Jump to content

US planes vs D-9 & K4


Recommended Posts

Posted

Hello guys!

 

Today I was flying at KOTA on a D9 2900RPM 50% cowl flaps when, at 6K, I saw a MK IX closing in my six, so I pushed throttle foward and enable the boost. All he got was the smell from my engine black smoke lol

 

So, my question is: will the US planes (P-38, P51, P47) catch me up at this altitude in similar situation?

 

Thank you all!

=362nd_FS=RoflSeal
Posted

P-51 maybe depending on how it is modelled.

  • Like 1
Posted

P-51 should be able to and the P-47 is close but not as fast as the D9 at 6k. If we ever get 150 fuel then both the P-51 and P-47 would be as fast or faster than the D9 at altitude.

Bert_Foster
Posted

or a +25lbs MKIX

 

  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Bert_Foster said:

or a +25lbs MKIX

 

 

That too. If the Allies got 150 fuel the only advantage the Axis would have is their engine timers.

Edited by Legioneod
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SCG_ErwinP said:

So, my question is: will the US planes (P-38, P51, P47) catch me up at this altitude in similar situation?

 

If you are already at your top speed and the enemy doesn't have energy advantage then no - not likely.

 

If you done some maneuvers and the enemy is close; just about where gun range starts - the enemy might be able to stay with you long enough to land hits. I had done that in the P-39L (at SL) multiple times and had time to aim. (and after that a thrashed engine)

 

If the latter happens try to keep flying straight and use only slight turns to be a harder target. It will ease shortly and once you accelerated past 580km/h (at SL) you are safe.

Edited by Ehret
-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, SCG_ErwinP said:

So, my question is: will the US planes (P-38, P51, P47) catch me up at this altitude in similar situation?

 

At 6000 meters D-9's top speed is around 690 km/h, slightly faster than our P-47 (680 km/h) and a P-51 with 67" and wingracks (~685 km/h). So I guess a clean P-51 will be faster, and if it gets 150 octane even more (depends on the critical altitude but I don't have the numbers in my head).

That being said with such close speeds acceleration is more important. You could get away from the Spit cause it's significantly slower (640 km/h) but with only 10 km/h or so difference it might not be enough to get away from guns range in time if you are surprised.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
Posted
5 hours ago, Bert_Foster said:

or a +25lbs MKIX

 

 

5 hours ago, Legioneod said:

 

That too. If the Allies got 150 fuel the only advantage the Axis would have is their engine timers.

 

Nope - at 6000m, the historically atypical  +25 lbs Spitfire IX was not faster than the historical +18 lbs version. Perhaps by a mile or two, if at all.

 

The reason for that the boost could not be effectively Maintainers at higher altitudes as the Merlin’s supercharger could not maintain the increased full boost much above cc 3000. By 6000m, it would start to have trouble in maintaining even +18 lbs.

Bert_Foster
Posted

Yes Fair enough FTH +25Lbs around 4400m where +25 is about 38Kmh faster than +18. +18FTH around 6000m

=621=Samikatz
Posted
9 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

So I guess a clean P-51 will be faster, and if it gets 150 octane even more (depends on the critical altitude but I don't have the numbers in my head).

 

Without wing racks you're looking at about 444mph for a 75"hg P-51

 

p-51b-24771-level-blue.jpg

 

For the bubbletop just knock off like 2-3mph

Posted
43 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

Without wing racks you're looking at about 444mph for a 75"hg P-51

 

p-51b-24771-level-blue.jpg

 

For the bubbletop just knock off like 2-3mph

 

P-47 has nearly the same speed (with 150 octane) at around 24-25k give or take a few mph.

7.GShAP/Silas
Posted

Is it known if the anglo aircraft will have(or not) the higher octane fuel?

Posted
12 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

Is it known if the anglo aircraft will have(or not) the higher octane fuel?

Here is a similar question from the Interview in the Stormbirds Blog:

On the multiplayer side, some players are concerned about competitive balance between jet fighters and some rarer engine mods for a couple of German aircraft. Is the team hoping to add additional modifications to some Allied types (i.e. engine boost options) to give them some added options as well? How difficult is it for the team to build these features into the sim?

