Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 4/7/2020 at 5:08 AM, Dakpilot said:

 

Simple answer my watch! 

Since WWI a pilot watch was essential equipment, I used my first ever pilots salary to buy a quality seiko pilots watch with stopwatch, still got it!l

A stopwatch was standard kit in any flight bag and I think there were two fitted in the panel and one in the engineers panel. 

Sadly counting time is one of the primary requirements in flying, from the basic two minute turn to holding pattern all have to be flown to the second, some instructors would continuously test us with second hand on watch until we could fairly accurately judge one minute as second nature

 

 

I was very lucky with my career, from my initial flight instructor who sent me solo (ex WW2 spitfire pilot with a 20,000 hr career and huge overall experience, became a personal friend, sadly died in aviation accident) to many many along the way, before I start rambling more, enough to say I have been pulled into so many stupid 'conversations' I get reluctant to post,  lock down may have temporarily effected me 😎

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

Hello!

 

At the risk of making people mad here by dredging up a old thread **and not looking to start any kind of battle over engine timers***, I'm wondering if you can shed some light on a couple of questions I have regarding engine settings...either based on your personal experience or maybe what veterans may have told you...

 

1) When engine or aircraft manufacturers set a "Takeoff", "War Emergency" or "Combat Power" time limit, what physically are they looking to prevent? Too much heat overall, resulting in hot metal spots that cause detonation? The lube oil getting too hot, thinning out and failing to protect?

 

2) My follow-up question would be, perhaps depending on the answer to question 1...what is the "repeatability" expectation? I mean, there is only one takeoff per flight, so takeoff power is pretty self-explanatory...but what about something like "Military Power"? When Allison tells me I can run 3,000 RPM / 42" for five minutes, is that once per flight? Or do the oil and coolant just need to reduce to a specific temp and run at that lower temp for a specific amount of time (to let metal parts cool down) before another five minutes of running hard can be done safely?

 

I guess to put it in other words, machines don't get physically tired or mentally demoralized, so what are the physical properties that are kept in check by engine time limits, and what are the indications that an engine has been refreshed for another bout of high power. (I know sometimes special physical inspections were required for extreme WEP use, but I'm talking more about combat / takeoff power within the normal operating instructions).

 

 

The manuals seem kind of quiet on this aspect of it.

 

Thanks

Edited by MattS
Clarification
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MattS said:

 

Hello!

 

At the risk of making people mad here by dredging up a old thread **and not looking to start any kind of battle over engine timers***, I'm wondering if you can shed some light on a couple of questions I have regarding engine settings...either based on your personal experience or maybe what veterans may have told you...

 

1) When engine or aircraft manufacturers set a "Takeoff", "War Emergency" or "Combat Power" time limit, what physically are they looking to prevent? Too much heat overall, resulting in hot metal spots that cause detonation? The lube oil getting too hot, thinning out and failing to protect?

 

2) My follow-up question would be, perhaps depending on the answer to question 1...what is the "repeatability" expectation? I mean, there is only one takeoff per flight, so takeoff power is pretty self-explanatory...but what about something like "Military Power"? When Allison tells me I can run 3,000 RPM / 42" for five minutes, is that once per flight? Or do the oil and coolant just need to reduce to a specific temp and run at that lower temp for a specific amount of time (to let metal parts cool down) before another five minutes of running hard can be done safely?

 

I guess to put it in other words, machines don't get physically tired or mentally demoralized, so what are the physical properties that are kept in check by engine time limits, and what are the indications that an engine has been refreshed for another bout of high power. (I know sometimes special physical inspections were required for extreme WEP use, but I'm talking more about combat / takeoff power within the normal operating instructions).

 

 

The manuals seem kind of quiet on this aspect of it.

