Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm all for a "Wild Horses" collector's planeset:

 

- "Allison Mustang" base-model (kind of like the Fw 190A-8 we have now: several airplanes in one by using modificators) including the Mustang I, IA, II and A-36

- P-51B/C (with the -3 and -7 engine options, as well as a Malcolm Hood as modificator, 500lb bombracks)

- P-51D late war with HVAR launchers and tail-radars

 

The B/C and D should come with the 81'' modificator that was cleared when operating on 150 octane gas.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Caudron431Rafale said:

The P-51D sure is a cool plane, but for me the P51-A is the most beautiful of them all, long before the B which i like too!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R08bQJCW_Ss

I know it's all feelings (i have no charts) but for me the mustangishness®  is much stronger in the A  ( hopefully at one point we will eventually get an allison Mustang in this sim, i'm waiting for this to happen for so many years....)

 

Italy DLC and A-36 :) 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 10:32 AM, PatrickAWlson said:

Anyhow, the Mustang should be a very good, very fast plane, but not obviously superior to the 109K and 190D.

 

By all combat accounts it turned better than those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Venturi said:

 

By all combat accounts it turned better than those.

 

I'm not sure.  The 190 probably had the best instantaneous turn and high speed handling but had lousy sustained turn.  The P51 vs the Me109K in a sustained turn?  Honestly don't know but I would guess the 109K turned better at lower speeds.  Me109K had great climb and was very fast.  Both the 109K and the 190D had excellent acceleration.

 

The P51 also had excellent acceleration. great zoom climb but only average sustained, was very fast, very good at high altitude ... 

 

My point really was that all three were very good aircraft.  The P51 will be competitive and have its advantages but so will the 190D and 109K.  IMHO none of these planes should be overwhelmingly superior. 

 

The genius of the P51 was creating a fighter that was very good, relatively cheap and simple to build,  with that kind of range.  Every other long range fighter that I am aware of sacrificed something to achieve that range.  The P51 could fly all that way and still compete on even terms with anything it encountered.  Now none of that matters in the game because MP or SP everything is going to be measured in a couple hundred KM max.  In real life that combination of range and capability meant everything.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

The genius of the P51 was creating a fighter that was very good, relatively cheap and simple to build,  with that kind of range.  Every other long range fighter that I am aware of sacrificed something to achieve that range.  The P51 could fly all that way and still compete on even terms with anything it encountered.  Now none of that matters in the game because MP or SP everything is going to be measured in a couple hundred KM max.  In real life that combination of range and capability meant everything.

 

Everything is a compromise... The P-51Ds weren't as structurally robust as Republic's fighters, not as smooth power vs altitude curve, took less guns and less ammo, had a very nasty ditch characteristic and the radiator system was very prone to damage. Overall the P-47N was an excellent long range fighter-bomber too if one would be willing pay the price.

 

At the time the final course of the war in the Europe was set. Why to paid ever more just to slightly improve pilots survival odds when they were already pretty good?

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


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

 

Everything is a compromise... The P-51Ds weren't as structurally robust as Republic's fighters, not as smooth power vs altitude curve, took less guns and less ammo, had a very nasty ditch characteristic and the radiator system was very prone to damage. Overall the P-47N was an excellent long range fighter-bomber too if one would be willing pay the price.

 

At the time the final course of the war in the Europe was set. Why to paid ever more just to slightly improve pilots survival odds when they were already pretty good?

 

I would call even those compromises very intelligent.  The 6x 50 cal was plenty for taking out fighters, and that's what the P51 was in the air to do.  The radiator damage was a thing with any liquid cooled fighter.  Me109 and Spitfire suffered as well.  Stanford Tuck was brought down by a hit to his radiator.  For the P51, being primarily an escort fighter, the trade off was acceptable.

 

I can definitely see where that scoop would be a very bad thing on a ditch.  Hadn't thought of that.  Still, the aerodynamic benefits of the design against nasty ditch characteristics ... arguably a justifiable trade.

