7 1/2 Hour War Emergency Test of Pratt&Whitney R-2800 26 April 1944

[Guest deleted@134347]

in DCS the engine is limited by oil temp and water temp. In spit, for example, you don't pull back on that throttle and oil would boil and seize the engine. Had the engine and the auxiliary temperature conditions were simulated correctly there'd be no need for all of these timers. P40 especially.

 

Does it make it easier for the rookie player to start playing the game? Nope... He/she needs to monitor those temp gauges like a hawk. That alone will require proper training and general acquaintance with the systems. But it'd definitely be more realistic simulation wise.

Edited November 28, 2018 by moosya

[Ehret]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

Rgardless of whether you think so or not, hard set limits are very unrealistic, and it'd be more realitic not to have them at all. I'd rather die from a K4 running ful WEP all day, than die from my engine giving out when I really needed it.

 

In the sim practice K4s can be running full WEP for +50% of it's airborne time. When facing one is sure thing to assume that whole engagement will be done by the K4 on full power. And that's not the worst thing - imagine if the enemy would use the very high "continuous" power to secure advantageous position every time before even the hot part of the engagement starts.

 

There is a work around; climb to the ceiling before going anywhere but how much one can tolerate? All because the virtual nature of the sim program allows very short sorties and throwing virtual fuel away.

[LColony_Kong]

1 hour ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

Dont start with the childish insults.  We have had this discussion before you and me. Just removing the engine limits will never happen, unless the devs replace it with a more realistic system of engine modeling.

 

the most you may see is a player option to remove the engine limits in their game if they wish. Trying to impose your preferred solution will not happen since it is worse than the current system.

 

Do not forget that you started a poll to find out what the "Community" wanted and it turns out 90% were fine with some sort of engine limits.

 

I only called you out for what you did, which was intentionally misrepresent me. And I was not the only person who called you out. 

 

Also I cant imagine why you think that poll is relevant. Am I supposed to care what the "community" wants?  Anyhow, there are alot of people in this thread with opinions favorable to mine that were not involved in those past debates. Nor were those polls of the community, but just the opinion types on the forums. 

 

I am honestly quite amused that you think I am supposed the care about some poll. Good Lord.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by Fumes

[Legioneod]

6 minutes ago, moosya said:

in DCS the engine is limited by oil temp and water temp. In spit, for example, you don't pull back on that throttle and oil would boil and seize the engine. Had the engine and the auxiliary temperature conditions were simulated correctly there'd be no need for all of these timers. P40 especially.

 

Does it make it easier for the rookie player to start playing the game? Nope... He/she needs to monitor those temp gauges like a hawk. That alone will require proper training and general acquaintance with the systems. But it'd definitely be more realistic simulation wise.

 

How difficult would it be to implement this in the sim? We already have overheating so why not just let water/oil be the factor?

I still think and option to turn of the timers would be a good stopgap until they implement something better. It's hard to enjoy this game with the engine restrictions as they are, I've hated it since I first purchased BoS.

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

 

How difficult would it be to implement this in the sim? We already have overheating so why not just let water/oil be the factor?

I still think and option to turn of the timers would be a good stopgap until they implement something better. It's hard to enjoy this game with the engine restrictions as they are, I've hated it since I first purchased BoS.

Im not sure if it would be hard, but one thing should be clarified. In DCS and IRL, none of these planes are going to be overheating in level flight etc. The rad systems are, like all things of this nature, made to handle much more than needed. With exceptions like the yak1, which are well known because of how comical some of its rad issues were. In DCS the temps only become a problem during extremely sustained and very slow maneauvers. Not even level turns. Think like 3 hammerheads in a row. 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

12 minutes ago, moosya said:

in DCS the engine is limited by oil temp and water temp. In spit, for example, you don't pull back on that throttle and oil would boil and seize the engine. Had the engine and the auxiliary temperature conditions were simulated correctly there'd be no need for all of these timers. P40 especially.

While I think P-40 runs too cool compared to RAF/RAAF tests i have from old Peril's P-40 site, I think DCS is the other way around especially when it is described that cooling of the Mk IX is sufficient at +25lbs in tropical summer conditions and climbing with the Spitfire in DCS at any serious power for prolonged time is an exercise in overheating

Edited November 28, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Guest deleted@134347]

14 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

How difficult would it be to implement this in the sim? We already have overheating so why not just let water/oil be the factor?