 

Thanks

1) Engine time limitations are primarily to achieve a target time for mean flight time between overhauls

 

2) For Luftwaffe aircraft like the 109K-4 and 190A-8 there is documentation that the max time allowed on WEP is 10 minutes with a 10 minute "break" at combat power. For the Allies, there is nothing specific on how many times you are allowed to repeat. The RAF General Pilot Notes that supersede the specific aircraft pilot notes say the limits are for "reasonable use" and that the combat situation may justify disregarding these limits. There are also things like the P-47D has enough water injection for 15 minutes of WEP, yet the manual only allows 5 minutes, in 1943, the tactical range of the P-47C accounted for 20 minutes of use of military power, when the manual limited military power (2700 rpm, 52"Hg) to 5 minutes at the time.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

it's my understanding a lot of the low limits on the P-40 were because the USAAF wanted to save engines pre-war and Allison wanted to cover it's butt.

there's even a link in my signature where the specifically about how the earlier Allisons could be run at far and away higher performance settings than we have now 

Edited by gimpy117
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very interesting thread... people can learn a few things when delving into the performance of WWII combat engines.

I like the account that clearly states that the Russian pilots were totally disregarding manufactures engine running limitations, simply to make their P-40s more combat effective, and more importantly, give themselves a better chance of survival!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

This is a very interesting thread... people can learn a few things when delving into the performance of WWII combat engines.

I like the account that clearly states that the Russian pilots were totally disregarding manufactures engine running limitations, simply to make their P-40s more combat effective, and more importantly, give themselves a better chance of survival!

 

I can just picture the scene now, the most American thing ever...

 

Allison Engine Company Representative: Dmitry, you'll definitely want to keep an eye on your RPM and manifold pressure, and don't push it or you'll never get to 500 hours, and that won't be covered by your extended warrantee.

 

Dmitry:  Bruh

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't just the VVS that was doing that.  Commonwealth and US units were changing supercharger gear ratios and running 70 odd inches of manifold (1500+ BHP) at low levels in order to gain any advantage they could.  Allison was aghast and sent a letter to the Air Corps to cover their behind, but it was done, and the engines survived for extended periods running at very high levels of boost.

 

The V1710 was a very robust engine and was only held back because of it's lack of a two speed/two stage supercharger like the Merlin had.  It made good power in the turbocharged P38 after all.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2020 at 4:31 PM, Trooper117 said:

This is a very interesting thread... people can learn a few things when delving into the performance of WWII combat engines.

I like the account that clearly states that the Russian pilots were totally disregarding manufactures engine running limitations, simply to make their P-40s more combat effective, and more importantly, give themselves a better chance of survival!

I read quotes from book in this forum that they did that. Both P 40 and P 39 in special

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I wished the Devs would do reference the engine timer thing in game, is yes, have the set engine timer which the manufacturer or manual advises, but then, once you exceed that recommended timer, there is a randomised set of limits that could give you total failure, or could allow you to push the limits of the plane without damage, or anything in between.

That way, you the pilot, cannot 'game the game', because you never know what outcome you will get when you exceed the limit.

Edited by Trooper117
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest deleted@210880

I've been doing a PWCG P40 career and live more in fear of being a couple of pixels over the engine limits than of the virtual LW. Well, not entirely true but feels like it sometimes.

 

I love how the P40 looks in the game, but flying it in SP is not much fun; mostly I end up doing constant rolling scissors to avoid the 3 109s focused on me whilst I desperately pop 'cover me flares' and my wingmen shoot at midges on their own windscreens.

 

I'm going to have to give up on the career I think and opt for something with a bit more oomph in its engine so I can fly upwards from time to time,... maybe a Po-2.

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

I've been doing a PWCG P40 career and live more in fear of being a couple of pixels over the engine limits than of the virtual LW. Well, not entirely true but feels like it sometimes.

 

I love how the P40 looks in the game, but flying it in SP is not much fun; mostly I end up doing constant rolling scissors to avoid the 3 109s focused on me whilst I desperately pop 'cover me flares' and my wingmen shoot at midges on their own windscreens.

 

I'm going to have to give up on the career I think and opt for something with a bit more oomph in its engine so I can fly upwards from time to time,... maybe a Po-2.

