by a lot of planes but theres just something about the bird.

 

The gunnery is going to be one redeeming factor for the Lighting. A marginal gun solutions done flying the P-39L (don't count the M4 cannon as it's not a burst weapon) are going to be crippling if not immediately lethal in the P-38L. The backward visibility and very good acceleration will help evading. Counter rotating props and flaps should make the P-38 best at stall fighting. Raw performance is not going to be the best but it might not be that necessary to be effective, maybe.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont care. I love the plane.  The armaments impressive. 2 engines... 

Its got surprises and Im sure flown right will be deadly.

All I know is Ill fly it until I master it and we.ll see how "great" the 190 Dora or Kurfurst is.. Lol end of the day a better I16 pilot can take down even a 262 if he makes them.play his game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For my money I reckon the P-38 will shine as a ground attacker, or in reasonable numbers, as an escort. 

 

 For the former the title really has to go the Jug, but with the P-38 you can lose an engine and still get out of dodge, which is not something you can really do in the Jug. If nothing else, even if you've plenty of altitude, the Jug apparently glides rather like a battleship does. 

 

 For the latter, there are better escorts, but again the Lightning has the advantage of survivability, as well as a lot of firepower all in the nose for targets of opportunity on the way home. For the same reason, I feel it'll make a very good aircraft for attacking airfields, it really does seem built to make strafing runs as simple as possible.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

P-38 will do fine, it may not be the best speed/performance wise but it will most certainly hold it's own imo.

Johannes "Macky" Steinhoff said in an interview that he considered the P-38 to be the toughest aircraft to fight against when flown by a skilled pilot.

 

I think the P-38 will surprise quite a few pilots in a dogfight, many of the drawbacks of the P-38 aren't applicable in-game. The problems that are applicable may not be a problem either, due to the P-38 we are getting since it will have dive recovery flaps and hopefully boosted ailerons.

 

P-38 is gonna be very fun to fly, though I do have some reservations considering the current problem with some of the aircraft FM we have in-game.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all guns in nouse and great cockpit view are tempting, but its big target when something gets on your 6, and it will get on it because your slow and easy visable from far, they aint gona miss so easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

all guns in nouse and great cockpit view are tempting, but its big target when something gets on your 6, and it will get on it because your slow and easy visable from far, they aint gona miss so easy.

Most American aircraft are big targets. I was actually surprised at how small/average (it's not small I know) the P-38 looks when sitting next to other American aircraft.

 

airports-chino-2018-Air-Show-Heritage-Fl

 

150301-F-OF524-115.JPG

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

And its easy to see P-38 is bigest one and P-51 smalest out of bobp usa stuff, and it dosent look like P-38 can absorb big amount of bullets compared to others. P-47 is suposed to be tuff and we all know how that looks in game, now what can you expect from others then.

 

Fighterprofile.jpg

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I just found an interesting article about development of the P-38. You can read how the infamous engine limits from manuals were set by bureaucrats, too. Actual limits were much higher as tests of actual Lightings showed. No wonder manuals were just disregarded by pilots and field technicians. After all the latter were risking their lives; the ones making decisions were not and a paper can take anything.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ehret said:

I just found an interesting article about development of the P-38. You can read how the infamous engine limits from manuals were set by bureaucrats, too. Often enough they were just disregarded by pilots and field technicians. Actual limits were much higher as tests of actual Lightings showed.

 

Yep

They might get yelled at by their crew chief...but they got back to base to get yelled at by their crew chief.

 

Same with Jug and Mustang, and pretty much every American aircraft at least.

I cant' speak to other nations as I don't have the background there to comment.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

And its easy to see P-38 is bigest one and P-51 smalest out of bobp usa stuff, and it dosent look like P-38 can absorb big amount of bullets compared to others. P-47 is suposed to be tuff and we all know how that looks in game, now what can you expect from others then.

The size difference is very minimal.

 

14 minutes ago, Ehret said:

I just found an interesting article about development of the P-38. You can read how the infamous engine limits from manuals were set by bureaucrats, too.

