Jump to content

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

Considering his unit was deployed to the Mediterranean front, it sounds like this occurred during the Siege of Malta. If so, it's not applicable to the Spitfre Mk IX ingame as it has a different engine.

 

Spitfire V's likely, which are in game. And surely the mark doesn't particularly matter - we have pilot report of engine failure after exceeding time limits, something that i've heard -repeatedly on this forum - just didn't happen. Not ever.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

WW2 aero-engines broke down all the time. It always was with mechanical failures due to either mechanical or thermal stress. It never had anything to do with time. Not ever.

Edited by JtD
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had to wory about time limits there would be build in alarm, red light or clock just for time tracking, it was just recomandations to save engine life, not youll brake engine if you go few min abow 5min limit, if it was that cathastrophic like its in game real pilots would be restricted or warned in cockpit about time expired and when they can use it again. And as thouse things didnt exist we need warnings in game in tech chat or tips as for in game airplanes timers are extreamly important in way we have them now, and to not have indication when they expired and when recharged is big problem made by game that didnt exist in ww2.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

If they had to wory about time limits there would be build in alarm, red light or clock just for time tracking, it was just recomandations to save engine life, not youll brake engine if you go few min abow 5min limit, if it was that cathastrophic like its in game real pilots would be restricted or warned in cockpit about time expired and when they can use it again. And as thouse things didnt exist we need warnings in game in tech chat or tips as for in game airplanes timers are extreamly important in way we have them now, and to not have indication when they expired and when recharged is big problem made by game that didnt exist in ww2.

That isn't the entire story though. As JtD points out, engines did fail due to exactly the factors that our ticking timers try to reflect. And down in the war, was every pilot given a factory mint fresh engine to go up with? Reality was probably that it was a mixed bag of parts with different hours, replacements rotating in as wear accumulates. So the timers stated in the manuals are probably accounting for just that fact and try to play it safe. It COULD be that a pilot gets a plane with lots of abuse tolerance left and can therefore push it beyond... but are you willing to take that gamble? Therefore, these days I am more accepting of what the timers try to convey though I would still prefer a more accurate modelling and a bit more "sanity" in how these timers are behaving across the different planes.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mauf said:

And down in the war, was every pilot given a factory mint fresh engine to go up with? Reality was probably that it was a mixed bag of parts with different hours, replacements rotating in as wear accumulates.

 

This is why the P-51D manual says the engine needs to be serviced after every five hours total at WEP (60 sorties if WEP is used on every single one which seems unlikely).

 

Believe it or not there is documentation for this stuff, we don't just have to make it all up.

 

Screenshot_20190712-120130.png

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

That isn't the entire story though. As JtD points out, engines did fail due to exactly the factors that our ticking timers try to reflect. And down in the war, was every pilot given a factory mint fresh engine to go up with? Reality was probably that it was a mixed bag of parts with different hours, replacements rotating in as wear accumulates. So the timers stated in the manuals are probably accounting for just that fact and try to play it safe. It COULD be that a pilot gets a plane with lots of abuse tolerance left and can therefore push it beyond... but are you willing to take that gamble? Therefore, these days I am more accepting of what the timers try to convey though I would still prefer a more accurate modelling and a bit more "sanity" in how these timers are behaving across the different planes.

every airplane in game is build to best posible, so when i take off online i take of in new airplane every time, no relaiability problems are in game, so i expect to be informed when my time expired and when its recharged, if not informed by game about it its basicly me just guessing so i dont play then with thouse airplanes as its like playing with random engine failures turned on on them and not on other airplanes.

 

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

every airplane in game is build to best posible

It will be interesting to see what happens when we get rearm refuel etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if its anything like its done in WT or CloD, then you just wait on runway for 2-5min and your airplane is magicly 100% fixed like new.

 

ill probably not use it as i take of and land on far away bases and dont do GA online so i see no point in waiting few min on close airbases to get my 100% new airplane when i can just respawn in no time, GA guys will probably use it a lot

Share this post


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

you just wait on runway for 2-5min and your airplane is magicly 100% fixed like new.

