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

[LColony_Kong]

2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

I don't think that at all.  I think they're happy with the current situation.

Jasons post in the locked poll thread indicated the opposite. In fact it directly implies they will eventually get around to doing "something" about it. 

[Guest deleted@83466]

The reason I check stats is to determine if someone genuinely wants "realism" or if they are simply an airquaker, who wants their favorite plane to be better, and I think that matters in a discussion like this.

[BraveSirRobin]

What do you think "something" is?  Do you think it's going to be a deep dive into engine reliability simulation?  Because that seems extremely unlikely to me.

[LColony_Kong]

9 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

The reason I check stats is to determine if someone genuinely wants "realism" or if they are simply an airquaker, who wants their favorite plane to be better, and I think that matters in a discussion like this.

You must be a soothsayer then if you derived all that from my scant stats page. Or any stats page for that matter.

 

Moreover, even were that all true (which it is not) its still irrelevant as to whether im right or not. But you keep that ad hominem coming bud. 

8 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

What do you think "something" is?  Do you think it's going to be a deep dive into engine reliability simulation?  Because that seems extremely unlikely to me.

I dont know. Unlike you im not assuming my imagination into his statements. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Fumes

[Legioneod]

I know I contributed to this argument but lets try to get back on topic with the P-47 engine and it's limitations.

 

My current solution for the P-47 is to give it the full 15 min of water like it could use irl. And before you say this would be unfair or nitpiking, the P-47 CAN'T run WEP without water, once the water is out it can only run at combat power.

 

So it should be the full 15 min of water which is realistic and accurate and then it would revert to combat mode for the remaining combat time.

 

This is only a solution for the current model and not even a factor if they decide to add a more realistic engine model someday.

 

All water injected engine should operate this way, they should have the ability to run constant WEP until out of water and then no more WEP.

[sevenless]

16 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Jasons post in the locked poll thread indicated the opposite. In fact it directly implies they will eventually get around to doing "something" about it. 

 

 

Quote: And to follow up on this I have confirmed this with Daniel.

 

Time limits should exist with random failures in increasing frequency the longer the player stays over the time limit. WEP or Combat.

 

This is how it already works or is supposed to. If it doesn't show us./EndQuote

 

The important part is: If it doesn´t show us.

Edited December 13, 2018 by sevenless

[Legioneod]

Also, t add to what I said above, if someone says "Well what about the P-51, or aircraft that will still only have 5min timers?"

 

Here's the difference, the P-51 has infinite WEP with a cooldown whereas the P-47 and other water injected engines have a physical (not sure if that's the right word) limit on WEP use, they only have WEP until the water runs out whereas the P-51 and other non water injected engines have infinite WEP.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Legioneod

[BraveSirRobin]

4 minutes ago, Fumes said:

I dont know. Unlike you im not assuming my imagination into his statements. 

 

Really?  After 8 years of RoF and BoX development you don't think you have any insights on whether that will happen?

 

OK, let's look at this from the "anything is possible" angle.  Maybe they'll give us real warbirds and let us fly them however we want!!

[LColony_Kong]

2 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

 

 

Quote: And to follow up on this I have confirmed this with Daniel.

 

Time limits should exist with random failures in increasing frequency the longer the player stays over the time limit. WEP or Combat.

 

This is how it already works or is supposed to. If it doesn't show us./EndQuote

 

The important part is: If it doesnt´show us.

This appears to be him just confirming the current status of the game. 

2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Really?  After 8 years of RoF and BoX development you don't think you have any insights on whether that will happen?

 

OK, let's look at this from the "anything is possible" angle.  Maybe they'll give us real warbirds and let us fly them however we want!!

Really? do you think I give a rats ass how long you have been playing this game? What does that make you? The dev whisperer?

[sevenless]

Just now, Fumes said:

This appears to be him just confirming the current status of the game. 

 

He confirms that the game is supposed to be functioning as per your answer No. 6 of the Poll: 

 

Time limits should exist with random failures in increasing frequency the longer the player stays over the time limit. WEP or Combat.

 

47,06% voted for that.