 

Funny that you mention engine limits, I was reading a combat report earlier that shows what we have in-game is a bunch of bull.

I'll have to find more report but I know they exist, the one I read earlier said something along the lines of "I slammed the throttle full forward and followed for 15 min" or something along those lines.

 

I can guarantee the P-38 engine will be just like the P-47, P-40, and P-39 and blow up after 5min WEP.

 

Like I said, I have my reservations about the P-38, and the P-51 for that matter.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I can guarantee the P-38 engine will be just like the P-47, P-40, and P-39 and blow up after 5min WEP.

 

Like I aid, I have my reservations about the P-38, and the P-51 for that matter.

 

Hopefully, the combat setting which is 2x1425hp will be usable. The P-38L drag is less than 2x of single engine planes and 2850hp for 15m is something. But yes, that's silly to have engines which were run for +1700hp without much trouble to be handicapped like that...

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm totally with you here Legioneod. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'm totally with you here Legioneod. 

I wish it wasn't the case, but with the way things are currently modeled in-game I can't help but feel a bit pessimistic.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

I wish it wasn't the case, but with the way things are currently modeled in-game I can't help but feel a bit pessimistic.

If you manage to compile some of these combat reports to heavily contradict what we have, and have those reports come up with hard numbers to set new limits, then you might have a chance at achieving what you want. I think a shotgunning of numbers (which I suspect combat reports will do) of how long a pilot left their engine on full blast in different scenarios wont do much good. Say a pilot left their engine on emergency for 20 minutes with no problems, another leaves theirs on for 30 minutes, another leaves theirs on for 15, but none show problems. Whats the new limit? You cant come up with one. You need failure rates which surviving pilots usually dont come up with. 

 

I feel your best bet is NACA tests and other independent reports of actual engine survivability. No doubt those show engines going for much longer than flight manuals. The reality is that manuals come to conclusions the devs can "depend" on so to speak. I feel they dont like to fudge numbers based on averages of great variability, which results in their dependence on manuals which come to conclusions quickly. I'm totally on your side for this but thats the situation as I see it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Field-Ops said:

If you manage to compile some of these combat reports to heavily contradict what we have, and have those reports come up with hard numbers to set new limits, then you might have a chance at achieving what you want. I think a shotgunning of numbers (which I suspect combat reports will do) of how long a pilot left their engine on full blast in different scenarios wont do much good. Say a pilot left their engine on emergency for 20 minutes with no problems, another leaves theirs on for 30 minutes, another leaves theirs on for 15, but none show problems. Whats the new limit? You cant come up with one. You need failure rates which surviving pilots usually dont come up with. 

 

I feel your best bet is NACA tests and other independent reports of actual engine survivability. No doubt those show engines going for much longer than flight manuals. The reality is that manuals come to conclusions the devs can "depend" on so to speak. I feel they dont like to fudge numbers based on averages of great variability, which results in their dependence on manuals which come to conclusions quickly. I'm totally on your side for this but thats the situation as I see it. 

 

Very few combat reports give exact numbers, but all show whats possible and what pilots routinely did.

As far as I'm aware, no other sim relies on timers like this one does. There are far better ways to model engine limitations yet this game chose the worst possible way to model them.

The worst part is they didn't even use actual data but instead used manual limits which were meant to preserve the engine life until overhaul.

 

If you want to see a better way to model engines look at DCS, shoot, even 1946 modeled engines limits better than this game does iirc.

 

The problem with timers is not that they exist per say, but that they handicap some aircraft to an extremely unrealistic degree.

 

I'm not gonna go into any more rant right now, there are plenty of other threads about this and I've mentioned my idea on there. The devs are just gonna have to take a chance and test multiple options with the community.

 

There are only a few major flaws with this game, engine modeling is one of them. If they can get a better system in place this game will take a very large step in the right direction.