I still think and option to turn of the timers would be a good stopgap until they implement something better. It's hard to enjoy this game with the engine restrictions as they are, I've hated it since I first purchased BoS.

 

that's the question to the devs, really. In dcs the model description states they simulate each cylinder along with the whole thermodynamic model around it. But that's in their marketing materials, however at least they're revealing something compared to IL2 team that doesn't share any details of any modeling... at least i haven't seen any.

 

edit:  and i'm not complaining about the current timer based model either. If the modeling is limited to whatever it is now, but it offers a high number of the simulated aircraft (even if it's at 80% model) I still prefer it over DCS. I'm just adding to the commentary really.

Edited November 28, 2018 by moosya

[Legioneod]

13 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Im not sure if it would be hard, but one thing should be clarified. In DCS and IRL, none of these planes are going to be overheating in level flight etc. The rad systems are, like all things of this nature, made to handle much more than needed. With exceptions like the yak1, which are well known because of how comical some of its rad issues were. In DCS the temps only become a problem during extremely sustained and very slow maneauvers. Not even level turns. Think like 3 hammerheads in a row. 

 

I know, that's why I said they should just give an option to disable limits as a stopgap measure. I'm not sure what people are afraid of, DCS clearly shows that players (most of them anyways) don't abuse there engines needlessly.

 

It'd just be nice to be able to push my engine for once when I really need it, instead it always lets me down.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Legioneod

[Guest deleted@134347]

2 hours ago, Legioneod said:

It'd just be nice to be able to push my engine for once when I really need it, instead it always lets me down.

 

I've learned the best way to get accustomed to the timers is while dueling. That's really the only time you'll get to use the aircraft to its limits and it's the only time when you can start feeling the edge of the engine performance. Yes, you will blow it up first 5-10 times, but eventually you'll learn it. At first I was actually counting '1 messerschmidt, 2 messerschmidt.. etc'.  Then I've learned to use emergency power on during the short dives only, then a mix.. etc etc.. 

 

however, I do agree, that adding a time remainder in the techno chat would be beneficial for the new comers. However, that should be a configurable MP server element as well.

 

Removing limits? Not interested in it so much. Everyone would run on full wep all day then. And then the discussions on how wep's are drastically different between models would inevitably follow. Vicious circle of complaints.  

[Talon_]

6 minutes ago, moosya said:

Everyone would run on full wep all day then. And then the discussions on how wep's are drastically different between models would inevitably follow.

 

This argument is kinda spoiled by the MW50 109s that can run at WEP for over 50% of a sortie duration and Combat for the other 50%.

[Guest deleted@134347]

2 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

This argument is kinda spoiled by the MW50 109s that can run at WEP for over 50% of a sortie duration and Combat for the other 50%.

 

you're talking about K4 only.  Imho it's a crazy plane for this game in general. ?

[Talon_]

Just now, moosya said:

 

you're talking about K4 only.  Imho it's a crazy plane for this game in general. ?

 

G-14 can do it too as will G-6 if it ever gets MW50 upgrade. 25 minutes of WEP time in MW50 planes with no necessity to drop to Continuous at any point as it recharges during Combat.

[Guest deleted@134347]

1 minute ago, Talon_ said:

 

G-14 can do it too as will G-6 if it ever gets MW50 upgrade. 25 minutes of WEP time in MW50 planes with no necessity to drop to Continuous at any point as it recharges during Combat.

 

so is yak 127 can run full wep or whatever as long as keep the rads open, etc.  I guess, is this an axis complaint only then?  Not sure i follow.  My point is without proper engine modeling there are no limits, hence there's an artificial limit. 

[Talon_]

Just now, moosya said:

 

so is yak 127 can run full wep or whatever as long as keep the rads open, etc.  I guess, is this an axis complaint only then?  Not sure i follow.  My point is without proper engine modeling there are no limits, hence there's an artificial limit. 

 

The Yaks don't have WEP.