I'm not sure that will necessarily be the case but I don't know for sure of course. Another interesting feature will be pilot fatigue/ deterioration. Hopefully that will deal with "incredible" high g maneuvers with an effect to the pilot and add somewhat of a new dimension to online and SP.

Edited by 6./ZG26_Custard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Partly I'm just playing 'devil's advocate' here. Not saying i'm happy with the way things are modelled right now, but.....

 

3 hours ago, JtD said:

WW2 aero-engines broke down all the time. It always was with mechanical failures due to either mechanical or thermal stress. It never had anything to do with time. Not ever.

 

And mechanical and thermal stress has no relation to the amount of time an engine exceeds its maximum emergency power setting? {Basically the same point that Maus makes above -  that timers are an imperfect and crude (but simple) way of trying to model mechanical and thermal stress ]

 

2 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

every airplane in game is build to best posible, so when i take off online i take of in new airplane every time, no relaiability problems are in game, so i expect to be informed when my time expired and when its recharged, if not informed by game about it its basicly me just guessing so i dont play then with thouse airplanes as its like playing with random engine failures turned on on them and not on other airplanes.

 

 

2 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

if its anything like its done in WT or CloD, then you just wait on runway for 2-5min and your airplane is magicly 100% fixed like new.

 

ill probably not use it as i take of and land on far away bases and dont do GA online so i see no point in waiting few min on close airbases to get my 100% new airplane when i can just respawn in no time, GA guys will probably use it a lot

 

If the re-arm/refuel option we get tries to simulate the effect of engine maintenance better than a laughable 2-5 min delay (WT/ClOD), will people here accept it as an alternative to the hated timers?

 

That is, if after abusing the hell out of your engine, you are forced to completely miss the next mission so that your aircraft's engine can be broken apart, serviced and rebuilt, will people just complain about that too?

 

In the meantime, maybe you should tell that Spitfire pilot that his Merlin was modelled just a little bit too 'arcade' for your liking. 😉  Maybe there was a 'bug' in the code. 😉

 

Edited by kendo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

And mechanical and thermal stress has no relation to the amount of time an engine exceeds its maximum emergency power setting? {Basically the same point that Maus makes above -  that timers are an imperfect and crude (but simple) way of trying to model mechanical and thermal stress ]

 

Yeah but if they only need a teardown after five hours then total failure after five minutes is somewhat detached from reality.

 

These engines weren't rated to manifold pressures so high they were on the verge of blowing out the gaskets. The R-2800 was run for over a hundred hours straight on ADI during testing.

 

Screenshot_20190712-120130.png

Edited by Talon_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kendo said:

timers are an imperfect and crude (but simple) way of trying to model mechanical and thermal stress

 

Possibly. The equivalently crude approach to skinning aircraft would be painting them in either grey or green.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Yeah but if they only need a teardown after five hours then total failure after five minutes is somewhat detached from reality.

 

These engines weren't rated to manifold pressures so high they were on the verge of blowing out the gaskets. The R-2800 was run for over a hundred hours straight on ADI during testing.

 

I agree, and yet that Spitfire pilot experienced something different (and I know different planes/engines ) - who knows the history of his aircraft, what level of abuse the engine had received previously, and a hundred other contributing factors...too many factors to be simulated in code probably....hence the gross over-simplification of timers.

 

My only point here really is that here is a report of very fast engine failure after exceeding limits, that is not unlike what is in game, and it seems to make a lot of people who have been saying that this NEVER ever happened very uncomfortable. 

 

(sorry for hijacking P-51 thread. Nothing more to say here)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

My only point here really is that here is a report of very fast engine failure after exceeding limits, that is not unlike what is in game, and it seems to make a lot of people who have been saying that this NEVER ever happened very uncomfortable

 

His memory is inaccurate as no SAAF Spitfire had a 1 minute WEP allowance as he relates in his story. Spitfires (and all British fighters) were allowed at 5 minutes WER regardless of power setting.

Edited by Talon_
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kendo said:

My only point here really is that here is a report of very fast engine failure after exceeding limits

 

Like I said - engines failed. Under all conditions. If engines had never failed after exceeding a limit, everyone would always have been flying engines above the limits, as this would have been the only way to safely operate them.