 

Here's a thread that discusses engine timers.(P-47 in particular)

 

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Field-Ops said:

Say a pilot left their engine on emergency for 20 minutes with no problems, another leaves theirs on for 30 minutes, another leaves theirs on for 15, but none show problems. Whats the new limit? You cant come up with one. You need failure rates which surviving pilots usually dont come up with.

 

For the P-51D the limit is 5 hours of accumulated WEP time between engine overhauls. Actually, for piston engines turning them on/off and rapidly changing settings is more stressful than running continuously on the same load. To save precious boost timers in the game you have repeatably switch from emergency to combat (or nominal) whenever possible. Doing such things IRL would ruin engine much faster than keeping it at the same higher boost. (excluding going full retard and putting engine into full detonation or similar)

 

If IRL the impassable high boost time was only 5m then you would get frequent seizures even on the nominal. Also, you wouldn't be able to manufacture engines with any dependable reliability. There are and must be hefty safety margins in all specs.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

For the P-51D the limit is 5 hours of accumulated WEP time between engine overhauls. Actually, for piston engines turning them on/off and rapidly changing settings is more stressful than running continuously on the same load.

 

If IRL the impassable high boost time was only 5m then you would get frequent seizures even on the nominal. Also, you wouldn't be able to manufacture engines with any dependable reliability. There are and must be hefty safety margins in all specs.

 

I'm not 100% sure but I think the P-47 engine overhaul was similar, matter of fact most engines had a similar overhaul regime.

 

The plain and simple fact is that engines don't die after going over a set WEP time, whether it be 5 min or 20 min. Engines die due to stress accumulated over a period of time or due to improper operation or damage to the engine.

 

Since the aircraft we have in-game represent factory fresh the only logical option, imo, is to either remove the timers altogether, or extend the timer beyond manual spec.

 

Another option that probably wouldn't be very popular is to give a blanket limit across all aircraft anywhere from 15min, 30min, 1 hour, etc.

The main benefit of this last option is that aircraft wont be unrealistically handicapped due to manual limits and players wont fly maxed out all the time.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

The plain and simple fact is that engines don't die after going over a set WEP time, whether it be 5 min or 20 min. Engines die to to stress accumulated over a period of time or due to improper operation or damage to the engine.

 

Since the aircraft we have in-game represent factory fresh the only logical option, imo, is to either remove the timers altogether, or extend the timer beyond manual spec.

 

IMHO, even better would be to have actual wear modelling and server side options to scale it to fit maps times. There is no need to have total engine seizures - just few percent hp reduction should keep people from abusing boost and ensure that it's still worth to take-off.

 

35 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Another option that probably wouldn't be very popular is to give a blanket limit across all aircraft anywhere from 15min, 30min, 1 hour, etc.

The main benefit of this last option is that aircraft wont be unrealistically handicapped due to manual limits and players wont fly maxed out all the time.

 

Most popular planes have such blanket limits, already. Yaks, the LaGG, the La-5F - no limits whatsoever. All 109s and 190s - all of them have 30m of strong combat power. The Mig, the La-5FN and all MW-50 equipped LW's fighters have 10m for the highest setting. It wouldn't be anything new.

 

Sorry to OT further but it should be noted that some planes have other factors which limits boost time. The P-39L for an example - load 50% fuel and the full WEP will use it all just in 15m (checked in QMB with unbreakable set). With exception of winter maps thermals will limit performance too; at the WEP temperatures can creep fast enough to force you out of the flush radiators thus reducing performance significantly.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


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

The problems that are applicable may not be a problem either, due to the P-38 we are getting since it will have dive recovery flaps and hopefully boosted ailerons.

 

There's no question about it having boosted ailerons. That was standard on the J-25. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

There's no question about it having boosted ailerons. That was standard on the J-25. 

Nice. So two of the main drawbacks of the P-38 won't be in-game. It may not be the fastest but it is a nimble aircraft from all accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Nice. So two of the main drawbacks of the P-38 won't be in-game. It may not be the fastest but it is a nimble aircraft from all accounts.

