US planes vs D-9 & K4

[=475FG=_DAWGER]

A simple understanding of metal fatigue would enlighten any engine modeling development. Combine that with a small amount of thermodynamics and the possibilities are limitless.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

On 4/6/2019 at 10:17 AM, Ehret said:

 

 

It's only the US pursuit planes "plebs" which is forbidden from doing so.

 

And this is why I cannon take anything you say seriously.

 

if you would argue the actual point of engine timers being wrong for whatever reason, with which I totally agree, you should take note of the fact that this also affects other planes.

 

Instead you turn this into some high grade freedom whining and agenda driven rants by acting like it’s only the US planes.

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[Rattlesnake]

1 hour ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

And this is why I cannon take anything you say seriously.

 

if you would argue the actual point of engine timers being wrong for whatever reason, with which I totally agree, you should take note of the fact that this also affects other planes.

 

Instead you turn this into some high grade freedom whining and agenda driven rants by acting like it’s only the US planes.

 

Hello there. My favorite BoX ride and one of my favorite r/l WWII planes has traditionally been the Fw-190,m. I am delighted by how well its various incarnations live up to rep in BoX, and have flown them a ton. By this you can know that I’m not speaking out of jingoism when I say that ‘Murican planes on average have the worst end of the timers in BoX.  Yes I know about the annoying 1 minute limitation on the 109F’s maximum power. A key difference though is that the 109F is at least competitive with its enemy counterparts on its 30 minute combat power setting, with WEP for “afterburner” in key situations. It’s making about as much horsepower as a balls-to-the-wall Yak-1 on combat. The American planes so far modeled have no similarly long-lived setting with power high enough to be competitive with their enemy counterparts.

 

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[Ehret]

51 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

Instead you turn this into some high grade freedom whining and agenda driven rants by acting like it’s only the US planes.

 

Not only but it's worst for the US planes by far. Just check the numbers - all objective.

 

The native VVS affected fighters are Mig3 (top power for the 10m), plain La-5 (5m), I-16 (5m). However, continuous settings in the La and the Mig3 are way better than the nominal in the P-40 and still better than nominal in the P-39.

The earlier LW planes have between 1-5m of top power but they all have 30m of strong combat mode; they are more than capable on the latter alone.

 

The combat mode in the P-40 is weak; in the P-39 is mediocre and that's only when you throttle-up reducing the time to 10m (from 15m). In the US planes the emergency will deplete the combat timer thus the Cobra will have about 6-7m of comparable (you need to use throttled WEP for that) performance to 30m of opposing LW fighters. At best one third all due a timer - 1/3 of tactical capacity for the plane in which Russians became best scoring Allied pilots... that is inconceivable.

 

The powerful 2m in the P-39L is like a banzai charge... attack and die shortly. Good on the Berloga, thought. Check some servers stats too - even the LaGG is more popular than the P-39L - the LaGG called the lacquered flying coffin by Russians.

 

I could tell few things about the BOBP plane-set too but I will stop here.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Ehret

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, Rattlesnake said:

Hello there. My favorite BoX ride and one of my favorite r/l WWII planes has traditionally been the Fw-190,m. I am delighted by how well its various incarnations live up to rep in BoX, and have flown them a ton. By this you can know that I’m not speaking out of jingoism when I say that ‘Murican planes on average have the worst end of the timers in BoX.  Yes I know about the annoying 1 minute limitation on the 109F’s maximum power. A key difference though is that the 109F is at least competitive with its enemy counterparts on its 30 minute combat power setting, with WEP for “afterburner” in key situations. It’s making about as much horsepower as a balls-to-the-wall Yak-1 on combat. The American planes so far modeled have no similarly long-lived setting with power high enough to be competitive with their enemy counterparts.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

 

Not only but it's worst for the US planes by far. Just check the numbers - all objective.

 

The native VVS affected fighters are Mig3 (top power for the 10m), plain La-5 (5m), I-16 (5m). However, continuous settings in the La and the Mig3 are way better than the nominal in the P-40 and still better than nominal in the P-39.

The earlier LW planes have between 1-5m of top power but they all have 30m of strong combat mode; they are more than capable on the latter alone.

 

The combat mode in the P-40 is weak; in the P-39 is mediocre and that's only when you throttle-up reducing the time to 10m (from 15m). In the US planes the emergency will deplete the combat timer thus the Cobra will have about 6-7m of comparable (you need to use throttled WEP for that) performance to 30m of opposing LW fighters. At best one third all due a timer - 1/3 of tactical capacity for the plane in which Russians became best scoring Allied pilots... that is inconceivable.

 

The powerful 2m in the P-39L is like a banzai charge... attack and die shortly. Good on the Berloga, thought. Check some servers stats too - even the LaGG is more popular than the P-39L - the LaGG called the lacquered flying coffin by Russians.

 

I could tell few things about the BOBP plane-set too but I will stop here.

 

This is what people don't seem to understand. The reason we keep bringing American aircraft up is because timers effect them way more than any other countries aircraft.