Jason: “Adding more options takes valuable time, but I hope so. We know you want added boost and fuel options for certain aircraft. Battling the Me-262 is not the only reason they are requested of course. Maybe we’ll build the Meteor or P-80 just to give some jet on jet action. I’m sort of kidding, but anyone up for a Meteor, Shooting Star, Do-335, He-162 package?”

 

Daniel: “These features are hard to develop because it is means to have one more engine models and doubling of work of plane performance verification and fine tuning. But we always try to develop it for you because we know how it is important. For example, you may to look on Spitfire with its double engine settings.”

 

here is the link to the complete Interview Part 2: https://stormbirds.blog/2019/02/12/part-2-an-interview-with-jason-williams-and-daniel-tuseev/

  • Thanks 1
=621=Samikatz
Posted
34 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

Is it known if the anglo aircraft will have(or not) the higher octane fuel?

 

One of the testers posted on the forums a little while ago that they were putting together documentation for it but struggling with a couple of things to do with engine intake?

  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)

Its good differance, 20+km at 6km alt, and climb rate is better

Spoiler

23wvalf.jpg

 

so why then have it as option if it isnt that good, servers can just lock it then and not have all just use it :) 

Edited by 77.CountZero
easyhomewin
Posted

Not sure about the US planes, but the tempest would have caught you according to this:

tempest-speed-p.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)

even 9lbs version looks good enought, just have to get good ear plugs to get rid of its terible engine sound :)

 

( compared to how its in game on deck D9 speed is same, but K4DB speed is faster then on chart 369mph in game is 378mph, so same like 9lbs tempest from chart if they go for that performance )

Edited by 77.CountZero
Posted
4 minutes ago, easyhomewin said:

Not sure about the US planes, but the tempest would have caught you according to this:

tempest-speed-p.jpg

This is not good....

I guess blue side will be in trouble after Bodenplatte be fully released....

  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, SCG_ErwinP said:

This is not good....

I guess blue side will be in trouble after Bodenplatte be fully released....

Its last airplane coming out so still planty of time to have fun in D9s 262s and K4 till Tempest comes storming 

  • Haha 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, SCG_ErwinP said:

This is not good....

I guess blue side will be in trouble after Bodenplatte be fully released....

Good.

Bremspropeller
Posted
19 minutes ago, SCG_ErwinP said:

This is not good....

I guess blue side will be in trouble after Bodenplatte be fully released.... 

 

The 11lb Tempest is 25mph faster than the D-9 at max. Certainly not nice, but hardly the end of the world.

Is that clean or with racks?

 

Nice to see that the D-9 is faster than the K-4 all the way up to the altitude where it run's out of supercharger-oomph.

Rattlesnake
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

 that extra .18ata of boost pressure amounts to about 6 mph in speed...it is largely irrelevant and almost never used or needed.

Well yeah, piling on horsepower tends to run into diminishing returns in prop planes that are already getting near 400mph low and 500mph at altitude.

But top speed isn't the only fighter attribute, and in many situations isn't the most important one. What of climb, acceleration, and sustained turn rate advantages from the extra thrust? Not speaking of those is rather coy.

I can tell you that a number of *potential* customers  who are fans of American Iron are watching and holding onto their fiat-paper for now while wondering why the most powerful engine settings that *might* have seen combat came with the 109K4 when it dropped, while boost levels for the P-47 and others that reflect the verified widespread use of 150 octane are apparently a technical head-scratcher to add.
 

Edited by Rattlesnake
  • Upvote 2
Posted
1 hour ago, 77.CountZero said:

Its good differance, 20+km at 6km alt, and climb rate is better

  Reveal hidden contents

23wvalf.jpg

 

so why then have it as option if it isnt that good, servers can just lock it then and not have all just use it :) 

 

Yes, servers can lock it (so be sure to fly those servers only if 1.98ata causes you great discomfort) - either way you will soon find out the same guy killing you with 1.98ata is going to also kill you with 1.8ata.

 

I mean, really - people were already complaining online about G-14 until K-4 came along :joy:

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
=362nd_FS=RoflSeal
Posted

Top speed is the only metric that matters

Image result for brainlet

  • Haha 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Yes, servers can lock it (so be sure to fly those servers only if 1.98ata causes you great discomfort) - either way you will soon find out the same guy killing you with 1.98ata is going to also kill you with 1.8ata.