 

With all of that in mind the P51 would not be my choice to take on a ground attack mission and the 6x 50 cal would be pathetic in a head on attack against a bomber box.  It was not all things for all situations.  It did, however, do something critically important that no other plane at the time could do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I would call even those compromises very intelligent.  The 6x 50 cal was plenty for taking out fighters, and that's what the P51 was in the air to do.  The radiator damage was a thing with any liquid cooled fighter.  Me109 and Spitfire suffered as well.  Stanford Tuck was brought down by a hit to his radiator.  For the P51, being primarily an escort fighter, the trade off was acceptable.

 

Not disagreeing but the P-51D fuselage has no less than 6 (2 per inter-cooler, oil and eng water) pipes running to/from the low-aft radiators assembly. Radiators were closely spaced and exposed from the back. That's a lot of extra sensitive area and a single point of failure.

In the contrast the piping/rads in the P-40s and P-39s/P-63s were very close to the engine.

 

22 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I can definitely see where that scoop would be a very bad thing on a ditch.  Hadn't thought of that.  Still, the aerodynamic benefits of the design against nasty ditch characteristics ... arguably a justifiable trade.

 

To cite from the P-51D manual:

"The pilot must get out quickly upon landing. After the final impact, the airplane will sink very rapidly, only remaining above the surface of the water for a period of 1.5 to 2 seconds."

 

Flying long missions especially over water in the P-51Ds... that must had been a real nerve testing experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I'm not sure.  The 190 probably had the best instantaneous turn and high speed handling but had lousy sustained turn.  The P51 vs the Me109K in a sustained turn?  Honestly don't know but I would guess the 109K turned better at lower speeds.  Me109K had great climb and was very fast.  Both the 109K and the 190D had excellent acceleration.

 

The P51 also had excellent acceleration. great zoom climb but only average sustained, was very fast, very good at high altitude ... 

 

My point really was that all three were very good aircraft.  The P51 will be competitive and have its advantages but so will the 190D and 109K.  IMHO none of these planes should be overwhelmingly superior. 

 

The genius of the P51 was creating a fighter that was very good, relatively cheap and simple to build,  with that kind of range.  Every other long range fighter that I am aware of sacrificed something to achieve that range.  The P51 could fly all that way and still compete on even terms with anything it encountered.  Now none of that matters in the game because MP or SP everything is going to be measured in a couple hundred KM max.  In real life that combination of range and capability meant everything.

Well said, I am a p51 fan but too many times I see people who over like the p51 or the 190/109 give biased statements... again well said

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What are you people talking about? The Mustang won the war!

 

It will sweep the skies of all opposition, just like that! (*snaps fingers*)

 

😉

Edited by =CFC=Conky
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, CptSiddy said:

drop tanks, drop tanks everywhere

Most definitely if they are full of napalm.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

- P-51D late war with HVAR launchers and tail-radars

 

You are thinking too small

 

image.png.58c39aab937d60650c048174ea4d9769.png

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rowdyb00t said:

 

 

 

All i can say: dirty flap abuser! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, =CFC=Conky said:

What are you people talking about? The Mustang won the war!

 

It will sweep the skies of all opposition, just like that! (*snaps fingers*)

 

😉

Well, if we look at the K4 and spit 9......hihi

Edited by =VARP=Tvrdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll never really understand how the Mustang, with that poor P/W ratio, managed to be a good accelerator. Was it the relative aerodynamic cleanliness? The meredith radiator? The prop?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussing the P51's real life abilities is meaningless.  What it does in the sim is what matters.  

 

I'm not holding my breath, I can tell you that.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lythronax said:

I'll never really understand how the Mustang, with that poor P/W ratio, managed to be a good accelerator. Was it the relative aerodynamic cleanliness? The meredith radiator? The prop?

 

The low drag, probably. What is important is the excess power and some historic Mustangs had rather high MP settings. Higher altitudes would also be advantageous for the Packard V-1650 equipped P-51s. That is no a guarantee it will be so in the game unfortunately...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very much looking forward to taking her for a spin, however she performs, she's a good looking bird and its always very nice to have new toys to play with.

