Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

 

So, if I understand this properly, you're still ending up with more "useful" horsepower with a turbocharger, yes? That's what what the "net engine power" indicator at the top would indicate, no?

Not only more Power, but the Power evenly through the Altitude Band, without the Power Holes and Peaks of a geared Supercharger. The only disadvantage of the Turbo is it's Size and Weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I am mainly competent in ship engines. And a bit on truck engines. 

So when I read this I understand it. But if my eyes slip or when I am finnished reading I dont. 

Thanks for the enlightenment, very interesting.

For my sake I find engines you can walk inside much more easy to comprehend  

Edited by LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

In principle, yes. In practice, it depends. Turbochargers are big and they set coarse limits on your airframe. Superchargers are small. You can make a smaller plane with supercharging.

 

Also, when you are talking about 

then this is not just shaft hp, but net power of everything pushing your plane forward. As JtD explained, exhaust pressure force is a significant factor in fast WW2 aircraft and the power required to compensate for the loss of an exhaust jet is often rather close to the loss of shaft power due to cranking the supercharger. The  graphs presented in the video don‘t show a bottom line of all things pushing forward, it shows net shaft power. What you do with that is a different question.

 

The great thing about the turbocharger lies in the flexibility of the critical altitude. You can optimize your engine to any given flight altitude. This way, the difference between the two is much more a question of mileage (achievable fuel economy) over a wider range of conditions than net performance.

 

An advantage of turbocharged engines thus is that you can set your critical altitude to your cruise altitude, giving the engine best mileage. In practice this is applied in the B-17. There, you have 4 engines and each of those engines have hooked up different systems to them. As those systems (cabin heater, generator, etc.) draw a different amount of shaft power, you have de facto 4 engines with 4 different critical altitudes. Since you are cruising very near these altitudes, you notice the different power outputs on the 4 shafts. By having turbochargers, can then (in flight) tune the turbos such that they synchronize the power on all four engines. (There‘s a lot more to flying B-17‘s than being flak bait, some shooting gallery and using the Norden once.) You couldn‘t do that with supercharged engines and you‘d get a slight penalty in mileage. It might make the difference between reaching Tunis or not with some unexpected head wind... (Ah, bomber problems, again.)

 

Yeah, turbochargers in WW2 generally didn't react well to backpressure, so any potential thrust from that was basically beyond reach. However, the XP-47J did indeed manage to pull significant thrust from its turbo exhaust IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PainGod85 said:

Yeah, turbochargers in WW2 generally didn't react well to backpressure, so any potential thrust from that was basically beyond reach. However, the XP-47J did indeed manage to pull significant thrust from its turbo exhaust IIRC.

It seems plausible to me and would probably depend on the workload put on the turbo.

 

My point was more that while the turbocharger indeed gives you most shaft power, this is not everything that determines flight performance. It is more about total thrust vs. total drag. For instance if a less efficient configuration saves you more drag than it takes you power, you have a bottom line improvement. On the other hand, if you are looking at best mileage in diverse conditions, things look again very much different.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet we dont see the p-51 till the end of the releases. Who wants to take bets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JgonRedcorn said:

I bet we dont see the p-51 till the end of the releases. Who wants to take bets?

 

Based on Jason’s reply to the update discussion it looks like they’re trying to get the remaining planes out at once. He said that “cockpits are 95%” and the at the “FMs are a few weeks out, under development” which suggests more than one aircraft is nearing completion.

 

I won’t lie, I’m slightly disappointed that we didn’t get anything this update, but if we get a couple of planes in a group I can wait a few weeks. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

1 hour ago, JgonRedcorn said:

I bet we dont see the p-51 till the end of the releases. Who wants to take bets?

 looks like august for P-51, i dont think all 3 come out at same time

 

but only thing that mathers is map and tempest, rest can come when ever 😄

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


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

 

 looks like august for P-51, i dont think all 3 come out at same time

 

but only thing that mathers is map and tempest, rest can come when ever 😄

No, Jason said the FM is several weeks away. That plus testing and finishing everything related definitely puts us in September + territory.

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jade_Monkey said:

No, Jason said the FM is several weeks away. That plus testing and finishing everything related definitely puts us in September + territory.

several weeks is just more then two week :) so its three weeks for sure till P-51

maybe they give us future plans in september and then final 2 airplanes and map in october and thats it, to me from what is shown it dosent look like all is far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the P 51 hype probably scared the shit out of them  

so they revisited the FM, expecting a riot if it is not well enough   

 

So it is our fault

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Or the model just fell behind schedule a little -  because they do sometimes -  and it has nothing to do with all the dialog here

Edited by gn728

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AndytotheD said:

 

Based on Jason’s reply to the update discussion it looks like they’re trying to get the remaining planes out at once. He said that “cockpits are 95%” and the at the “FMs are a few weeks out, under development” which suggests more than one aircraft is nearing completion.

 

I won’t lie, I’m slightly disappointed that we didn’t get anything this update, but if we get a couple of planes in a group I can wait a few weeks. 