 

 

[LColony_Kong]

2 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

He confirms that the game is supposed to be functioning as per your answer No. 6 of the Poll: 

 

Time limits should exist with random failures in increasing frequency the longer the player stays over the time limit. WEP or Combat.

 

47,06% voted for that.

 

 

Yes, that was also my understanding. 

 

Although the current function that last time I tested really isnt random. Its usually about twice the notional limits. 1 min is 2 and so on. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Fumes

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Really? do you think I give a rats ass how long you have been playing this game? What does that make you? The dev whisperer?

 

I figured that that was how long you've been playing the game.  You will note that I actually used the word "you" twice in that sentence.

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

I figured that that was how long you've been playing the game.  You will note that I actually used the word "you" twice in that sentence.

Ok my bad. 

 

And to answer your question: No I dont. At least not in the manner your original post implied. Jasons reply only indicates they are doing or will do "something." The only thing it seems to rule out is a complex engine model as per the bit about it being impossible to simulate all the things that affected engines. 

[Rattlesnake]

35 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

The point is the devs are unlikely to change the current system in a huge way. If anything they are most likley to use SeaSerpents idea due to the fact that it uses the least changes.

 

SeaSerpents idea would allow us to have longer engine times with a low chance of failure, this would be much better than the current system.

 

Believe me, I HATE engine timers, it's is one of the worst things about this game, I want them gone but I also know the devs aren't going to do that.

 

Why they modeled the engine with timers in the first place is beyond me.

All of this is true.

But, 15 minutes across the board is an even simpler idea, it is very defensible if you examine how these engines could be and actually were run, it doesn't greatly expand the effect of RNG on the game, and at the same time it is far from handing out infinite WEP.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[Legioneod]

6 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

15 minutes across the board is an even simpler idea, it is very defensible if you examine how these engines could be and actually were run, it doesn't greatly expand the effect of RNG on the game, and at the same time it is far from handing out infinite WEP.

I could agree with this as well but not 100%

Water injected aircraft need to be able to run WEP until water runs out. So P-47 would be 15 min total at WEP with no possible recharge due to water loss, 109k4 and other water injected axis aircraft would be similar though the time at WEP may be different depending on the amount of water.

 

And then aircraft like the P-51 that don't use water would have a 15 min WEP use with a recharge in-between since they basically have infinite WEP due to not being limited by water injection.

 

Water injected aircraft can and need to be modeled this way in the current iteration as well imo, since they do have a real WEP limit that isnt based on timers but water.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Legioneod

[BraveSirRobin]

13 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Ok my bad. 

 

And to answer your question: No I dont. At least not in the manner your original post implied. Jasons reply only indicates they are doing or will do "something." The only thing it seems to rule out is a complex engine model as per the bit about it being impossible to simulate all the things that affected engines. 

 

Right.  No complex engine simulation..  What does that leave for options?

[LColony_Kong]

6 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Right.  No complex engine simulation..  What does that leave for options?

Every option in that poll, and whatever else they could drum up

[Rattlesnake]

38 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

And then aircraft like the P-51 that don't use water would have a 15 min WEP use with a recharge in-between since they basically have infinite WEP due to not being limited by water injection.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of water injection primarily to make use of boost levels that would otherwise be iffy for *any* length of time? Thus aircraft using water injection generally gain more power from their WEP than those which do not?

For instance, according to the game specification stats the P-47 makes about 1900 HP on "combat" mode, but 2600 HP on WEP. 700 extra HP seems like a lot. It is in fact 1.37 times  the power output than produced at  "combat."

By comparison, IIRC P-51D stats correctly, (which I may not, correct me if I'm wrong) it makes 1490 HP at what we might call "combat" and 1720 HP at WEP. That's only 1.15 times as much power. Make sense?

And the P-51H could make I think about 2200 HP by running 90" with water injection, so there ya go.

(Of course this comparison is a bit apples-to-oranges until the P-51D is actually modeled in the game.)

So we could say that having WEP time limited by the amount of water carried is a fair trade-off for gaining a lot more extra HP from WEP.