 

I mean, really - people were already complaining online about G-14 until K-4 came along :joy:

 

Yes because one side gets max engine power while other dont, and best airplane for reds is last to come out out of all bobp so there is what 1 year that nothing is better in game then 1.98K4, how convinient ?

 

I must have missed all thouse G14 is uber complaints as i dont remenber anyone having problems with slow 109s like G14

  • Upvote 2
Posted
37 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

I can tell you that a number of *potential* customers  who are fans of American Iron are watching and holding onto their fiat-paper for now while wondering why the most powerful engine settings that *might* have seen combat came with the 109K4 when it dropped, while boost levels for the P-47 and others that reflect the verified widespread use of 150 octane are apparently a technical head-scratcher to add.

 

And this is the most irrelevant group that this sim needs supporting it..."holding on to their fiat-paper" (lol) all due to something as petty as 1.98ata being released as an option on one airplane - are you kidding me? These guys will never be satisfied anyway.

 

Who the sim actually needs for support are the people that are pre-ordering irregardless of what state of completion the sim is in, working through the kinks and even buying modules like Tank Crew and Flying Circus that they may not normally buy, in order to support development.

 

Some of us have been here for several years already, through thick and thin already lol good grief.

 

 

23 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

Yes because one side gets max engine power while other dont, and best airplane for reds is last to come out out of all bobp so there is what 1 year that nothing is better in game then 1.98K4, how convinient ?

 

Sounds like you have a problem with the development timeline.

 

I do hope that "best airplane for reds is last to come out" does assuage your grief once it is included in the sim and that you are somehow able to be made whole again.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

And this is the most irrelevant group that this sim needs supporting it..."holding on to their fiat-paper" (lol) all due to something as petty as 1.98ata being released as an option on one airplane - are you kidding me? These guys will never be satisfied anyway.

 

Who the sim actually needs for support are the people that are pre-ordering irregardless of what state of completion the sim is in, working through the kinks and even buying modules like Tank Crew and Flying Circus that they may not normally buy, in order to support development.

 

Some of us have been here for several years already, through thick and thin already lol good grief.

 

 

 

Sounds like you have a problem with the development timeline.

 

I do hope that "best airplane for reds is last to come out" does assuage your grief once it is included in the sim and that you are somehow able to be made whole again.

Funny I don't see your FC badge anywhere. That's not what he was saying either, he's saying people aren't going to want to buy the game for the American planes if they are all gimped. Nobody really cares that 1,98 is in the game, people care that THEIR favorite planes aren't getting the same treatment.

Edited by JonRedcorn
  • Upvote 3
Rattlesnake
Posted
1 minute ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

And this is the most irrelevant group that this sim needs supporting it..."holding on to their fiat-paper" (lol) all due to something as petty as 1.98ata being released as an option on one airplane - are you kidding me? These guys will never be satisfied anyway.

 

Who the sim actually needs for support are the people that are pre-ordering irregardless of what state of completion the sim is in, working through the kinks and even buying modules like Tank Crew and Flying Circus that they may not normally buy, in order to support development.

 

Some of us have been here for several years already, through thick and thin already lol good grief.

 

 

Yes, an option that no one debates was rare, while the high octane fuel and boost levels on the Allied side that were more common than not late war (and this is speaking conservatively of the matter) are still absent. You will have to admit this is rather odd. And consider this: It's not like the Jug is going to out-run, out-climb, and out-maneuver the German options in most game situations even *with* the boost levels allowed by 150 octane on tap. To a lesser extent this remains true of the forthcoming P-51. It would just be somewhat *less* out-run, out-climbed, and out-turned itself. There's a slight feeling of insult-added-to-injury surrounding the matter.

Look slightly below my avatar picture. I'm one of those people pre-order people, and I have a previous history of unhesitatingly telling people that if they were going to play only one combat flight sim, make it BoX.

??? I guess I don't quite understand the philosophy you have there. I bought Flying Circus because I want to play Flying Circus. So far that's been a good call.
 

  • Upvote 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

Funny I don't see your FC badge anywhere. That's not what he was saying either, he's saying people aren't going to want to buy the game for the American planes if they are all gimped.

 

I know exactly what he was saying...and "people aren't going to want to buy the game for the American planes if they are all gimped" is the last group this sim needs to support it. Many planes in this sim have had their problems worked through by developers over time  - how long have we had A5 and A8 in the sim, but just now this morning had an update with corrections for them? A3 and A5 had CG issue for over a year - lol - but it was fixed, wasn't it?