 

Thats not quite the way I read that when taken as a total. His replies taken together seem to indicate all of the aircraft are in progress and will be released as they are completed. They may be released together if that’s how the timing works out or they may be released individually for the same reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

released together 

 

I think there are health issues involved ifthat happened. 

Blood vessels in peoples brain will pop if they get 3 planes to choose from in one pack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

Well the P 51 hype probably scared the shit out of them  

so they revisited the FM, expecting a riot if it is not well enough   

 

So it is our fault

 

Umm...no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Fumes said:

please oh please be a 72 or 75inch mustang.

 

and we need drop tanks

Fly on external tanks with only 100 liters internal fuel. For the fight, drop tanks, enjoy a light aircraft and return home. ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fumes said:

please oh please be a 72 or 75inch mustang.

 

and we need drop tanks

probably not from what we could see before with allied airplanes, 67" MP will be max it goes

 

DTs are unneccesary luxury at this point, and in case of P-51 you can fly long time without them so no real need for them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

Well the P 51 hype probably scared the shit out of them  

so they revisited the FM, expecting a riot if it is not well enough   

 

So it is our fault

 

Nonsense...

 

That said, there will be riots about the 51's flight model what ever it is like. There is no other plane that so many people are so emotionally invested in.

It's a plane that claims an 11:1 kill ratio and as soon as online pilots discover that they can not match that in the 51, complaints about the flight model will start; whatever the flight model is like.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

no other plane that so many people are so emotionally invested in

Spitfire?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Diggun said:

Spitfire?

 

One would think so, however I never saw as many passionate discussions and arguments about how the spit is portrayed in games.

 

I can think of a few reasons why that might be.

Maybe that's because Spit fans are simply outnumbered by the 51 fans

Maybe spit fans are less passionate about the plane

Maybe it is because the spit is easier to fight in and so novice pilots have less to complain about.

Maybe it is because the spit has some areas (i.e. turn rate) where is tends to outclass it's opposition more clearly than the 51 does in any of it's specifications (aside from range)

Take your pick.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

That said, there will be riots about the 51's flight model what ever it is like.

 

You're right, mate, but I would even extend this statement and say: "There will always be riots about flight and damage models for any plane!"

 

I seldom observed a undisputed release of a new plane here - we will always have someone complaining about a plane or tank or whatever.

Sometimes it is justified, sometimes not. C'est la vie...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

Nonsense...

 

That said, there will be riots about the 51's flight model what ever it is like. There is no other plane that so many people are so emotionally invested in.

It can hardly beat Fw-190 idolators.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Umm...no

For bloody god sake it was a joke. Does one have to label with a joke-label everytime

1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Nonsense...

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

several weeks is just more then two week :) so its three weeks for sure till P-51

 

 

Not in Southwestern USA-speak.  

 

"A couple" = two

"A couple or three" = two to three

"A few" = four or five

"Several" = six or seven 

*

 

As Jason hails from the great state of Texas I believe, everything is bigger there including timelines, so I'd figure seven weeks.

 

* Does not include other location-specific terminology such as "a passel", "a bunch I reckon" or "a sh#tpot full".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

One would think so, however I never saw as many passionate discussions and arguments about how the spit is portrayed in games.

 

I can think of a few reasons why that might be.

Maybe that's because Spit fans are simply outnumbered by the 51 fans

Maybe spit fans are less passionate about the plane

Maybe it is because the spit is easier to fight in and so novice pilots have less to complain about.

Maybe it is because the spit has some areas (i.e. turn rate) where is tends to outclass it's opposition more clearly than the 51 does in any of it's specifications (aside from range)

Take your pick.

 

 

That's definitely the case on all of those accounts in my experience. The Spitfire I think has as many fervent and passionate fans as the Mustang but the Spitfire's strengths are a bit easier to point to and understand than the Mustang's - a far more subtle aircraft when it comes to its pros and cons versus the opposition.

 

I am super excited to fly the Mustang again but I am so very worried about how negative people might be about one of thing or another. That said, I'm hoping 1CGS efforts to make the Mustang translate well into the sim world and that at least a good number of people are happy flying it. I'm looking forward to it!

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P 51 as I understand it was built for range 

using a well proven modified airframe and a well proven engine. 

Like many other special purpose aircraft flopping in any other task it was built for ,

The P 51 actually could compete with most of its adversaries.  And excell in most task it was put to do. 

I  guess there are some that think it should be best in all trades. But not many. 

But I do hope as you say 

19 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

translate

 Well to this sim. 

That was well put

Share this post


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

The P 51 as I understand it was built for range 

...................

the early versions, Allison driven, too ?

The outer airframe  kept the same IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

One must also consider the strategic situation the P-51 was used in and the situation it is likely to be used in-game.

For most of it's career it vastly outnumbered a highly suppressed enemy who where targeting bombers more often than they where targeting P-51s. It also operated close to it's ideal altitude much of the time.