 

No need to give up on the career.  Request a transfer.  I16 units are always looking for new pilots :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest deleted@210880
1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

No need to give up on the career.  Request a transfer.  I16 units are always looking for new pilots :) 

 

Ahhh, I forgot that was an option! I shall do just that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest deleted@210880

Well, after 40+ days to recover from my terrible injuries in my last mission, the number of pilots is so low in the P40 squadron I can't bring myself to leave them simply because I'm sick of the P40, I'll hold my transfer request for now.

 

And that there, is the magic of PWCG ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...
On 6/9/2020 at 2:15 PM, Yo--Yo said:

I've been doing a PWCG P40 career and live more in fear of being a couple of pixels over the engine limits than of the virtual LW. Well, not entirely true but feels like it sometimes.

 

I love how the P40 looks in the game, but flying it in SP is not much fun; mostly I end up doing constant rolling scissors to avoid the 3 109s focused on me whilst I desperately pop 'cover me flares' and my wingmen shoot at midges on their own windscreens.

 

I'm going to have to give up on the career I think and opt for something with a bit more oomph in its engine so I can fly upwards from time to time,... maybe a Po-2.

I have found that the engine limits can be circumvented by selecting the "unbreakable" option in the game settings. Makes the p-40 much more fun to fly offline and much more accurate in terms of what the pilots were actually able to accomplish in combat.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2020 at 12:24 AM, CountZero said:

Engine Fantasy timers 😄

I don't think it's necessarily the Engine Timers that annoy me the most, but the Damage that running out of Time does, meaning the immediate Catastrophic Damage and the extremely long Cooldown Time.

 

Engine Timers should only be for the Emergency Settings, any lower Settings should be considered Continuous. Also any mode that can be run for 15 and more Minutes should be counted as Continuous and exceeding shouldn't result in any Damage.

 

Rechare Time has to be shorter. 1 Minute of "Continuous Power" should recharge 1 Minute of Emergency Power, 2 Minutes at "Combat Power" should recharge 1 Minute of Emergency Power for Non-Water-Injected Planes.

 

Creeping Damage should be modelled in a CLEARLY AUDIBLE SEQUENCE, no Surprise Engine Insta-Death with no Warning if there is no Technochat.

  1. after exceeding the Limit tp 150% (1:30 for a 1:00 Timer, 7:30 for a 5:00) of your Timer there should be a "Rough Running" Sound as a Warning and some Power Loss, but not yet lasting Damage
  2. Limiter Time 200% (2 Minutes of a 1 Minute Timer, 10 Minutes of a 5 Minute Timer) permanent Damage should start to accumulate slowly, down to about 80% max available when reaching 400% Engine Timer (4:00 of a 1:00 Timer, 20 Minutes of a 5 Minute Timer, a 1000hp Engine is now down to 800hp, enough to get home, but not enough to have a competitive Edge anymore)
  3. Limit Time 400% to 800%  (4 Minutes to 8 Minutes of a 1 Minute Timer, 20 to 40  Minutes of a 5 Minute Timer) Damage should accumulate to 0% Power by the End.

I think this is a good compromise to effectively Limit Power Spam but also free up Pilots to use Power even past Limits in Emergencies without instant Engine Death and rewards flying lower settings for shorter Cooldowns.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

I don't think it's necessarily the Engine Timers that annoy me the most, but the Damage that running out of Time does, meaning the immediate Catastrophic Damage and the extremely long Cooldown Time.

 

Engine Timers should only be for the Emergency Settings, any lower Settings should be considered Continuous. Also any mode that can be run for 15 and more Minutes should be counted as Continuous and exceeding shouldn't result in any Damage.

 

Rechare Time has to be shorter. 1 Minute of "Continuous Power" should recharge 1 Minute of Emergency Power, 2 Minutes at "Combat Power" should recharge 1 Minute of Emergency Power for Non-Water-Injected Planes.