 

I have no idea what you expect...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If engines never failed after exceeding their limits, I'd strap a bigger radiator to my lawnmower, rev it up to 3200, fill it with 150 Octane and ride it into work.

 

Back on topic:

I think many people will be bitterly disappointed by the P-51 as it is unlikely to be a plane that is friendly to the new player in the same way the Spitfire or LA5 is.

Edited by [DBS]Browning
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, [DBS]Browning said:

 

 

Back on topic:

I think many people will be bitterly disappointed by the P-51 as it is unlikely to be a plane that is friendly to the new player in the same way the Spitfire or LA5 is.

Flyingwise I would say no. Fighting wise; absolutely!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, fighting wise, I think many will find it to be like a FW-190, just without the firepower to get the job done in a one-pass snap-shot.

They will find it mostly out turned, mostly out climbed mostly out gunned by the opposition and with only a slight speed advantage most of the time.

This will be compounded for the new pilot who does not fly with friends and the P-51 is not at it's best in a 1v1 fight.

 

On the other hand, more disciplined pilots who are light on the stick and aware of their, and their opponents, energy state will love the 51 and have much success, even if they need to pick their fights occasionaly.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

if its anything like its done in WT or CloD, then you just wait on runway for 2-5min and your airplane is magicly 100% fixed like new.

 

ill probably not use it as i take of and land on far away bases and dont do GA online so i see no point in waiting few min on close airbases to get my 100% new airplane when i can just respawn in no time, GA guys will probably use it a lot

 

We all know you fly a Lagg-3 with 23mm HE at 7-8K and nothing else. hahaha.

 

As far as engines randomly breaking when being run above their stated limits I've seen it happen; albeit not on aircraft; I previously did some work for a machine shop that was running a 1/4 mile drag car, it was a 1992 Honda Civic. They were taking small 4-cylinder Honda motors completely rebuilt and running two turbos alongside other mods and making 1200hp at 12,000rpm. Sometimes it ran two or three races without issue; sometimes it spun a bearing, or threw a rod, or twisted the crank in twain halfway through the first race on a freshly built motor. When you are exceeding what the engine was originally designed to handle, you could get lucky and it runs great; or you could have one single plug burn out and have a piston start dragging because of zero detonation in the cylinder. Or have a small spot on a piston heat to melt and blow through. Or get some oil starvation because you were inverted or pulling Gs too long. Etc. I think the devs have done well with what they have to work with as far as simulating engine mechanics.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

We all know you fly a Lagg-3 with 23mm HE at 7-8K and nothing else. hahaha.

 

As far as engines randomly breaking when being run above their stated limits I've seen it happen; albeit not on aircraft; I previously did some work for a machine shop that was running a 1/4 mile drag car, it was a 1992 Honda Civic. They were taking small 4-cylinder Honda motors completely rebuilt and running two turbos alongside other mods and making 1200hp at 12,000rpm. Sometimes it ran two or three races without issue; sometimes it spun a bearing, or threw a rod, or twisted the crank in twain halfway through the first race on a freshly built motor. When you are exceeding what the engine was originally designed to handle, you could get lucky and it runs great; or you could have one single plug burn out and have a piston start dragging because of zero detonation in the cylinder. Or have a small spot on a piston heat to melt and blow through. Or get some oil starvation because you were inverted or pulling Gs too long. Etc. I think the devs have done well with what they have to work with as far as simulating engine mechanics.

 

You mean a 125 hp engine with a redline of 7200 RPM cranked to 1200 hp @12000 RPM routinely fails catastrophically?

You're comparing vastly exceeding redline RPM and engine power limits (by an order of magnitude!) to exceeding manual time limits on a certified boost setting.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

We all know you fly a Lagg-3 with 23mm HE at 7-8K and nothing else. hahaha.