 

If 1944 was more like the Battle of Britain with German planes slightly out-numbering allied planes as the Luftwaffe sent waves of state of the art bombers and fighters across the channel against allied targets at low to medium altitude and short range, engaging fighters as a priority, how would the P-51 performed?

 

One might imagine that the 51 would not do as well in such conditions, however, such an imagined scenario is much closer to how the P51 is likely to be used in the game than it is the the majority of the P-51's actual war time career.

Edited by [DBS]Browning
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

the early versions, Allison driven, too ?

The outer airframe  kept the same IIRC.

That is the well proven airframe doing extreemly well at low altitude. 

I was talking about the merged griffon /p51

it was pretty unclear I admit. That is life for people with bad english

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what they shown i have little concernes about its FM,

level speeds they make exactly to documents, so it will be as fast as K4 at low and faster on up high alts, only at ~4-7km k4 will be faster
compared to D9 it will be as fast low, and mutch faster up high, and only slower at mid alts ~3-6km.
It will probably turn preaty good with flaps down, and 40% fuel ( youll not need more for 45-1h missions ) and climb as good.
dive speed will be good, but not as on P-47,

.50 cal are realy effective in this game how they are now, so it will be deadly

cockpit will be one of the best if not best for DF
only problem is engine timers it will get, and lack of indication when timers run out, untill indications get fixed i see no reason to play with P-47 or P-51 or any american airplane in this game
Its realy puzzling as heck why only important messages like when emergancy runs out or gets recharged dont show up on all realisam settings, and all ozher ~681 messages show up exept this 6 important ones, basicly making airplanes with timers like usaf have unatractive to me, in real ww2 pilots would be informed about this timer mumbojumbo if it would brake their engine like its now in game, so we need to be informed about it also to be able to play with airplanes on max of their ower without worry if engine will randomly brake because you as player didnt count seconds corectly

 

so yes who cares about its FM, they shown they make best FMs, only thing that will keep me playing on berloga in 5min DF on P-47s and P-51s and avoiding them on other servers will be lack of proper information about fantasy timers that we need to use

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

One must also consider the strategic situation the P-51 was used in and the situation it is likely to be used in-game.

For most of it's career it vastly outnumbered a highly suppressed enemy who where targeting bombers more often than they where targeting P-51s. It also operated close to it's ideal altitude much of the time.

 

If 1944 was more like the Battle of Britain with German planes slightly out-numbering allied planes as the Luftwaffe sent waves of state of the art bombers and fighters across the channel against allied targets at low to medium altitude and short range, how would the P-51 performed?

 

One might imagine that the 51 would not do as well in such conditions, however, such an imagined scenario is much closer to how the P51 is likely to be used in the game than it is the the majority of the P-51's actual war time career.

If you look at pto 

they faced a enemy with superior planes and did rather well with what they got after a while. 

US fighter training is a key in this algorithm 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P-51 was built for speed, and was at the time the fastest fighter aircraft in the world. By a large margin. The fact they also managed to install a large fuel tank for long range is a great achievement, but it's not what the P-51 was built for. Or around.

 

Personally I consider speed the single most important performance factor, so that makes the P-51 the best fighter aircraft of early-mid 1944 for me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

Well the P 51 hype probably scared the shit out of them  

so they revisited the FM, expecting a riot if it is not well enough   

 

So it is our fault

 

 

Well, P-51 was the plane that won the war, after all...

 

 

 

im joking, please dont hurt me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won the lifes of many allied bomber-crew and 

made it possible to continue bombing at daytime. 

It did a helluva job elsewhere too. But it did not win the war. It simply allowed a significant part to help winning the war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CptSiddy said:

 

 

Well, P-51 was the plane that won the war, after all...

 

 

 

im joking, please dont hurt me

 

It is the Cadillac of the sky, as Batman Himself said.

 

And so, when modeling the P-51 Mustang, Cadillac of the Sky, it behooves the devs not to piss off Batman.

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

 

It is the Cadillac of the sky, as Batman Himself said.

 

And so, when modeling the P-51 Mustang, Cadillac of the Sky, it behooves the devs not to piss off Batman.


https://vimeo.com/154423746

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Fumes said:

please oh please be a 72 or 75inch mustang.

 

and we need drop tanks

 

Agreed with the former.

 

For that latter, that'd be nice, but not necessary. They would need to implement a proper fuel handling system to make those useful. And really, they won't be: in our maps we really don't need massive range.

4 minutes ago, Go_Pre said:

 

I feel bad about that kid. Grew up in china only to get separated from his parents by the Japanese. And then he was reunited with them only to move to Gotham and have them murdered by a grinning psycho.

 

Oh well. At least his taste in warbirds is spot-on. :)

Edited by 71st_AH_Yankee_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My prediction will be:

 

No 150 oct (never ever ever will we get it)

 

2 minutes emergency timers with 30 minutes cool down.

 

And

 

More finicky engine than in P-40 

 

 

 

 

:biggrin:

Edited by CptSiddy

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...