 

Creeping Damage should be modelled in a CLEARLY AUDIBLE SEQUENCE, no Surprise Engine Insta-Death with no Warning if there is no Technochat.

  1. after exceeding the Limit tp 150% (1:30 for a 1:00 Timer, 7:30 for a 5:00) of your Timer there should be a "Rough Running" Sound as a Warning and some Power Loss, but not yet lasting Damage
  2. Limiter Time 200% (2 Minutes of a 1 Minute Timer, 10 Minutes of a 5 Minute Timer) permanent Damage should start to accumulate slowly, down to about 80% max available when reaching 400% Engine Timer (4:00 of a 1:00 Timer, 20 Minutes of a 5 Minute Timer, a 1000hp Engine is now down to 800hp, enough to get home, but not enough to have a competitive Edge anymore)
  3. Limit Time 400% to 800%  (4 Minutes to 8 Minutes of a 1 Minute Timer, 20 to 40  Minutes of a 5 Minute Timer) Damage should accumulate to 0% Power by the End.

I think this is a good compromise to effectively Limit Power Spam but also free up Pilots to use Power even past Limits in Emergencies without instant Engine Death and rewards flying lower settings for shorter Cooldowns.

Regarding:

"Creeping Damage should be modelled in a CLEARLY AUDIBLE SEQUENCE, no Surprise Engine Insta-Death with no Warning if there is no Technochat."

 

You dont even get warning when techchat is turned on, as thats buged and only works when adtional option is turned on , instrument panel ( that has nothing to do with techchat messages ).

So if i even have to deal with system they invented i cant as messages they made to warn me that time is out or recharg is finished dont work as servers dont turn on instrument panel options as thouse things do other stuff as name says.

 

I agree timers are bad and recharges times make no logic what so ever, one airplane have 1:1 other 1:3 and some 1:13, but step in right direction would be to first fix easy problem of giving us warning by fixing bug with thouse messages, as of now to me its like i have airplane that just have random fail build in and i can not know in heat of battle how mutch % of time i drained or reharged, and real pilots didnt have to know that also. If they did there would be build in warnings in airplanes, and why then not fix broken techchat messages its beyond me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2020 at 9:29 PM, VBF-12_KW said:

P-40s scored about 590 kills and P-39s around 30 in the MTO.  Counting both ETO and MTO the P-51, P-47 and P-38 had scores of around 5000, 3000, and 2000 respectively.

 

If you have a technical source for this, could you send it my way? I just want to read it. 

 

On 3/29/2020 at 6:37 AM, =621=Samikatz said:

The P-39 is excellent in this sim. Take away the wing guns and you have a plane with fantastic roll, dive, and high speed pitch authority, that's also fast enough to catch the 1943 109s at sea level. On the offensive there's little anyone can do to truly evade your grasp

I wish the devs would add in the additional .50 cal ammo mod mentioned that soviet pilots used after removing the .30cals. but that's because my gunnery accuracy is as good as a blind man. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the developers once mention, that the ingame -40's engine limitations was due to the use of Russian Avgas and not imported western 100 octane avgas, but Russian 80 something avgas hence the fragility of the rugged Allison?

 

If that is the case, how can avgas 100 be available for Hurricanes and Spitfires that shares airfields P-40's?

 

Stay safe

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall the specs used by the devs were from peacetime training manuals, that the USAAF developed to keep wear and tear down on P40s used in the training role in the continental USA.

 

As they say in programming, garbage in, garbage out.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for my language but it's just a goddamn pity! Clive Caldwell as well as Tex Hill would turn over in their graves if that's a fact. They both, according to their own accounts, boosted the Allisons of their -1's to 70 inches and made it home.

 

 

Edited by 4thFG_Cpt_D_S_Gentile
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 4thFG_Cpt_D_S_Gentile said:

Sorry for my language but it's just a goddamn pity! Clive Caldwell as well as Tex Hill would turn over in their graves if that's a fact. They both, according to their own accounts, boosted the Allisons of their -1's to 70 inches and made it home.