Timers on the whole need to be either removed or revised, they can't stay how they are and expect people not to complain, or the product to be successful.

[Ehret]

There is another issue which negatively affects everyone. In most timed planes you have to track the tech-chat to ensure you don't get any or wrong timer ticking. It makes flying by gauges less natural it could be - normally, it wouldn't matter if you set your throttle (or RPM) slightly off. Here you have to check gauges twice (after the RPM/MP stabilized) or look at the tech-chat to confirm you didn't get unwanted side-effects. You can keep MP/RPM lower to guard against that but it's bad, too.

[LColony_Kong]

The other reason this is all significant for American planes, and why people are anxious about them, is because the American planes in ww2 sims are never done properly. Ever. Every sim I have ever played, going back to the early 2000's, has never given the American fighters the 150 octane fuel that was standard for planes operating out of the uk from mid-44 on. All of those sims featured every odd and end German, British, or Russian fighter and every little upgrade for them. We are already getting unicorn like the 1.98ata 109. The P-47 so far does not have 150 grade ratings like 70".

 

A P-51D with 150 grade fuel is a 1900bhp Pony. It goes from 3600ft/min at SL to 4300ft/min, putting it roughly on par with a 109K or 190D for climb rate. Top speed at altitude is the 450+ region, and speed on the deck is in the 380+ region. 

 

Most of the mustang fighter groups were operating out of the UK. Which means most P-51's were operating at these settings. By comparison, 1.98ata is nearly mythical and the 190D with full 2100bhp boost was rare and showed up much later in the war. 

 

So between the nonsense of the time limits, the historical treatment of this by sims of the past, and what has been shown so far from BOBP early access, I think its quite understandable to be anxious. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

10 minutes ago, Fumes said:

A P-51D with 150 grade fuel is a 1900bhp Pony. It goes from 3600ft/min at SL to 4300ft/min, putting it roughly on par with a 109K or 190D for climb rate. Top speed at altitude is the 450+ region, and speed on the deck is in the 380+ region.

 

For which fuel level are these climbrates?

[Ehret]

The 150 octane is nice but to be able to do stuff like this when needed would be nicer (full scan):

 

Who knew that they had the Nintendo back in the 1944...

Edited April 8, 2019 by Ehret

[LukeFF]

9 hours ago, Ehret said:

the LaGG called the lacquered flying coffin by Russians.

 

The early ones, yes, but not the later models. 

[LColony_Kong]

3 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

For which fuel level are these climbrates?

150 vs 130

Edited April 8, 2019 by Fumes

[Legioneod]

Just now, Fumes said:

150 vs 130

He meant the amount of fuel carried I think.

[LColony_Kong]

13 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

He meant the amount of fuel carried I think.

like 9600lbs or so IIRC

4 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

For which fuel level are these climbrates?

 

 

Edited April 8, 2019 by Fumes

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Looks like that weight corresponds to full wing tanks and empty fuselage tank, close to 700 liters, a bit less than double the fuel the Spit Mk IX carries, which is enough for most mp sorties. So with the fuel level reduced to similar levels to the Spit Mk IX (I suppose the fuel consumption is the same given the very similar engines) climbrate could be a bit better and might surprise some ppl.

Edited April 8, 2019 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[LColony_Kong]

1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Looks like that weight corresponds to full wing tanks and empty fuselage tank, close to 700 liters, a bit less than double the fuel the Spit Mk IX carries, which is enough for most mp sorties. So with the fuel level reduced to similar levels to the Spit Mk IX (I suppose the fuel consumption is the same given the very similar engines) climbrate could be a bit better and might surprise some ppl.

Yeah the 150 octane mustang would be a beast. It would be faster than either the K4 or D9 at most altitudes, and have competitive agility and climb.  And combine that with the fact that the 51 is very low drag and therefore needs little power for a high-speed cruise....and people can take smaller fuel loads. 

1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Looks like that weight corresponds to full wing tanks and empty fuselage tank, close to 700 liters, a bit less than double the fuel the Spit Mk IX carries, which is enough for most mp sorties. So with the fuel level reduced to similar levels to the Spit Mk IX (I suppose the fuel consumption is the same given the very similar engines) climbrate could be a bit better and might surprise some ppl.

reduced to 8460 lbs

 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2019 by Fumes

[Rattlesnake]

9 hours ago, Ehret said:

The 150 octane is nice but to be able to do stuff like this when needed would be nicer (full scan?

 

Who knew that they had the Nintendo back in the 1944...

Proposition: From now on we call throttling up to WEP “going Mario Kart”.

[LColony_Kong]

 

 

[MiloMorai]

18 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Proposition: From now on we call throttling up to WEP “going Mario Kart”.

I can think of a better name but it wouldn't be appropriate considering that 7 astronauts died'.

[Legioneod]

10 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

I can think of a better name but it wouldn't be appropriate considering that 7 astronauts died'.

Going Challenger? Or Columbia?