Am I right in thinking that accelerated stalls came with little warning and were quite vicious in the P 51 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, LF_Gallahad said:

What if it's actually good?

No, he already made up his mind.🙄

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lythronax said:

I'll never really understand how the Mustang, with that poor P/W ratio, managed to be a good accelerator. Was it the relative aerodynamic cleanliness? The meredith radiator? The prop?

 

21-B81-A33-2614-4874-B152-F3-C0-FF8804-F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding 'laminar flow' and the P-51:

Quote

Although many writers have mistakenly referred to the laminar flow produced by the airfoil as the reason for the P-51’s performance in WWII that is not, in fact, the reason. It turns out that because the real-world conditions (camouflage paint, dirt and mud and structural “dings”) encountered in combat resulted in loss of the air-flow physics and laminar-flow effect exhibited by the polished models in the laboratory. However, the novel shape of the airfoil exhibited superior performance at high speeds compared to other U.S. or foreign airfoils and did indeed provide the airplane with a huge advantage in combat.

 

https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/XP-51_Mustang#Development_of_the_Laminar_Flow_Airfoil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy, I've been arguing the exact same thing since the original IL-2 series. A single bug smashed on the leading edge will kill most laminar boundary layer airflow in a 45° wedge downstream.

Still, the wings had relatively little drag, but weren't optimized for high lift.

 

The Mustang could throw in a notch of flaps, though, so all Cl-disadvantages could be overcome relatively easily.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

A single bug smashed on the leading edge will kill most laminar boundary layer airflow in a 45° wedge downstream.

So does a mechanic walking over the wing just once. The idea that you have laminar flow over these wings... Well even back then boffins knew there wasn't much of that. To further illustrate that fact, Eric Brown had to fly his Kin Cobra through the chlorine gas sprayed by the leading aircraft to make airflow visible. The oxigen mask better be sealing well when you're flying through poison gas...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jaegermeister said:

 

21-B81-A33-2614-4874-B152-F3-C0-FF8804-F

Bit of a meme.

P-51's wing were in theory laminar, but reality was otherwise.

Manufacturing techniques  were not quite there yet to ensure a smooth surface on the aerofoil and aircraft in service would get dust and grime that would ruin the laminar flow anyway.

What made the P-51 less draggy is multiple factors and the main one is probably the cooling system.

 

P-51's oil, intercooler and coolant radiator were all in the same place, so while there is no redundancy, it is very slick compared to the Spitfire that had 2 radiators areas and the Bf-109 that had 3. The P-51s radiator intake was also some distance away from the fuselage of the airplane unlike the examples listed above. The only aircraft I've seen in this time period do this as well is the La-7's oil radiator but I believe that is by accident for manufacturing reasons rather then by design. This ensures that the air coming into the radiator is away from the boundary layer created by the fuselage, increasing mass flow. This allows a smaller intake for the same mass flow of air into the radiator and therefore less drag. The reason why I don't think the La-7 utilizes this on purpose is that the distance from the intake to the fuselage body is too small and the radiator would still be under the influence of the boundary layer.

 

Couple this with a flush body that has no bumps and blisters like late Bf-109s and Spitfires,  landing gear tyres were completely covered by wheel well doors and rear wheel completed retracted, you just have to look at the speed difference of the Bf-109K vs the 109Gs to see such features easily add 30-40kph + to the top speed 

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Possibly also relevant:

Quote

The following factors are known to more or less influence natural laminar flow and to cause the pre-mature change to turbulent flow:

  • Aircraft vibration
  • Noise
  • Waviness and presence of dirt on the aircraft surface
  • The existance of turbulence in the airmass

https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/en/service/technik/laminar-fliegen-in-turbulenter-luft/

 

Even if you could eliminate the 'dirt' and 'waviness' on a P-51 wing, the noise and vibration is still there. Lots of it. Along with the turbulence in the propeller slipstream, and the turbulence caused by the gun ports, which is going to affect a substantial portion of the wing outside the slipstream. 