 

What's inconsistent is in planes that do - for instance the P-47D which also uses water injection on top of regular combat power cannot recharge WEP while at combat, giving you 9 minutes of power above Continuous before the engine explodes - and an engine that was known for taking a lot of abuse. By contrast, the 109s all have 45 minutes of power above Continuous before they run out of fuel.

[Guest deleted@134347]

1 minute ago, Talon_ said:

 

The Yaks don't have WEP.

 

What's inconsistent is in planes that do - for instance the P-47D which also uses water injection on top of regular combat power cannot recharge WEP while at combat, giving you 9 minutes of power above Continuous before the engine explodes - and an engine that was known for taking a lot of abuse. By contrast, the 109s all have 45 minutes of power above Continuous before they run out of fuel.

 

 

maybe we're all looking at WEP or emegency or Maximum power differently and the whole il2 implementation concept isn't fully understood by the user community. Again, because the engine isn't simulated fully, the WEP or whatever you want to call it is simulated beyond the operational baseline that's established for the aircraft. And maybe its 'beyond characteristics' are simulated linearly that would inevitably result in much greater performance of the aircraft compared to the historical spec. To counter this linearity there are these artificial limits. I am spit-balling here, but it all comes down to the modeling in the end. So, the complaint shouldn't be about these silly timers. The complaint should be against the overall engine modeling.

[R6ckStar]

11 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

The Yaks don't have WEP.

 

What's inconsistent is in planes that do - for instance the P-47D which also uses water injection on top of regular combat power cannot recharge WEP while at combat, giving you 9 minutes of power above Continuous before the engine explodes - and an engine that was known for taking a lot of abuse. By contrast, the 109s all have 45 minutes of power above Continuous before they run out of fuel.

 

Isn't that a problem specific to the P-47, if the 109s 190s are recharging the WEP whilst in combat why isn't the p-47 or the other American planes doing so (I haven't flown them enough to know their limits)

Edited November 29, 2018 by R6ckStar

[Talon_]

3 minutes ago, R6ckStar said:

 

Isn't that a problem specific to the P-47, if the 109s 190s are recharging the WEP whilst in combat why isn't the p-47 or the other American planes doing so (I haven't flown them enough to know their limits)

 

Only the MW50 planes get this feature.

[Legioneod]

42 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Only the MW50 planes get this feature.

Why is that though, why the large disparity between types? And why on earth does the P-47 have a 20 min cooldown for WEP use? This is unrealistic and cripples the American aircraft more than anything.

 

Bodenplatte will be nothing but a disappointment until the engine model is revised and improved to a more realistic standard.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Legioneod

[Rattlesnake]

3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

 

 

Bodenplatte will be nothing but a disappointment until the engine model is revised and improved to a more realistic standard.

The severe arbitrary engine limitations on P-47 are the second greatest disappointment of this update. The first is the poor control authority of the 47 above 400.

[Legioneod]

3 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

The severe arbitrary engine limitations on P-47 are the second greatest disappointment of this update. The first is the poor control authority of the 47 above 400.

Agreed, keep in mind the P-47 did indeed get stiffer with high speed but for it to be as stiff/stiffer than a 109 does seem incorrect based of what I've read and heard.

[JtD]

4 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Why is that though, why the large disparity between types? And why on earth does the P-47 have a 20 min cooldown for WEP use?

 

Because the manuals say so, or are assumed to be saying so. Literally, not technically. The MW50 system allows "10 minutes of WEP, and at least 5 minutes at a lower power setting before it can be used again" so this is what you get. Same way you get 10 minutes of increased emergency power but only 3 minutes emergency power on a Fw190A-8. Or 1 minute of emergency power on a non-MW50 DB60x or 5 minutes of water injection on a R-2800 or 42" on an Allison.

 

Some number on a piece of paper somewhere is being used against all common sense and technical reason. The modelling of the R-2800 of the P-47 is just in line with that philosophy.

 

A more realistic engine model or even gaming mechanism is long overdue.

[Kurfurst]

5 hours ago, Legioneod said:

EWhy is that though, why the large disparity between types? And why on earth does the P-47 have a 20 min cooldown for WEP use? This is unrealistic and cripples the American aircraft more than anything.

 

Well, JtD already said it, basically we have a somewhat arbitrary system where the time limits (if any - Hello ‘but its not WEP, even if it is VVS’) set in the manuals are gospel and the engine will self destruct shortly afterwards the timer is up.