 

 

Yep, documents I've seen confirm pilots boosting up to OVER 70 inches for up to 20 minutes routinely without immediate effects with the 8:8 blower ratio variant of the 1710-39. I have also seen reports of pilots running in excess of 3200 rpms in combat which we don't even have the option to do.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2021 at 9:10 AM, Kataphrakt said:

If you have a technical source for this, could you send it my way? I just want to read it. 

 

I wish the devs would add in the additional .50 cal ammo mod mentioned that soviet pilots used after removing the .30cals. but that's because my gunnery accuracy is as good as a blind man. 


The USAF victory credits study for WWII is a great primary source, but you have to do a lot of digging to parse through it all.  Lots of authors have tallied up various parts of it (and predictably their numbers vary a little bit) - the numbers I listed were from one of Martin Bowman’s Osprey books (I think the P-51/FW190 duel).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The P-40s in Mediterranean Air War by Shores give good account of fighter on fighter combat in 1942.

 

If you read a couple hundred pages of detailed daily combat accounts, German 109Fs were always at 15,000' plus - and dove on the P-40s which were lower (due to superchargers).

 

The 109s who fought on even terms didn't have a clear advantage. The P-40s and Hurricanes had equivalent or better maneuverability in a dogfight.

The favored German tactic - which makes sense - was for them to dive in, shoot, climb back up. Kind of like a certain simulator. They didn't want to risk it.

 

The way the German "super" aces got their kill levels so high during this period was, their entire squadron would wait up high above the British planes, as the ace dove alone into the "wagonwheel" circle of P-40s or Hurricanes and popped one or two, then climbed out. If anyone got on the tail of the ace, some of the rest of the squadron would dive down on the pursuers. Rinse and repeat.

 

When the P-40s (rarely) were on top of the 109s in the meeting, it didn't turn out so easy for the 109s.

 

Tactical considerations changed the engagement dynamics later in the Mediterranean war, resulting in the Germans often having to scramble for the incoming P-40s - and thus being equal or lower in altitude. But the desert period 1942-43 is very similar tactically to much the environment in IL-2 multiplayer.

 

I'll just re-iterate, all evidence I've seen says the P-40E could and did run significantly higher boost at low altitudes. This was NOT sanctioned by central authorities, and almost certainly resulted in more engine wear, but I don't think it stopped any determined crew chief and pilot. If the Russians with 80oct avgas could firewall it for long periods and get home (albeit with worn out engines in 2 weeks of ops), certainly 100oct fuel did better.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not the reason, the reality was the Air Forces of the Allies were subordinate to ground forces commanders and had no tactical freedom to deviate from covering those ground forces.  If they left their assigned sector and altitude blocks they faced retaliation from theater command levels.  It took someone of the stature of Doolittle to put an end to this strategic blunder.  Same guy by the way who let loose the escorts after their tasking to rip Germany's airbases to shreds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2021 at 12:30 PM, 4thFG_Cpt_D_S_Gentile said:

Did the developers once mention, that the ingame -40's engine limitations was due to the use of Russian Avgas and not imported western 100 octane avgas, but Russian 80 something avgas hence the fragility of the rugged Allison?

 

If that is the case, how can avgas 100 be available for Hurricanes and Spitfires that shares airfields P-40's?

 

Stay safe

better give the Germans bad gas late war too then.... 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

better give the Germans bad gas late war too then.... 

lol ,  DC 109 engines and prototype airplanes, just wait for next DLC where again you need to have 5v5 and germans will get more prototypes just to fill in numbers, thats what they get, no wonder late war MP is dead and good old east front is where player numbers come back to what was year ago, SP is where game is at now as you can atleast simulate historical situations, mod 0.50 guns so they do realistic damage and run undestructable engine setting to fix timers problem, and good to see AI is geting looked at constantly.