 

As far as engines randomly breaking when being run above their stated limits I've seen it happen; albeit not on aircraft; I previously did some work for a machine shop that was running a 1/4 mile drag car, it was a 1992 Honda Civic. They were taking small 4-cylinder Honda motors completely rebuilt and running two turbos alongside other mods and making 1200hp at 12,000rpm. Sometimes it ran two or three races without issue; sometimes it spun a bearing, or threw a rod, or twisted the crank in twain halfway through the first race on a freshly built motor. When you are exceeding what the engine was originally designed to handle, you could get lucky and it runs great; or you could have one single plug burn out and have a piston start dragging because of zero detonation in the cylinder. Or have a small spot on a piston heat to melt and blow through. Or get some oil starvation because you were inverted or pulling Gs too long. Etc. I think the devs have done well with what they have to work with as far as simulating engine mechanics.

nothing better than getting high flying lufftwafers only players, getting easy kills on them when they only look down thinking high alt is for them only, and doing it in 100-150kmh slower airplane then them on thuse alts 😄

 

random braking of engines dont exists in game as realisam option so then when you have them braking after using emergancy for to long and you dont inform player when emergancy safty time run out, its like you have random braking on for some airplanes and for some you dont, so its not same for all airplanes. Like timers for recharg are not same for all airplanes and combat usage is not same for all airplanes and this benefits axis airplanes now so no wonder you dont have problem with it :)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

nothing better than getting high flying lufftwafers only players, getting easy kills on them when they only look down thinking high alt is for them only, and doing it in 100-150kmh slower airplane then them on thuse alts 😄

 

random braking of engines dont exists in game as realisam option so then when you have them braking after using emergancy for to long and you dont inform player when emergancy safty time run out, its like you have random braking on for some airplanes and for some you dont, so its not same for all airplanes. Like timers for recharg are not same for all airplanes and combat usage is not same for all airplanes and this benefits axis airplanes now so no wonder you dont have problem with it :)

 

Why would it tell you anyways? Do you play with techchat and gui on? Screaming all day everyday about the same issue, complain about realism and you play with techchat and Gui on? For shame good sir. For shame. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P-51 should be able to take off with two 1000lb bombs, bomb a target and then have enough internal gas to loiter for the remainder of the KOTA map-cycle.

 

Sounds like fun to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

anyone who enjoys the P47 will almost certainly enjoy the P51.

 

Basing this off my experience with it in DCS over the years. You will be able to give those Luftwaffe pilots a scare with the high speed and zoom climb rate. Plus it turns really well with half flaps.

 

I enjoy the American planes for the same reason I enjoy the BF110 when I fly German. I don't like the meta label of "allies: turning only. Axis: energy fighting only" and it's fun when you break that meta and the enemy plane doesn't know what to do

Edited by Hallex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 4:45 PM, [DBS]Browning said:

Yes, fighting wise, I think many will find it to be like a FW-190, just without the firepower to get the job done in a one-pass snap-shot.

They will find it mostly out turned, mostly out climbed mostly out gunned by the opposition and with only a slight speed advantage most of the time.

This will be compounded for the new pilot who does not fly with friends and the P-51 is not at it's best in a 1v1 fight.

 

On the other hand, more disciplined pilots who are light on the stick and aware of their, and their opponents, energy state will love the 51 and have much success, even if they need to pick their fights occasionaly.

 

It was a bit like this in Il-2:1946, but under the right circumstances it was absolutely possible to dogfight/turnfight against late war German opposition and come out on top. It really depended on altitude and fuel load, and I've shot down a fair share of 109's and 190's that mixed it in a battle on my terms. I don't expect it to be much different here. The Merlin produces more than 1650hp at 3000m and 1500hp at 6000m, which is very decent, even when compared to German MW50 powered late war engines. So a P-51, once down to a comparable fuel load, isn't really lacking in power-weight ratio, wing loading, span loading and whatnotelse factors relevant to close in fighting. And the bubble top offers you an excellent all around view. Plus, the excellent speed, in particular in (shallow) dives typically left you with a decent chance of successful disengagement, should you find out you misjudged the situation.

 

So while I mostly went with hit and run tactics, successful dogfights really weren't uncommon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not call the P51 "out gunned" either.  Remember it's role is NOT bomber interception.  It's six .50" Brownings are more than enough to dispatch any fighter they come up against, and they do well against any of the German bombers too. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I would not call the P51 "out gunned" either.  

 

 Definitely not.