 

And don't overlook flaps... After what we seen in Thunderbolt the Lighting should be able to do vertical take-offs with flaps deployed... (joking, hopefully)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ehret said:

If IRL the impassable high boost time was only 5m then you would get frequent seizures even on the nominal. Also, you wouldn't be able to manufacture engines with any dependable reliability. There are and must be hefty safety margins in all specs.

 

Exactly. If an engine kills itself after 5 minutes of WEP, there's no way if would have been cleared for that WEP timeframe in the first place.

It would be interesting to have the specs stating how much time on WEP an engine has to demonstrate on a bench in order to clear x minutes of a said powersetting.

 

The important thing here is to gather proof and evidence and then forward it to the developers.

 

Time to unpork unrealistic engine limits.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

For the P-51D the limit is 5 hours of accumulated WEP time between engine overhauls. Actually, for piston engines turning them on/off and rapidly changing settings is more stressful than running continuously on the same load. To save precious boost timers in the game you have repeatably switch from emergency to combat (or nominal) whenever possible. Doing such things IRL would ruin engine much faster than keeping it at the same higher boost. (excluding going full retard and putting engine into full detonation or similar)

 

If IRL the impassable high boost time was only 5m then you would get frequent seizures even on the nominal. Also, you wouldn't be able to manufacture engines with any dependable reliability. There are and must be hefty safety margins in all specs.

 

I dont expect any changes in how limits are set as numbers come from manuals, BUT my gripe is:

 

-mainly now with recharges conditions and times not being same for all airplanes, as this is probably something that is not taken from manuals, so atleast that should be same.

 

-Allied airplanes losing wep or boost and combat at same time and axis not. Make it same for all airplanes, you eat timer for combat and emergancy/boost at same time when use max power ( like its now on allieds airplanes ) or you eat first one then onother timer ( like its now on axis ), no reason for this to be differant on differant airplanes like its now.

 

-and no info when timer is expired or recovered, i did some tests and i see that this messages show up only when instrument panel option is turned on, and i think this is bug, as some less important tech chat messages show up on expert settings, but this most important thing that tells you if your engine will brake or not dosent show up, and you dont have any other way to know its state, is just wrong.

 

So i reported it and hope they change it

 

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

And don't overlook flaps... After what we seen in Thunderbolt the Lighting should be able to do vertical take-offs with flaps deployed... (joking, hopefully)

Agreed. I'm gonna start a thread dedicated to the P-47s FM, currently quite a few things are wrong with it.

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Exactly. If an engine kills itself after 5 minutes of WEP, there's no way if would have been cleared for that WEP timeframe in the first place.

It would be interesting to have the specs stating how much time on WEP an engine has to demonstrate on a bench in order to clear x minutes of a said powersetting.

 

The important thing here is to gather proof and evidence and then forward it to the developers.

 

Time to unpork unrealistic engine limits.

 

Agreed. While I don't think the Devs are gonna change the whole system anytime soon I do believe we can get them to look at each aircraft individually and make adjustments.

I'm gonna see about gathering some form of data and making a thread about it. 

Limits are gonna have to be looked at on a aircraft by aircraft basis, P-47 is a good place to start imo since it is effected most by these limitations. (besides the P-40 and P-39 of course)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that the rigid adhering to the official manual is so that nobody can accuse them of bias, you know how the flight sim community is about their country vs all the others, etc

 

On that note, I do remember reading a pilot account of a P-51 pilot who had escaped from a dogfight and was running for nearly an hour before they noticed they left the plane on WEP the entire time without reducing throttle. You forget things in the heat of battle, apparently :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

I suspect that the rigid adhering to the official manual is so that nobody can accuse them of bias, you know how the flight sim community is about their country vs all the others, etc

 

On that note, I do remember reading a pilot account of a P-51 pilot who had escaped from a dogfight and was running for nearly an hour before they noticed they left the plane on WEP the entire time without reducing throttle. You forget things in the heat of battle, apparently :)

 

It happends in game also, thats why we should be able to get info abut when timer expired and recharged, your in df you cant count how long you used your boost, or have mutch time pased since you stop using it, and does it start to recharg when you stop using it and you didnt use it full or not, and so on. In real engine would not just blow up after 7 or 8min, so if you forghot no problems, but in game its big problem when you have no idea if you used it all or not and then all of suden engine just blows up.