Edited by AndyJWest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people going to be a bit dissapointed. 

Historically P 39 should do well in this sim. We fly in its premium altitude but still not many if any do well with it. 

P 47 should also do much better than my impression is. 

Statistically with the P 40 also in mind we probably going to be not satisfied. 

I hope I am wrong 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

No, he already made up his mind.🙄

No I have not.  But if I were betting a steak dinner on it, I'd be on the "it's gonna be a dog" side of the argument, simply based on all past releases of US aircraft in the sim, except for the A20.

5 hours ago, LF_Gallahad said:

What if it's actually good?

 

Then great!  But, if past is prologue, well...

 

 

Much will depend on what  Pilot's Operating Manual the devs are looking at, I suspect.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

This is what Im talking about. How we will mimic this in the sim? Currently we cant do much vs experienced pilots in me262...

Any attempt on taking on a ME 262 in rl was done by luck co alt or from a dive. 

Deliberate hunting for them was done by following them or knowing their airbase and take them on landing.

I have not yet seen any complaint about range so waiting on them going empty on gas for landing is hardly a option.

Like USSR won by numbers , it is hard to simulate correctly and historically

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/17/2019 at 4:36 PM, -332FG-Garven said:

People have posted combat reports in this forum of the P-51 going 15 minutes at full WEP and 30 minutes at full WEP.  Having the engine seize and die after 5 minutes of emergency or even after 15 minutes of combat power is ridiculously unrealistic.  If you want proper engine modeling your going to need to model pre-detonation.

How is that different from 109s and 190s? LW has to work on timers and so will allied planes deal with it and stop crying, it’s the system we got now 

Edited by Asgar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

Me262 vs allied prop planes in rl

 

This is what Im talking about. How we will mimic this in the sim? Currently we cant do much vs experienced pilots in me262...

 

Can´t be done in MP except by doing asymetric numbers (10:1) allies vs. axis on the server. Another aspect which helped the allies tremendously was their superior training vs. the late war luftwaffel boys which barely had 1-2 flight hours. That aspect can´t be simulated either, except in SP.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever the P-51 comes up you invariably see the same arguments come up across any media platform and niche...plastic models, civilian flight sims, military flight sims, even painting and artwork.  You've got the "the only reason the allies won was numbers, the P-51 wasn't even that good" types on the Luftwaffe (and occasionally other aircraft fanatics, IE Spit 14's, Tempest 5's, etc) and then you've got the "the P-51 was without equal, without vice and utterly dominant in everything" types on the pro P-51 side. 

Both are complete hogwash and do a disservice to reality.  

Share this post


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

How is that different from 109s and 190s? LW has to work on timers and so will allied planes deal with it and stop crying, it’s the system we got now 

109s WEP and Combat timers are two seperate timers with WEP being able to recharge whilst using Combat

The Allied aircraft need to go to continuous to recharge timers, and even then combat timer recharges first till it is complete before the WEP timer recharges. WEP also uses up the combat timer as well, which results in the P-47 (and every American aircraft) going 5 minutes WEP and 5 minutes combat followed by the engine blowing up.

Meanwhile the K-4 can go

10 minutes WEP

10 minutes Combat

10 minutes WEP

10 minutes Combat

10 minutes WEP 

10 minutes Combat

Aircraft out of fuel

 

The Russians aren't hurt because they use only 1 timer only on some aircraft.

The British aren't affected as bad because their manual limits are 5 minute WEP, 1 hour combat in comparison to Americans 5 minute WEP, 15 minute combat. The discrepency between these number have nothing to do with engine durability.

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

109s WEP and Combat timers are two seperate timers with WEP being able to recharge whilst using Combat

The Allied aircraft need to go to continuous to recharge timers, and even then combat timer recharges first till it is complete before the WEP timer recharges. WEP also uses up the combat timer as well, which results in the P-47 (and every American aircraft) going 5 minutes WEP and 5 minutes combat followed by the engine blowing up.