Mustang pilots were tearing it up with 4 .50’s on the B/C model, never mind 6 on the D.

 

Even a single .50 round finding its way on target is hardly just a door knocker in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all of the combat evaluation on the .50’s during the war you’d think it wouldn’t still be the norm for jet combat over Korea.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some back of the envolope estimates...

 

Both the P51 and Dora put about 1,700kj out of their guns per second (inc. HE power), but the Dora is more lightly armed than most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

With all of the combat evaluation on the .50’s during the war you’d think it wouldn’t still be the norm for jet combat over Korea.......

If I remember correctly the USAF tried to develop a 60 cal. weapon but it was never perfected. When they tried the F-86 Sabre with 20 mm cannon it caused issues with engine flameouts. When they worked they were devastating. I think the .50 cal Browning continued to be used as there must've been thousands of them sitting in surplus depots with God knows how many of rounds of ammo available after WWII. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was surely an USAF problem with their jets or engines; the USN jets were all equipped with 20mm cannons by the time of Korea, same for a good part of thier piston-engine planes 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The US bought the rights to produce their own Hispano 20mm canons before the war and the US navy hoped to only use canons by 1942.

In 1941 the US had produced many thousands of Hispanos and around 40 million rounds of ammo, however small changes in design and manufacturing had made the guns useless and they jammed constantly. 

The British requested delivery of some of the US made Hispanos, but they to found them unusable. In 1942 the British sent an example of a British made Hispano to the US along with suggestions for how the US could fix their design. 

The US did not make the suggested changes and instead continued to try their own modifications, going through several varieties. Only in 1946 did the US manage to manufacture a working Hispano cannon. 

Edited by [DBS]Browning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US aircraft used 20mm Hispanos in numbers since 1941. P-38, P-39, P-51, P-61, A-20, B-24, B-29, F6F, F4U, SB2C all were armed in at least some subversions with US manufactured 20mm Hispanos. Those guns were not not working.

Share this post


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

US aircraft used 20mm Hispanos in numbers since 1941. P-38, P-39, P-51, P-61, A-20, B-24, B-29, F6F, F4U, SB2C all were armed in at least some subversions with US manufactured 20mm Hispanos. Those guns were not not working.

P-51 armed with Hispanos aka Mustang Mk IA had British Hispanos

P-39 and P-38's Hispano could be manually cocked by the pilot.

B-29's Hispano was only on the earliest of production models and was either removed or replaced by a 50cal

Navy planes armed with Hispano were a minority with 50 cal armed F4Us etc still being preferred.

US 20mm were garbage jam-prone systems throughout the war because they were built to tolerances of Field Artillery standards not Machine gun standards.

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

 

Navy planes armed with Hispano were a minority with 50 cal armed F4Us etc still being preferred.

 

 

The SBC started to mount them by late '44 I think. Corsairs with quad 20mm were available but mainly for ground strike, 2 20mm armed Hellcats and Corsairs were mainly used in the night fighter role against bombers, so a little more punch was a welcome addition in that role

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

... US 20mm were garbage jam-prone systems throughout the war ...

 

True, yet in my world there's a difference between garbage and not working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

True, yet in my world there's a difference between garbage and not working.

 

Quote

By late 1942 the USAAF had 40 million rounds of ammunition stored but the guns remained unsuitable. The U.S. Navy had been trying to switch to using cannon on all its combat aircraft throughout the war but the conversion never occurred. As late as December 1945 the U. S. Army Chief of Ordnance was still attempting to complete additional changes to the design to allow it to enter service. Some variations of the 20 mm guns used on the Lockheed P-38 Lightning aircraft were produced by International Harvester. The P-38's nose-mounted M2 featured a built-in cocking system and could simply be re-cocked in flight after a misfire, which made the misfires less of a problem than with other aircraft.

 

From Wikipedia. That's pretty damning evidence the US manufactured Hispanos were beyond garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alexmarine28 said:

It was surely an USAF problem with their jets or engines; the USN jets were all equipped with 20mm cannons by the time of Korea, same for a good part of thier piston-engine planes 

Different designs though. The guns on the F-86 were right by the engine intake. Not so for the Navy's Grumman F9F. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...