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

.... snip ....

On that note, I do remember reading a pilot account of a P-51 pilot who had escaped from a dogfight and was running for nearly an hour before they noticed they left the plane on WEP the entire time without reducing throttle. You forget things in the heat of battle, apparently :)

I remember having read some time somewhere an account of someone running away at full power until his engine seized and he belly landed. So what? Who cares?  All this is just completely useless as a help for developing a better engine model.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Nocke said:

I remember having read some time somewhere an account of someone running away at full power until his engine seized and he belly landed. So what? Who cares?  All this is just completely useless as a help for developing a better engine model.

Clearly he was using it as an example to show timers don't make sense and are needlessly handicapping certain airframes.

 

Devs are unlikely to change the engine model so the best we can try to do is increase timers on a plane by plane basis. Devs made a huge mistake when they chose to model engine limits with timers instead of real world mechanics.

 

Also if players are so concerned with "fairness" or bias then they should just give all aircraft a blanket timer and give them all the same recharge rate.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


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

Clearly he was using it as an example to show timers don't make sense and are needlessly handicapping certain airframes.

 

 

None of those types of cherrypicked anecdotes are a reasonable basis for changing anything about the aircraft.  Real technical documentation, manuals and recorded standardized operating procedure are all that matters.

 

Good luck with your thread, I hope you find the documentation you'll require.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

Good luck with your thread, I hope you find the documentation you'll require.

 

The other and  "more sim in a sim" doesn't use crappy timers and they have exactly same documentations. I'm not experienced in it but I could run +20m full WEP straight in the P-51D until it seized. It could be because I mismanaged something, too.

 

If Devs are so keen on "documentations" I would like to see historic papers stating the policy of resting engines between WEP. There aren't such notes at least not for American planes. Yet, in the "sim" we have arbitrary times set for those... Even better some planes (Yak, LaGG, La-5F) don't use timers at all! It doesn't make sense... specifically soviet manufacturing early in the war was sub-bar and V-1710 engines in P-40s/P-39s had a much better fuel from LL, too.

 

You know what is the major differentiating factor between the La-5FN and the P-39L? Both offer similar levels of performance but the FN can keep it for 5 times longer thus seldom anyone dare to push the Airacobra hard. That's is so against Russian pilots experience with the P-39s it hurts...

 

So, no... it's only this very "sim" which for reasons require simple and strict timers. If Devs won't change that then fine - there is a simple and effective way to fix that. You know how?

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

The other and  "more sim in a sim" doesn't use crappy timers and they have exactly same documentations. I'm not experienced in it but I could run +20m full WEP straight in the P-51D until it seized. It could be because I mismanaged something, too.

 

If Devs are so keen on "documentations" I would like to see historic papers stating the policy of resting engines between WEP. There aren't such notes at least not for American planes. Yet, in the "sim" we have arbitrary times set for those... Even better some planes (Yak, LaGG, La-5F) don't use timers at all! It doesn't make sense... specifically soviet manufacturing early in the war was sub-bar and V-1710 engines in P-40s/P-39s had a much better fuel from LL, too.

 

You know what is the major differentiating factor between the La-5FN and the P-39L? Both offer similar levels of performance but the FN can keep it for 5 times longer thus seldom anyone dare to push the Airacobra hard. That's is so against Russian pilots experience with the P-39s it hurts...

 

So, no... it's only this very "sim" which for reasons require simple and strict timers. If Devs won't change that then fine - there is a simple and effective way to fix that. You know how?