Meanwhile the K-4 can go

10 minutes WEP

10 minutes Combat

10 minutes WEP

10 minutes Combat

10 minutes WEP 

10 minutes Combat

Aircraft out of fuel

 

The Russians aren't hurt because they use only 1 timer only on some aircraft.

The British aren't affected as bad because their manual limits are 5 minute WEP, 1 hour combat in comparison to Americans 5 minute WEP, 15 minute combat. The discrepency between these number have nothing to do with engine durability.

On P-47 5min of emergancy/bosted gets recharged in 10min on combat or continues i tested this and see no differance time is always same.

But using emerghancy/boost eats combat timer so you basicly have 10 min of combat after you used 5min of max, and then when max gets recharged in 10min you have to stop using combat lol and then you have to fly 30min! on continues to be able to use combat again... its basicly broken airplane no point using it anywhere els then berloga 5min df.

 

On Spitfire you have 5min wep that needs 15min to recharg, also combat or continues its same time, but you atleast have 1h combat so its mutch better then P-47.

 

And as same engine is on P-51, and timers are 5min max and 15min combat, P-51 will be even wors then P-47 as insted 10min recharg it will be 15min recharg for emergancy, and insted 30min combat recharg it will be 45min to recharg it flying on continues lol bye bye usaf and bobp servers untill Tempest comes with timers like Spit 9 .

 

Basicly game has 3 big bugs with timers and still no indication they gona be fixed:

1st bug: Messages when timers expired and gets recharged dont show up if instrument panel is not on (out of 100+ messages only this messages dont show up)

2nd bug: Timers recharg time is not same for all airplanes, some airplanes recharg 1min for 1min flying on lower settings and some 1min takes up to 3min for no reson, as recharg time is invented for game and should then be same for all airplanes.

3rd bug: Using energancy/boosted on some airplanes use up combat timer, and on others dont use up combat timer alowing thouse airplanes unfair advantage, again as this is invented for this timer system and not used in real, it should be same for all airplanes either all airplanes use emergncy/bosted timer and combat timer at same time or dont, you cant have some use it and some not.

 

How its now 109s benefit maximaly from last 2 bugs as their airplanes dont use up combat timer when flying on emergancy, and on top of that recharg any timer in 1:1 ratio.

Germans were making best and most relaiable engines while they got bombed 24/7 and build engines by questionable work force it seams, and P-47 had one of the worst engine lol

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 357th_Dog said:

Whenever the P-51 comes up you invariably see the same arguments come up across any media platform and niche...plastic models, civilian flight sims, military flight sims, even painting and artwork.  You've got the "the only reason the allies won was numbers, the P-51 wasn't even that good" types on the Luftwaffe (and occasionally other aircraft fanatics, IE Spit 14's, Tempest 5's, etc) and then you've got the "the P-51 was without equal, without vice and utterly dominant in everything" types on the pro P-51 side. 

Both are complete hogwash and do a disservice to reality.  

And to the pilots and ground crew. We aren't going to rewrite history playing a game.

Share this post


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

3rd bug: Using energancy/boosted on some airplanes use up combat timer, and on others dont use up combat timer alowing thouse airplanes unfair advantage, again as this is invented for this timer system and not used in real, it should be same for all airplanes either all airplanes use emergncy/bosted timer and combat timer at same time or dont, you cant have some use it and some not.

 

4th bug (but maybe it was fixed; I have to check yet after updates): if you used combat power for longer (but within the limit) before switching to the emergency then you may not be able to switch back the the nominal without damaging engine. That's because the emergency will deplete the combat to zero and throttling back to the nominal is not instantaneous. Even if for a moment the engine may touch the completely depleted combat mode and results in damage...