 

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

Nakajima_Ki-43 the lesser gunned zero twin. Just how well does that perform with axis aircraft of the theater

 

The Ki 43 had no connection what so ever to the Mitsubishi A6M.  Totally different designs for services that hated each other almost as much as they hated the Allies.

 

The Zero was designed around IJN specifications that placed high priority on range, maneuverability, and rate of climb, as it was to be Combined Fleet's point defense fighter, and long range escort for the carrier attack wings.  Given these requirements, and the fact that initially it only had a 900hp engine to work with, it was a truly brilliant design.

 

The Nakajima Ki43 was designed as the replacement for the IJA's outdated, but highly maneuverable Ki27.  The Army wanted similar maneuverability, with higher overall performance, which the Ki43 delivered.  It did suffer from structural failures early on, but overall succeeded in meeting the Army requirements.  It's interesting to note that IJA pilots transitioning from the Ki27 didn't like the Ki43 as they felt it was not maneuverable enough, when in fact it was more maneuverable than the A6M.

 

Both designs suffered from complying with the Japanese military's outdated tactical doctrine of the honorable one on one dogfight.  But that is a cultural concern beyond the scope of our discussion here.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

p40 killed the oscar in performance in a fight.   oscar on paper looks 

 

oscar as you so happily put out was designed for a one on one dog fight, and if the "lowly" p40 was able to outdo the oscar in an honest fight. Why should the P40 when used by regular american forces or even russian forces be considered "an ancient relic only good for ground attack against buildings and flight training" as the popular theme here seems to be. 

 

If one group did great with it, one cant just say "its rubbish"

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not happily putting out anything.  You called the Ki43 "the lesser gunned zero twin", I merely pointed out your misunderstanding of the Hayabusa's origin.

If you knew me at all, which you don't, you would know that I am a very big fan and proponent of the Curtiss Hawks, and am very disappointed and unsatisfied with their portrayal in this sim.  When flown to their strengths, as the Flying Tigers did, the P40 could more than hold it's own with the slower Japanese Army fighters it faced in China and elsewhere early in the war.  As the 325th. showed in North Africa it could also be a threat to the Bf 109s it faced there as well after Operation Torch.  

 

Quite clearly the P40E we have in the sim can do neither, which frankly is one of the most glaring faults of this title IMHO.

 

Will it be changed?  I highly doubt it.  In Soviet service it achieved it's best success in the ground attack role, so that is how our Russian friends have sculpted it here, and the fantasy engine timers that hold back the Hawk 87 we have, as well as most other aircraft, will probably be here to stay.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'm not happily putting out anything.  You called the Ki43 "the lesser gunned zero twin", I merely pointed out your misunderstanding of the Hayabusa's origin.

If you knew me at all, which you don't, you would know that I am a very big fan and proponent of the Curtiss Hawks, and am very disappointed and unsatisfied with their portrayal in this sim.  When flown to their strengths, as the Flying Tigers did, the P40 could more than hold it's own with the slower Japanese Army fighters it faced in China and elsewhere early in the war.  As the 325th. showed in North Africa it could also be a threat to the Bf 109s it faced there as well after Operation Torch.  

 

Quite clearly the P40E we have in the sim can do neither, which frankly is one of the most glaring faults of this title IMHO.

 

Will it be changed?  I highly doubt it.  In Soviet service it achieved it's best success in the ground attack role, so that is how our Russian friends have sculpted it here, and the fantasy engine timers that hold back the Hawk 87 we have, as well as most other aircraft, will probably be here to stay.

 

yet that raises the ancient question on these games.

 

"how much of what we have plane capability wise, is done to showcase russian technology as the best?"

 

in Rise of Flight, i have been able to make the little russian fighter work it like a Dviii. In real life, not so much able to do that. 

And can we truly say that the little i-16 is going to be superior to the P40 if the P40 is getting american aviation gas OR is being goosed like the russians did to them in the war?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pocketshaver said:

 

yet that raises the ancient question on these games.

 

"how much of what we have plane capability wise, is done to showcase russian technology as the best?"