 

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

The reason I check stats is to determine if someone genuinely wants "realism" or if they are simply an airquaker, who wants their favorite plane to be better, and I think that matters in a discussion like this.

So far on this forum I've argued that it is absurd for the engine in the 109 F to be more time-limited than that of the Yak because they are physically very similar engines running at similar MP, RPM and HP, I've argued for the P-47 to have more generous WEP and WEP recharge (but then again I've argued for more WEP for everything), that the MK 108 cannon is currently way underpowered in terms of structural damage, that the P-47 needs more control authority at high airspeeds (but then again, the 109 elevator is a little too stiff IMO as well). So tell me, oh soothsayer of the stats, which is my "favorite" plane?

And what the hell is an "airquaker"? I keep imagining a somberly dressed pacifist in a fighter cockpit, but THAT can't be right...

Edited December 13, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[Legioneod]

20 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of water injection primarily to make use of boost levels that would otherwise be iffy for *any* length of time? Thus aircraft using water injection generally gain more power from their WEP than those which do not?

For instance, according to the game specification stats the P-47 makes about 1900 HP on "combat" mode, but 2600 HP on WEP. 700 extra HP seems like a lot. It is in fact 1.37 times  the power output than produced at  "combat."

By comparison, IIRC P-51D stats correctly, (which I may not, correct me if I'm wrong) it makes 1490 HP at what we might call "combat" and 1720 HP at WEP. That's only 1.15 times as much power. Make sense?

And the P-51H could make I think about 2200 HP by running 90" with water injection, so there ya go.

(Of course this comparison is a bit apples-to-oranges until the P-51D is actually modeled in the game.)

So we could say that having WEP time limited by the amount of water carried is a fair trade-off for gaining a lot more extra HP from WEP.

 

So far on this forum I've argued that it is absurd for the engine in the 109 F to be more time-limited than that of the Yak because they are physically very similar engines running at similar MP, RPM an HP, I've argued for the P-47 to have more generous WEP and WEP recharge (but then again I've argued for more WEP for everything), that the MK 108 cannon is currently way underpowered in terms of structural damage, that the P-47 needs more control authority at high airspeeds (but then again, the 109 elevator is a little too stiff IMO as well). So tell me, oh sooth-sayer of the stats, which is my "favorite" plane?

And what the hell is an "airquaker"? I keep imagining a somberly dressed pacifist in a fighter cockpit, but THAT can't be right...

What I meant by limitation was that unlike the P-51 which can run WEP constantly and doesn't have a real limit the P-47 and other water injected engines can only run WEP until their water runs out.

 

It's a limitation in the fact that it is actually limited by the amount of water carried, not in the sense that it is inferior, quite the contrary water injection is superior imo but it does have actual real life limitations.

 

The only other thing to consider with WEP times for the P-47 is if they ever add 150 fuel. With 150 fuel the P-47 could run 64" without water and 70" with water. So one the water ran out the P-47 would still have WEP but it would just be at 64" instead of 70".

Edited December 13, 2018 by Legioneod

[Rattlesnake]

17 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

What I meant by limitation was that unlike the P-51 which can run WEP constantly and doesn't have a real limit the P-47 and other water injected engines can only run WEP until their water runs out.

 

It's a limitation in the fact that it is actually limited by the amount of water carried, not in the sense that it is inferior, quite the contrary water injection is superior imo but it does have actual real life limitations.

 

The only other thing to consider with WEP times for the P-47 is if they ever add 150 fuel. With 150 fuel the P-47 could run 64" without water and 70" with water. So one the water ran out the P-47 would still have WEP but it would just be at 64" instead of 70".

What I’m saying is that I’m not troubled by the thought of a Mustang when modeled in game being able to run 10-15 at WEP and then potentially “cooling down” enough to do it again if the sortie lasts long enough. Its WEP isn’t a huge boost anyway.

 

Straight up, the 1.98 ATA option for the K4 makes the 150 octane option an obligatory update in the near future.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[Legioneod]

3 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

What I’m saying is that I’m not troubled by the thought of a Mustang when modeled in game being able to run 10-15 at WEP and then potentially “cooling down” enough to do it again if the sortie lasts long enough. Its WEP isn’t a huge boost anyway.