Share this post


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

How is that different from 109s and 190s? LW has to work on timers and so will allied planes deal with it and stop crying, it’s the system we got now 

 

Length of them with no basis in any reality and no - you will not find any warning of engines seizing 100% after a set time interval in US fighter plane manual. They only tell that those time intervals are to ensure keeping overhauls times constant and to reduce odds of developing problems to the minimum. Not that an engine has to go boom. In fact the stated run-time for WEP is about 5 to 7 hours accumulated before the overhaul.

 

From reading pilots notes and the Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering by Robert L. Shaw it can be showed that so called combat endurance (ability to maintain power needed to effectively fight) was depended on only two (3rd would be supply of ADI in such equip engines) things: bingo fuel condition and already damaged or rough running engine for some reason. No one pilot was counting minutes of used boost/WEP once engaged. The Shaw's book states example of the P-51B driver locked with the enemy in the D-9 for the long time. The Mustang pilot's only fear related to his plane was that he would run out of fuel needed to go back to the friendly territory thus he had to do something quick.

(if the pilot would be flying the Mustang with engine from the game he would not survive)

 

The Shaw's book talks about pilots ability to track only few (usually not more than 2-3) things simultaneously when engaged with any resemblance of reliability. That would be tracking your own wing-man and one (maybe two) enemies and that's max for most pilots. An another threat in the form of your plane being a ticking bomb would be A BIG NO.

Edited by Ehret
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Length of them with no basis in any reality and no - you will not find any warning of engines seizing 100% after a set time interval in US fighter plane manual. They only tell that those time intervals are to ensure keeping overhauls times constant and to reduce odds of developing problems to the minimum. Not that an engine has to go boom. In fact the stated run-time for WEP is about 5 to 7 hours accumulated before the overhaul.

 

From reading pilots notes and the Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering by Robert L. Shaw it can be showed that so called combat endurance (ability to maintain power needed to effectively fight) was depended on only two (3rd would be supply of ADI in such equip engines) things: bingo fuel condition and already damaged or rough running engine for some reason. No one pilot was counting minutes of used boost/WEP once engaged. The Shaw's book states example of the P-51B driver locked with the enemy in the D-9 for the long time. The Mustang pilot's only fear related to his plane was that he would run out of fuel needed to go back to the friendly territory thus he had to do something quick.

(if the pilot would be flying the Mustang with engine from the game he would not survive)

 

The Shaw's book talks about pilots ability to track only few (usually not more than 2-3) things simultaneously when engaged with any resemblance of reliability. That would be tracking your own wing-man and one (maybe two) enemies and that's max for most pilots. An another threat in the form of your plane being a ticking bomb would be A BIG NO.

 

They were just recomendations, not like in game where they are single most dangerous aspect of engine in your airplane, and you need to know when you run out of timer or when you recharge it to be able to maximaise use of airplane when timers are so short.

 

If in real airplanes they had this strickt limits, they would have aditional stopwatches build in cockpits in airplane that would alarm them when they used 5min of emergancy or 15min of combat, and when its ready to be used again and so on...  so we in game need to have working messages when its recharged and when its deplited to be able to maximaise use of this silly timer system when they decided to use it then give us corect info, like real pilots would get for sure if their engine would blow up if he used all 5min of emergancy/boosted, they would have big red bulb flashing in cockpit to stop using emergancy, we just need working techchat message that is already programed in game, without it its like flying with reliability brakings turned on you dont know when your engine will just brake if you didnt cunt seconds correctly while df and searching for enemys or trying to stay in formation with wingman, and in ww2 pilots for sure didnt count secounds of use of max power or military power and so on...because it was not so important as its in game.

58 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

4th bug (but maybe it was fixed; I have to check yet after updates): if you used combat power for longer (but within the limit) before switching to the emergency then you may not be able to switch back the the nominal without damaging engine. That's because the emergency will deplete the combat to zero and throttling back to the nominal is not instantaneous. Even if for a moment the engine may touch the completely depleted combat mode and results in damage...

if you mean you use 15min of combat and then use emergancy/boosted for 5min, and then go to continues? that will brake your engine

Edited by 77.CountZero

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...