 

While I do not like this system very much, in its defence it can be said that at least it is objective - you get what the manual says, not BS results from dubious claims about how ‘durable’ X engine was or how much an engine test report can be interpreted ‘creatively’.

 

As for the P-47, it simply follows what is said in its manual. I do not know if there should be a difference between the Water injected P-47 and the MW 50 German planes in that regard. There is one major difference though, and that is US planes with ADI tended to be radial engine types, while the MW 50 ones are liquid cooled engines. The former tends to be a bit more finnicky from what I have seen - rear cylinder banks have worser cooling from the airflow, and generally reach critical temperatures higher. On liquid cooled engines there is no such trouble, as all cylinders receive the same amount of cooling.

 

A more detailed system based on a detailed thermodynamics simulation of the engine would be of course far better, with limitations based on maintaining the proper temperatures and detailed modelling of the cooling systems capacity etc., it would be an enourmous undertaking for the devs as very complex systems will be needed to be modelled, with lot of variables changing from plane to plane, and it may require manuals and archive material that is not accessible at all.

 

But, after all, if there is no major part failure, or excessive wear developing through many hours KF Operation under load, it is usually excessive heat that  suddenly destroys engines, so that is the one that would be needed to be modelled.

 

5 hours ago, Legioneod said:

 

Bodenplatte will be nothing but a disappointment until the engine model is revised and improved to a more realistic standard.

 

I am not sure if that is very fair to the developers (obviously they would need to cut some corners), but yes, an improved damage and engine model would be a great further improvement of the series.

[Legioneod]

2 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Well, JtD already said it, basically we have a somewhat arbitrary system where the time limits (if any - Hello ‘but its not WEP, even if it is VVS’) set in the manuals are gospel and the engine will self destruct shortly afterwards the timer is up.

 

While I do not like this system very much, in its defence it can be said that at least it is objective - you get what the manual says, not BS results from dubious claims about how ‘durable’ X engine was or how much an engine test report can be interpreted ‘creatively’.

 

As for the P-47, it simply follows what is said in its manual. I do not know if there should be a difference between the Water injected P-47 and the MW 50 German planes in that regard. There is one major difference though, and that is US planes with ADI tended to be radial engine types, while the MW 50 ones are liquid cooled engines. The former tends to be a bit more finnicky from what I have seen - rear cylinder banks have worser cooling from the airflow, and generally reach critical temperatures higher. On liquid cooled engines there is no such trouble, as all cylinders receive the same amount of cooling.

 

A more detailed system based on a detailed thermodynamics simulation of the engine would be of course far better, with limitations based on maintaining the proper temperatures and detailed modelling of the cooling systems capacity etc., it would be an enourmous undertaking for the devs as very complex systems will be needed to be modelled, with lot of variables changing from plane to plane, and it may require manuals and archive material that is not accessible at all.

 

But, after all, if there is no major part failure, or excessive wear developing through many hours KF Operation under load, it is usually excessive heat that  suddenly destroys engines, so that is the one that would be needed to be modelled.

 

 

I am not sure if that is very fair to the developers (obviously they would need to cut some corners), but yes, an improved damage and engine model would be a great further improvement of the series.

 

There is absolutely nothing in the manal or any documentation that I have found that states you need a 20 min cooldown between WEP uses, this is a bull**** timer that has no basis in reality, it cuts the balls off the P-47 and make American aircraft a pain to fly, I have no doubt that it will be the same for the P-51.

 

P-47 had no real tendency to overheat, whether using ADI or not. Overheating should not event be a consideration for setting some arbitrary time limit.

 

We'll see what the future holds but I don't have much hope for this or subsequent BoX releases as long as the engine model remains the same.

It makes me not even want to play the game.

[MiloMorai]

9 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

This argument is kinda spoiled by the MW50 109s that can run at WEP for over 50% of a sortie duration and Combat for the other 50%.

 

This is for the DB605L. I would imagine that 1.98ata would be slightly more.

 

At 0km @ S und N @ 1.75ata the engine consumed  520l/h of C3 and 150l/h of MW50. At 9.6km @ Nut. @ 1.75ata fuel consumption was reduced to 480l/h but MW50 stayed the same.