 

Straight up, the 1.98 ATA option for the K4 makes the 150 octane option an obligatory update in the near future.

I'm basically saying the same thing but really wasn't considering engine power as a factor. The P-51 could run WEP for much longer than the P-47 just due to the fact that the P-47 needed water. Thats why I was saying the P-51 and other non water injected aircraft should have "infinite" WEP because they weren't limited in reality like the P-47 was.

It wouldn't make sense for the P-51 to only have 15 min of WEP total as this wasn't a real limitation unlike in the P-47.

[BraveSirRobin]

58 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Every option in that poll, and whatever else they could drum up

 

The fact that the poll was locked should give you some insight into how likely most of those options are.

[Rattlesnake]

12 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I'm basically saying the same thing but really wasn't considering engine power as a factor. The P-51 could run WEP for much longer than the P-47 just due to the fact that the P-47 needed water. Thats why I was saying the P-51 and other non water injected aircraft should have "infinite" WEP because they weren't limited in reality like the P-47 was.

It wouldn't make sense for the P-51 to only have 15 min of WEP total as this wasn't a real limitation unlike in the P-47.

10-15 minutes is an imperfect but helpful compromise with the virtues of simplicity and consistency. The only purpose is to largely remove worrying about WEP time in combat, while still keeping players from spending the entirety of every flight at full throttle, all without resorting to either a much more complex engine modeling/wear solution or having RNG screw over the unlucky. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

The fact that the poll was locked should give you some insight into how likely most of those options are.

The poll is still open for voting. It was locked because they don't accept petitions.

 

Anyhow you appear to want me to accept conjecture as certainty

20 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

What I’m saying is that I’m not troubled by the thought of a Mustang when modeled in game being able to run 10-15 at WEP and then potentially “cooling down” enough to do it again if the sortie lasts long enough. Its WEP isn’t a huge boost anyway.

 

Straight up, the 1.98 ATA option for the K4 makes the 150 octane option an obligatory update in the near future.

Especially since 1.98ata wasn't used irl

[Guest deleted@83466]

57 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

So far on this forum I've argued that it is absurd for the engine in the 109 F to be more time-limited than that of the Yak because they are physically very similar engines running at similar MP, RPM and HP, I've argued for the P-47 to have more generous WEP and WEP recharge (but then again I've argued for more WEP for everything), that the MK 108 cannon is currently way underpowered in terms of structural damage, that the P-47 needs more control authority at high airspeeds (but then again, the 109 elevator is a little too stiff IMO as well). So tell me, oh soothsayer of the stats, which is my "favorite" plane?

And what the hell is an "airquaker"? I keep imagining a somberly dressed pacifist in a fighter cockpit, but THAT can't be right...

 

That's an impressive list.  Apparently you are quite the knowledgeable authority on any number of subjects.  30 mm explosive power, P-47 control authority, DB60x durability.....I'm sure the developers feel priveledged to have such a knowlegeble soul amongst us.

 

?

[LColony_Kong]

3 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

That's an impressive list.  Apparently you are quite the knowledgeable authority on any number of subjects.  30 mm explosive power, P-47 control authority, DB60x durability.....I'm sure the developers feel priveledged to have such a knowlegeble soul amongst us.

 

?

More ad hominem. Borderline gaslighting. Definitely a strawman in there.

[Rattlesnake]

Just now, SeaSerpent said:

 

That's an impressive list.  Apparently you are quite the knowledgeable authority on any number of subjects.  30 mm explosive power, P-47 control authority, DB60x durability.....I'm sure the developers feel priveledged to have such a knowlegeble soul amongst us.

 

?

Thanks for confirming that you can’t refute the logic of my arguments and that you’ve also realized the personal skill thing might be the wrong tree to be barking up.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Rattlesnake said:

And what the hell is an "airquaker"?

 

Um, you have heard of the game Quake, right?

[Rattlesnake]

5 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Um, you have heard of the game Quake, right?

I *think* it is an FPS and that’s all I know about it. The relationship eludes me. I’d like to hear the definition.