 

Maybe everyone should have refused to buy the sim because of it?

 

Developers have already said they are open to adding more options when they can - it's even referenced above in this very thread and we all know BP is in Beta, but I guess that's just not good enough. Like I said - "won teh war" fanbois is the last group of people the sim needs for support. Biggest complainers/smallest contributors.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

I know exactly what he was saying...and "people aren't going to want to buy the game for the American planes if they are all gimped" is the last group this sim needs to support it. Many planes in this sim have had their problems worked through by developers over time  - how long have we had A5 and A8 in the sim, but just now this morning had an update with corrections for them? A3 and A5 had CG issue for over a year - lol - but it was fixed, wasn't it?

 

Maybe everyone should have refused to buy the sim because of it?

 

Developers have already said they are open to adding more options when they can - it's even referenced above in this very thread and we all know BP is in Beta, but I guess that's just not good enough. Like I said - "won teh war" fanbois is the last group of people the sim needs for support. Biggest complainers/smallest contributors.

 

We need every single person who is willing to spend money on the game. End of story. All I want to see are some fun allied planes.

Edited by JonRedcorn
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, JonRedcorn said:

We need every single person who is willing to spend money on the game. End of story.

 

On that, we are in agreement.

Posted
27 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Who the sim actually needs for support are the people that are pre-ordering irregardless of what state of completion the sim is in, working through the kinks and even buying modules like Tank Crew and Flying Circus that they may not normally buy, in order to support development.

 

That's a very definition of a welfare program you put there...

We are costumers not tax-payers here - we have to be convinced first before spending any cash. Just like we have to convince our costumers to do the same for us.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Posted

I would not expect much from the P-47 and P-38 to compete with the late war German rides. While they have certain good areas, they are just generally inferior for dogfights due to their size and bulk. So this has to be avoided, and sadly, neither really offer a kind of advantage that you can reliably rely on. They are good boom and zoomers and you can go for the head on, but that is practically it.

 

The P-51D will be a good match though, especially for the Dora, but also against the K-4 simply because the P-51 is very very fast, roughly on par with the Luftwaffe rides, and the gun package is decent. It is also a fairly manouverable plane, though I feel the Dora will have the upper hand in the roll department and the Kurfurst in the turning department, its close enough that pilot quality is still very important.

 

In any case IMO anyone who has already learned how to fly a P-47 will be capitalize on the 51s advantages, since its a much better package overall than the 47 and he already learned to resist the temptation of engaging in close-in, heavy manouvering fights with the German planes.

 

Thats a big no-no in my book when flying US aircraft, since the opposition is simply better in all pure power kind of manouvers. OTOH, the 51 and also the 47 are probably better for organised team tactics, since they have high speed, good visibility and long range armament, which in particular the MK 108 wielding 109K does not have and will be stripped of its insane power to weight ratio advantage and elephant gun if the engagement is all about high speed, long distance strafes. As always, its about forcing the opponent to fight in the performance envelope that is unsuitable for him and advantegous for you.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Yes, an option that no one debates was rare, while the high octane fuel and boost levels on the Allied side that were more common than not late war (and this is speaking conservatively of the matter) are still absent. You will have to admit this is rather odd. And consider this: It's not like the Jug is going to out-run, out-climb, and out-maneuver the German options in most game situations even *with* the boost levels allowed by 150 octane on tap. To a lesser extent this remains true of the forthcoming P-51. It would just be somewhat *less* out-run, out-climbed, and out-turned itself. There's a slight feeling of insult-added-to-injury surrounding the matter.
 

 

It's been explained already by the developers why it is still absent. They are even quoted in this thread.

 

It is not a philosophical issue - it is simply a time and resources issue - and they can't do everything at once.

Rattlesnake
Posted
5 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

That's a very definition of a welfare program you put there...

We are costumers not tax-payers here - we have to be convinced first before spending any cash. Just like we have to convince our costumers to do the same for us.

Blunt but eloquent.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

That's a very definition of a welfare program you put there...

We are costumers not tax-payers here - we have to be convinced first before spending any cash. Just like we have to convince our costumers to do the same for us.

 

Baloney.

Welfare is when you give something and get nothing in return.