[Rattlesnake]

5 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Agreed, keep in mind the P-47 did indeed get stiffer with high speed but for it to be as stiff/stiffer than a 109 does seem incorrect based of what I've read and heard.

This is the only WWII sim I’ve seen, including the old Il-2, where most planes have at least some trouble pulling as many Gs as the pilot can stand in the 350-450mph range. (For example, if you haul back on the stick of the DCS P-51 at any speed between nominal to 500 you will be able to reach either the stall limit or G limit) This is definitely an impediment to boom and zoom tactics, as planes can choose between deliberate minimizing their energy surplus in a dive over the bandit  or using the speed the aircraft easily attains in a dive but being unable to quickly adjust for a shot to even moderate evasive maneuvers on the part of the bandit.

 

Not being a warbird pilot I can’t say with final authority which modeling is wrong but both of them cannot be correct and current Il2 seems to be the odd man out.

 

This is going to become more of an issue now that we are adding late war airplanes which can quite often easily  do in excess of 350mph IAS in level flight or in slight dives.

Edited November 29, 2018 by CMBailey

[II./JG77_Manu*]

11 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

The Yaks don't have WEP.

 

What's inconsistent is in planes that do - for instance the P-47D which also uses water injection on top of regular combat power cannot recharge WEP while at combat, giving you 9 minutes of power above Continuous before the engine explodes - and an engine that was known for taking a lot of abuse. By contrast, the 109s all have 45 minutes of power above Continuous before they run out of fuel.

 

Sorry but that's plain wrong. There is no "aircraft XY has/hasn't WEP". WEP is not some kind of universal truth or binary value. It has always been kind of a designation set from a few aero-engineers, that should say nothing else then "at this power the aircrafts engine will derate sooner".

Not even were the expected engine lifes (after which the WEP was set) different from nation to nation, they also changed over time.

There are multiple examples, one beeing that 1.42ata was blocked for the 109 G2/4 entirely for a while, but after some testing (and no changes to the engine), and probably more importantly Allied aircraft catching up in performance, 1.42ata was cleared without any timelimit. 

The Russians didn't care too much about engine life, they had their Siberian behemoth factories putting out more engines then they could use (1942 onwards). 

The Germans didn't have that luxury, they had to look after their engines a lot more.

For the US, who weren't on direct threat themselves, economics have probably been the most important, hence the moderate WEP and combat settings in their manuals.

 

All of these settings don't have much in common with real life. They are just in the book. There have already been made several explanations that the Yak1 with Klimov PF engine put more strain into it's engine at full throttle then the BF109 F/G at 1.42ata. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by II./JG77_Manu*
typo

[Rattlesnake]

6 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Agreed, keep in mind the P-47 did indeed get stiffer with high speed but for it to be as stiff/stiffer than a 109 does seem incorrect based of what I've read and heard.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2018 by CMBailey

[Legioneod]

5 hours ago, CMBailey said:

 

 

 

 

 

Is this talking about the 109 stiffness or P-47? I do agree with you that the P-47 feels too stiff at high speeds and should not be as stiff as the 109.

[=RvE=Windmills]

10 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

As for the P-47, it simply follows what is said in its manual

 

Not really though, the engine only managing 4 mins of combat after 5 mins of emergency is certainly not according to the manual.

[Rattlesnake]

21 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

Is this talking about the 109 stiffness or P-47? I do agree with you that the P-47 feels too stiff at high speeds and should not be as stiff as the 109.

109. 

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, CMBailey said:

109. 

Ah ok, figured that was the case. 109 does feel a bit more nimble than the P-47 at high speeds, this requires more testing though imo. I don't want to get to off topic with this thread though, maybe a new thread should be started?

[JtD]

Regarding the 7.5 hour WEP test. IIrc, this is basically a condensed 100 hour type test. Those type tests typically contained power cycles, like 25min continuous, 30min combat, 5min WEP - rinse and repeat. The 7.5 hours are the accumulated time the engine spent in this whole test at WEP, for instance, 10 hours run in, 90 hours with 5 minute WEP each. In both types of test the engines received inspection, maintenance and possibly even repair throughout. No one should think that a 7.5 hour WEP test means you switch the engine to WEP and keep it there for 7.5 hours straight. This is also evident from the fact that the 7.5 hour test mentioned in the doc was begun on May 2 1944 and finished on May 5. It's still a very demanding test.