8 minutes ago, Fumes said:

More ad hominem. Borderline gaslighting. Definitely a strawman in there.

Third definition you looked up, pretty much confirmed.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[Panthera]

1 hour ago, Fumes said:

Especially since 1.98ata wasn't used irl

 

It had to have been, otherwise there wouldn't be lists of squadrons using it. 

[JtD]

Guys, if you're moving/talking in circles you're not getting anywhere. Don't you think you may have a case of this at hand here?

 

And on the subject of generally increasing the time until failure - I think what's more important than reducing the *chance* of engine failure is reducing the *severity* of engine failure. Have one piston lose compression after a couple of minutes, because a valve burned or some such (random effect or detailed model - don't care). Lose 5-10% power. Have a rough running engine. After a while have another high stress failure if abuse continues. Just don't stop the engine dead right away. Gradual performance loss and gradually increasing trouble for the pilot would certainly help.

[Legioneod]

28 minutes ago, JtD said:

Guys, if you're moving/talking in circles you're not getting anywhere. Don't you think you may have a case of this at hand here?

 

And on the subject of generally increasing the time until failure - I think what's more important than reducing the *chance* of engine failure is reducing the *severity* of engine failure. Have one piston lose compression after a couple of minutes, because a valve burned or some such (random effect or detailed model - don't care). Lose 5-10% power. Have a rough running engine. After a while have another high stress failure if abuse continues. Just don't stop the engine dead right away. Gradual performance loss and gradually increasing trouble for the pilot would certainly help.

I like this idea as well, a gradual decrease in performance wouldnt be bad. I still think that timers should be increased a bit for the most part.

 

2 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

10-15 minutes is an imperfect but helpful compromise with the virtues of simplicity and consistency. The only purpose is to largely remove worrying about WEP time in combat, while still keeping players from spending the entirety of every flight at full throttle, all without resorting to either a much more complex engine modeling/wear solution or having RNG screw over the unlucky. 

I agree, but what I'm saying is non water injection aircraft like the P-51 should still be able to recharge their WEP while the P-47 should not be able to.

[Guest deleted@83466]

27 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I like this idea as well, a gradual decrease in performance wouldnt be bad. I still think that timers should be increased a bit for the most part.

 

 

 

Which is more or less what I said in my first post on the topic, around page 6 in my "at the risk of being Cpt. Obvious" post....But thanks for the argument.

Edited December 13, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[Legioneod]

20 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

Which is more or less what I said in my first post on the topic, around page 6 in my "at the risk of being Cpt. Obvious" post....But thanks for the argument.

Ah, maybe I have to go and reread it but I was thinking that you mean just extending/ lowring the chance of failure and not a gradual decrease in performance like JtD said.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Legioneod

[Guest deleted@83466]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Ah, maybe I have to go and reread it but I was thinking that you mean just extending/ lowring the chance of failure and not a gradual decrease in performance like JtD said.

 

My p.o.v. was both.  The harder and longer you run the engine, the greater chance of failures, as we've been saying, but also when problems do start happening, it isn't necessarily "aw sh**t wingman, sorry, I just blew my engine completely, I'm a glider, and I'm  RTB."  It might be, but not necessarily so.  Greater nuance, and reasonable enhanced degrees of graduation short of catastrophic, is not incompatible with the general idea we've been advocating.   Bottom line is still that you damage the engine if you run it too hard for too long, and the more you do it, the more likely you're going to get a problem, it just might not always announce itself as catastrophically as it does in the present model all the time....(but ultimately if you keep pushing it, you will kill your engine).  I'm not advocating some kind of predictable, linear degradation in relation to time, I'm just saying it need not always be going from healthy engine, to dead/dying engine in one step.  If critics might not like that these things may involve some random number generations as part of the algorithm, sorry, but welcome to computer science and how if things aren't modelled physically, they get modelled statistically.

 

So relaxing the possibility of the engine damage in relation to the timers is one part of, introducing some nuance into the degree of damage that can happen, is also a part of.