 

 

I have no affection for timers, that wasn't my point.  My point is one that should be crystal clear by this point to anybody who cares enough to attempt to have a flight model revised to be more accurate(in their estimation) :  Those armed only with armfuls of anecdotes need not apply.  If you have a results-oriented mentality then there's no point kicking against the stated requirements to get what you want. 

 

There must be documents detailing the standard operation of these aircraft in combat, surely.

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

I have no affection for timers, that wasn't my point.  My point is one that should be crystal clear by this point to anybody who cares enough to attempt to have a flight model revised to be more accurate(in their estimation) :  Those armed only with armfuls of anecdotes need not apply.  There must be documents detailing the standard operation of these aircraft in combat, surely.

 

Then you're asking for evidence that mostly does not exist. When you're in combat SOP usually goes out the window, training kicks in but engine limits are the least of your worries when in a fight, this is evidenced by the many first hand accounts of slamming the throttle forward and keeping it there.

 

If you're looking for a piece of paper that says, "So and so engine can last this long at this power" your probably not going to find anything, you can get estimates but nothing concrete.

What we do have is bench test, time before overhaul, flight manual limits, and first hand accounts.

 

What we do know without a doubt is that the engines will last much longer than the listed WEP times. You're never going to get an exact figure on how long and engine can last since there are just too many variables to consider and each engine is different.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

Then you're asking for evidence that mostly does not exist. When you're in combat SOP usually goes out the window, training kicks in but engine limits are the least of your worries when in a fight, this is evidenced by the many first hand accounts of slamming the throttle forward and keeping it there.

 

If you're looking for a piece of paper that says, "So and so engine can last this long at this power" your probably not going to find anything, you can get estimates but nothing concrete.

What we do have is bench test, time before overhaul, flight manual limits, and first hand accounts.

 

What we do know without a doubt is that the engines will last longer than the listed WEP times. You're never going to get an exact figure on how long and engine can last since there are just too many variables to consider and each engine is different.

 

 

I've been in combat and our accumulated set of techniques, tactics and maneuvers did not go anywhere, but came to the fore and enabled us to do what we had to do.  Why else spend years and decades building up institutional experience that then takes the form of the training and doctrine that is used by your people?  And this stuff IS documented.

 

None of the American wing commanders or their S3 or whoever wrote "this is how we have had success running our aircraft in combat" and disseminated it to their men or other wings in written form, or sent it back to the United States to be used to bring their training conditions in line with combat conditions?

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

I've been in combat and our accumulated set of techniques, tactics and maneuvers did not go anywhere, but came to the fore and enabled us to do what we had to do.  Why else spend years and decades building up institutional experience that then takes the form of the training and doctrine that is used by your people?  And this stuff IS documented.

 

None of the American wing commanders or their S3 or whoever wrote "this is how we have had success running our aircraft in combat" and disseminated it to their men or other wings in written form?

All I was saying is that no one is paying attention to a time limit in-combat, it's nearly impossible to keep time and pilots were not worried about an engine timer.

 

My point is if they didn't worry irl then why should we? To enforce balance or keep us from running full all day? Having one very unrealistic mechanic to dissuade semi unrealistic behavior is ridiculous.

 

I could make a list of all the things incorrect with this game and engine limits are at the top. It's the one thing that bothers me most of all and needs to be changed or relaxed quite a bit.

 

There is plenty of "documentation" of pilots running there engines much longer than the specified timers, but apparently that's not good enough because it isn't backed up by official test or statistics.

 

Engine modeling in this game sucks and is inaccurate, its as simple as that.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

it aint gona change so youll just waist time, best is to get more east front dlcs and leve usa airplanes for books, vvs fighters for the win, give us la7s and yak3s soviets clearly knew how to make engines properly 😄

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

it aint gona change so youll just waist time, best is to get more east front dlcs and leve usa airplanes for books, vvs fighters for the win, give us la7s and yak3s soviets clearly knew how to make engines properly 😄

 

Yeah, you'd think with American industrial prowess we'd figure out how to make a proper engine. I guess it was all propaganda. Who knew that the P&W R-2800 was one of the worst engines of the war.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...