 

(Writing from the top of my head, so details might be wrong.)

[Legioneod]

34 minutes ago, JtD said:

Regarding the 7.5 hour WEP test. IIrc, this is basically a condensed 100 hour type test. Those type tests typically contained power cycles, like 25min continuous, 30min combat, 5min WEP - rinse and repeat. The 7.5 hours are the accumulated time the engine spent in this whole test at WEP, for instance, 10 hours run in, 90 hours with 5 minute WEP each. In both types of test the engines received inspection, maintenance and possibly even repair throughout. No one should think that a 7.5 hour WEP test means you switch the engine to WEP and keep it there for 7.5 hours straight. This is also evident from the fact that the 7.5 hour test mentioned in the doc was begun on May 2 1944 and finished on May 5. It's still a very demanding test.

 

(Writing from the top of my head, so details might be wrong.)

Agreed but the fact is we shouldn't be seeing engine damage after 5min at WEP. P-47 was capable of running the full 15min of WEP without damage.

We're not talking about running it all day on WEP (Which is impossible anyways due to water limitations)

Another thing that is ridiculous is the time between uses is 20 min, this has no basis in reality, yet other aircraft only need 5 min or less is some cases to reset WEP.

 

I understand it's just the way they modeled the engines, I don't understand why they chose such a limited and gamey model, but it is what it is unfortunately.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Legioneod

[Talon_]

6 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Another thing that is ridiculous is the time between uses is 20 min, this has no basis in reality, yet other aircraft only need 5 min or less is some cases to reset WEP.

 

 

P-47D needs 20m at Continuous

109K-4 needs 10m at Combat

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, Talon_ said:

 

P-47D needs 20m at Continuous

109K-4 needs 10m at Combat

Just doesnt make any sense.

[Hirachi]

I am not sure how relevant this is to piston engine.  Back a few years ago i had a twin turboprop (Garrett powered) that had one engine close to TBO.  One thing that I personally notice was that on a hot humid day up at high alt ( 5500 feet ASL) the R/H engine would hit the EGT limit (this is a limit that is set before take off base on outside temperature and alt). so if i remember right for that day at that off strip airfield (think of taking a bulldozer prowling a runway just big enough for a aircraft to land and taking off) my right throttle has less travel then the Left throttle. I end up asking AME's and the DOM what all that about and the answer i was told was the engine just old and it needs an overhaul and stuff are just worn (from the hard flying and usage) .  

 

So that report to me sounds like more or less a reliability / stress test under extreme condition to see what it the R2800 can do.   I doubt it be possible to have an engine model in game base on how one operate there engine and how many hours the engine is used.  But it still nice to see what they did to test that engine.

[Solmyr]

Guys, why not just make it as realistic as possible regarding the use, and then, in the "game" area, consider the wear of the engine of each plane a player uses, for several times he loads the said-plane, even if it was crashed last time it was flown ? Then when the engine is really at its end of life, the player would be informed of that and could click on a button to deny by himself his access to the said-plane for a bit of time, in order for it to be repaired (change of the engine for a brand new one) or he could insist with the almost damaged engine untill it blows up in the near future.

This way conservative pilots would have almost always access to the planes they want but not conservative pilots would be forced to forget a plane more often for -insert the duration you like here-.

What do you think ?

[Gambit21]

That's not practical and will never happen.

[Legioneod]

Honestly there is a very simple solution that will make everyone happy (for the most part). Just make engine limits a server option that way players who don't want limits can fly without them and players who do want them can fly on a different server.

 

This is the best option imo until the devs come up with a realistic engine model.

 

 

With the current model, aircraft that should be strong are weak due to engine limits even though historically they were more than capable aircraft.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Legioneod

[HR_Zunzun]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

Honestly there is a very simple solution that will make everyone happy (for the most part). Just make engine limits a server option that way players who don't want limits can fly without them and players who do want them can fly on a different server.

 

This is the best option imo until the devs come up with a realistic engine model.

Even if I think that wouldn't be realistic either, it would be very simple to implement. And would also be a good testbed of what happen when you go to the other end of limitations.