 

I bought Tank Crew even though I'm not that into tanks - what I got in return was a pretty fun experience worth every penny - even though it's not finished. I suppose Flying Circus will be the same experience for me and I intend to purchase it soon, maybe even today :)

Posted
1 minute ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Baloney.

Welfare is when you give something and get nothing in return.

 

Ah yes... there is something in return even if it's a frustration... You are right - that's not nothing.

  • Haha 1
Rattlesnake
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

It's been explained already by the developers why it is still absent. They are even quoted in this thread.

 

 

No, it hasn't. Multiple planes in the game already have more than one powerplant configuration modeled, and were added to the game with said modifications already in place. There has been no reasonable explanation that I'm aware of for why it is so much more of a demanding technical problem to look at the boost levels and horsepower that the R-2800 could use with the higher octane fuel and model them, as compared to say modeling the two engine options for the Kurt.

Edited by Rattlesnake
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

No, it hasn't. Multiple planes in the game already have more than one powerplant configuration modeled, and were added to the game with said modifications already in place. There has been no reasonable explanation that I'm aware of for why it is so much more of a demanding technical problem to look at the boost levels and horsepower that the R-2800 could use with the higher octane fuel and model them, as compared to say modeling the two engine options for the Kurt.

 

It's already mentioned even in this thread:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a similar question from the Interview in the Stormbirds Blog:

On the multiplayer side, some players are concerned about competitive balance between jet fighters and some rarer engine mods for a couple of German aircraft. Is the team hoping to add additional modifications to some Allied types (i.e. engine boost options) to give them some added options as well? How difficult is it for the team to build these features into the sim?

Jason: “Adding more options takes valuable time, but I hope so. We know you want added boost and fuel options for certain aircraft. Battling the Me-262 is not the only reason they are requested of course. Maybe we’ll build the Meteor or P-80 just to give some jet on jet action. I’m sort of kidding, but anyone up for a Meteor, Shooting Star, Do-335, He-162 package?”

 

Daniel: “These features are hard to develop because it is means to have one more engine models and doubling of work of plane performance verification and fine tuning. But we always try to develop it for you because we know how it is important. For example, you may to look on Spitfire with its double engine settings.”

 

here is the link to the complete Interview Part 2: https://stormbirds.blog/2019/02/12/part-2-an-interview-with-jason-williams-and-daniel-tuseev/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by CUJO_1970
Rattlesnake
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

It's already mentioned even in this thread:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a similar question from the Interview in the Stormbirds Blog:

On the multiplayer side, some players are concerned about competitive balance between jet fighters and some rarer engine mods for a couple of German aircraft. Is the team hoping to add additional modifications to some Allied types (i.e. engine boost options) to give them some added options as well? How difficult is it for the team to build these features into the sim?

Jason: “Adding more options takes valuable time, but I hope so. We know you want added boost and fuel options for certain aircraft. Battling the Me-262 is not the only reason they are requested of course. Maybe we’ll build the Meteor or P-80 just to give some jet on jet action. I’m sort of kidding, but anyone up for a Meteor, Shooting Star, Do-335, He-162 package?”

 

Daniel: “These features are hard to develop because it is means to have one more engine models and doubling of work of plane performance verification and fine tuning. But we always try to develop it for you because we know how it is important. For example, you may to look on Spitfire with its double engine settings.”

 

here is the link to the complete Interview Part 2: https://stormbirds.blog/2019/02/12/part-2-an-interview-with-jason-williams-and-daniel-tuseev/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be fine except for the fact that  multiple planes in the game ALREADY have (and came to the game with) with more than one power option.

So it still begs the question, exactly why was there time to tune and verify the rather historically insignificant 1.98 ATA option for the Kurt and other planes which *already* have multiple power options, but no time to tune and verify power settings that were close to ubiquitous for the Western Allied fighters in the late war?

13 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

In other words: our engine modelling doesn't take an octane number as a variable. Looks like engine models aren't separate from FMs and all is pretty much hardcoded, too... Indeed - it'd explain a lot.

Engine modeling doesn't have to take octane number into account as a variable, since the upshot of higher octane fuel is simply to allow higher boost settings without detonation danger. All that has to be taken into account is said boost setting an the horsepower associated with it. The maths that determine the thrust produced by the prop doesn't have to know the reason WHY additional power can now be delivered to the prop.

Edited by Rattlesnake

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...