 

I remember in RoF, sometimes you would get an almost unnoticeable instability in the RPM.  Something was unhealthy about your engine, but it was far short of blown out or an RTB situation.   You could complete the entire sortie on it, but you didn't really want to risk pushing it at full power any more.

Edited December 13, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[Sgt_Joch]

On ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 9:44 PM, Rattlesnake said:

You inspired me to compare the Yak-1 to the 109 F4.
The Yak's engine has 35.1 liters of displacement and gets its maximum power of 1260hp@2700rpm on nominal mode with 1050mm of mercury, which=41.34 inches of mercury.
The 109's engine has 34 liters of displacement and gets it's maximum power of 1350hp@2700rpm at emergency with 1.42 ATA=42.49 inches of mercury.

So let me get this straight. They are both liquid-cooled V-12s. They are almost exactly the same displacement. But the Klimov can last forever while putting out 1260hp, while the DB can only last 3 minutes pulling less than 100 more horsepower with one inch of mercury more boost?!?!?!

But wait, there's more!!! In the game "combat" mode on the 109 is limited to 30 minutes. In this mode it is putting out 1200 horsepower @2500RPM and 1.3 ATA/39 inches of mercury. So we are to believe that the Klimov can survive LONGER putting out more horsepower at higher boost and RPM than the DB can putting out less horsepower at lower boost and RPM? Something doesn't smell right.
 

 

This issue has been raised and dealt with many time before and no, it is not as simple as you make it out.

 

1. yes, 1050 mm of mercury in the Klimov-105PF works out to 1.37 ATA; but

 

2.the 109F runs on 87 octane B4 fuel while the Yak-1 runs on 95 octane Russian Avgas which has a similar octane level to german c3 fuel. As you know, as a general rule, the higher the octane level, the higher the boost level you can sustain;

 

3. the way engine limits work in game, you get much higher limits at an intermediate setting. For example, in tests I ran some times ago you could run a FW190 A3 at 1.37 ATA (with 96 octane C3 fuel) for 15 minutes or more with no issue. So German engines running with similar ATA/boost level and octane level as the Yak will also last a long time in the current system; and

 

4. it is not true that the Yak-1 engine has no limits, there is a thermal limit. The Yak-1 engine runs hot at 100% throttle/RPM and can easily overheat. If the overheating is not addressed, the engine will fail very quickly.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Sgt_Joch

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

1 hour ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

4. it is not true that the Yak-1 engine has no limits, there is a thermal limit. The Yak-1 engine runs hot at 100% throttle/RPM and can easily overheat. If the overheating is not addressed, the engine will fail very quickly.

This is true for every aircraft in game. Even P-40 will overheat in summer conditions in a climb if you have the radiator near closed (10%). Other fighters have to contend with limits that are not monitor able except by a mental clock, at least with overheating you check can check your gauges.

 

Other aircraft tend to not be as close to the temperature limits because most of the time they are flying at 70% power or less, not 100% all the time.

Edited December 13, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Gambit21]

The real life chance of a Jug’s engine failing in WEP while it had water (15 min) is basically zero.

 

Therefore any percentage/failure mechanism should kick in at the 15:01 mark.

[Sgt_Joch]

15 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

 

Other aircraft tend to not be as close to the temperature limits because most of the time they are flying at 70% power or less, not 100% all the time.

 

if you fly a realistic length mission with the Yak-1, you would only fly at 100% in combat since you want the engine to be as cool as possible once you enter combat and the engine burns a prodigious amount of fuel at 100%. As I recall, 10 minutes or so at 100% would burn off around 140 liters or 35% of the total fuel capacity.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Sgt_Joch

[CountZero]

What combat or emergancy/wep limits we could expect o P-51, P-38, D9 and 262 ? i check manual for tempest v and it looks like same limits as for spit 9 should be for him, but didnt bather to look for other 4 airplanes we stil have to get in game.

 

with lagg 3 if temps of map are +15-25deg, you have to climb at 100% open rads and 90% rpm and trottle or youl owerheat fast, then when reach 4-5km your ok on full and 70-80% rads.

And 10% fuel=46L, will last you ~5min on 100% rpm and trottle.

Edited December 13, 2018 by 77.CountZero