 

in Rise of Flight, i have been able to make the little russian fighter work it like a Dviii. In real life, not so much able to do that. 

And can we truly say that the little i-16 is going to be superior to the P40 if the P40 is getting american aviation gas OR is being goosed like the russians did to them in the war?

 

Just a little bit of advice for you, since you registered not that long ago: making unsupported claims about there being inherent nationalist bias in the flight modeling isn't going to get you very far and will instead likely get you in trouble with those who oversee the forum. 

Edited by LukeFF
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, CountZero said:

lol ,  DC 109 engines and prototype airplanes, just wait for next DLC where again you need to have 5v5 and germans will get more prototypes just to fill in numbers, thats what they get, no wonder late war MP is dead and good old east front is where player numbers come back to what was year ago, SP is where game is at now as you can atleast simulate historical situations, mod 0.50 guns so they do realistic damage and run undestructable engine setting to fix timers problem, and good to see AI is geting looked at constantly.

 

 

<off topic>

For me, the best option for new territory and new axis aircraft after BoN is to go to the Mediterranean or Papua New Guinea. I think that we have enough german fighters and would love to see the Italian Serie 5 fighters: the Macchi MC 205 Veltro, the Fiat G.55 Centauro and the Reggiane Re 2005 Sagittario. The Centauro and Sagittario could hold their own against the best allied opposition. Also I would love to see the late war Japanese fighters such as the Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate, Kawanishi N1K2-J Shiden and Kawasaki Ki-100... But with the limitations of the current game engine (inability to represent large bomber forces and naval battles), a 'Kokoda Trail' map pack might prove more workable, with the Ki-43 Hayabusa, A6M2 Zero and perhaps the Ki-46 'Dinah'. This, and fixing the engine timers / limits for the P-40, plus Spitfire Mk Vc trop. etc etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said for some time now that New Guinea would be a great gateway into the Pacific.  Except for early on it was mostly an Army show for both sides, so no need for making carriers.  It would provide a setting for a 2+ year career for the single player crowd.  The Allied aircraft used there are mostly very well documented types, or versions of planes we already have.  The IJA types of course could be problematic, but there were only two main fighter types used by Japan there, the Nakajima Ki43, and the Kawasaki Ki61, and these are well known and documented aircraft.

 

I know there is a very vocal group of players that think that the Pacific is only about naval aviation, and I would like to see that part of the Pacific war as well, but, New Guinea could provide an easier path to the theater.  And it must be noted that the meat grinder that was New Guinea is the air campaign that broke the back of Japanese Army aviation, not some gloriously short one or two day fight over the blue Pacific.  The IJAAC lost half of their most experienced combat pilots over New Guinea.  They would never recover from those losses.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I know there is a very vocal group of players that think that the Pacific is only about naval aviation, and I would like to see that part of the Pacific war as well, but, New Guinea could provide an easier path to the theater. 

Me too I agree.

I'm also thinking about Flying Tigers (early P40's,...) and/or Burma.

 

Have a nice day.

 

:salute:

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I've said for some time now that New Guinea would be a great gateway into the Pacific.  Except for early on it was mostly an Army show for both sides, so no need for making carriers.  It would provide a setting for a 2+ year career for the single player crowd.  The Allied aircraft used there are mostly very well documented types, or versions of planes we already have.  The IJA types of course could be problematic, but there were only two main fighter types used by Japan there, the Nakajima Ki43, and the Kawasaki Ki61, and these are well known and documented aircraft.

 

I know there is a very vocal group of players that think that the Pacific is only about naval aviation, and I would like to see that part of the Pacific war as well, but, New Guinea could provide an easier path to the theater.  And it must be noted that the meat grinder that was New Guinea is the air campaign that broke the back of Japanese Army aviation, not some gloriously short one or two day fight over the blue Pacific.  The IJAAC lost half of their most experienced combat pilots over New Guinea.  They would never recover from those losses.

Hmmmm I did not know any of this... any good books you can recommend on the topic?

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...