Will the P-40 engine limits be fixed at some point, or it will just be left as it is now? :(

[Jason_Williams]

Anything we do will be universal. We make our decisions with the best data available to us. Anyways, I have no ETA on such a change to engine durability. It's only a desire at this point. Have other fish to fry first.

 

Jason

[616Sqn_Johnny-Red]

I think @Jade_Monkey nailed it:

 

On 1/19/2022 at 5:56 PM, Jade_Monkey said:

Sounds good @Jason_Williams. Would this be a per-plane/unit setting or a global mission setting?

 

As a mission maker, I think implementing this at the unit level would be the most flexible as you can allow P-40 to run longer but maybe not Mustangs (random example).

 

Maybe sopmething like the fuel box where:

• -1=infinite
• 0=Standard
• X= # minutes

 

Make the engine timer mechanic available on a plane by plane basis, or in the case of plane spawn lists; on an entry by entry basis to be determined in advanced properties by mission builders:

 

Provide a simple-to-use option for player unsing QMB / AQM / Career mode; and a more advanced option for Coops, Dogfights and Campaigns where mission designers (including those producing online missions with server admins) can decide how they will run their own show.

 

2 hours ago, [Rapaces]Vietcong said:

However, im not sure if it's a good idea as accusations, bias and more drama will fall on server admins.

 

Don't worry about the server admins. They can take care of themselves. Most have plenty of experience dealing with whiners.

 

17 hours ago, Alonzo said:

As a server admin, I'm not particularly in favor of making this a server adjustable setting. I don't really think it would succeed -- as others have said, fast-food style servers will simply remove the limits, and more realistic servers will likely keep them at 'standard'.

 

I'm also a server admin. We run a Normal Difficulty public server and I can't see any obvious disadvantage in placing these options in our hands. We prefer a higher degree of historical realism, and while we do have fast food fans, they are not our core constituency. We maintain a normal presets server because it makes the game open and inclusive, rather than arcade-like.

 

I'm not sure how 'standard' settings would promote realism, if it is accepted that in many instances they don't reflect the historical reality.

 

_________

 

 

I'd be thrilled to have the option to be to set custom engine tolerances based on the timers: 

 

It would be great to have an operationally realistic P-40E. We all know they got thrashed in service and were routinely run well beyond their official limitations.

 

On the oposite side of things, I'm thinking of Pokryshkin searching through ever-diminishing stocks of surviving MiG-3's for a new ride: You can take that old MiG in the corner of the field if you want to risk it, but the last guy who flew it wouldn't fly it again...

 

Online, if you take that pristine plane straight out of servicing (and you don't get it back to base in good order) you get to fly a plane that has a few more hours on the clock. You should still be OK as long as you don't take too many liberties...

 

In general I think this option could be used to give a stronger situational flavour, as an indication of servicing and operating conditions, and maybe even aircraft build quality or developmental maturity.

 

If it's implemented thoughtfully it could add some very welcome colour and depth to mission design.

 

 

[Pahec97]

Imagine if reliability happend.  Next two weeks forum servers keep crashing because of everyone writing a disertation why their side is in fact in a ahistorical, unfair and unrealistic disadvantage.

[SAG]

1 hour ago, Pahec97 said:

Imagine if reliability happend.  Next two weeks forum servers keep crashing because of everyone writing a disertation why their side is in fact in a ahistorical, unfair and unrealistic disadvantage.

 

People are always complaining anyway

[JG1_Vonrd]

7 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

Have other fish to fry first.

 

Jason

I bet you feel like this sometimes  ?

[Livai]

14 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

We make our decisions with the best data available to us

 

I like to see this data and read the part where I can read that the P-40 engine use surface evaporative cooler and the retractable cooler can stay during the cruising & combat flight completely retracted.

 

Why I say this because I always wonder why I can't damage the P-40 engine. I completely retracted the cooler everything is closed during combat. The cooling water boils overheat symbol appear and stay. Behind me the water stream. The P-40 engine still fine. Even cooling down the P-40 engine works with completely retracted cooler.

 

And this behavior is since 2016..........................

[BlitzPig_EL]

While true Livai, the same can be said for the Bf 109, that flies and fights as if nothing is wrong, while both of it's radiators are streaming coolant after being hit, and they have been doing that since the beginning of the sim.  And then we have the air cooled radial powered aircraft, all of them, that in no way are representative of the good reliability under duress that they were known for.

 

The entire thermodynamic model in the sim is sketchy at best. 

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

Anyways....back to the '40, please give us a 40 with an Allison that we can boost and overrev like stated in so many pilot accounts, please.

[Denum]

Universal option is best imo.

 

The P40/P39 only need a little help.

 

[CUJO_1970]

On 1/19/2022 at 1:55 PM, ZachariasX said:

It depends on the weather what works. Just use a density altitude calculator and see how much air you actually have in your #MAP.

 

An arbitary picked day in St.Petersburg in winter can have ~5% more air in the same #MAP than the engineers at Allison feed in their engines to do bench runs.

An arbitary day during the Battle of El Alamein can have ~5% less air per #MAP than back at the shop @Allison.

An arbitary day in NewGuinea may have ~10% less air per #MAP than back at Allison.

 

If the engineers at Allison certify the engine for 56'' MAP, this can mean in fact ~53'' in the Russian winter. IOW, over at Allison, they know that the rated 56'' MUST contain a safety margin for winter flying. We know the engine has that margin.

 

It also means that what reads 59'' MAP fighting Rommel may actually be well within specs of certified 56'' MAP standard atmosphere. Doing 60'' in the desert is then not that much beyond certified tolerances.

 

If sweaty Joe is pulling 70'' in NewGuinea, he may be pulling what corresponds 62'' reference. Overboosted yes, but not that much as it seems.

 

If you look at it this way, you can understand the utter reluctance of of Allison engineers certifying their engine for 60'', because in russian winter, this can well translate to what is 63'' on their bench.

 

In this light, it is just logical why Allison never published bench runs at these ratings just because some dude in the desert or on a hot, rainy island was nervous. I agree that the engineers in these days were top of the pop and certainly educated enough to take the yapping from the squadrons for what that is. And it also should put internet claims that pilots were always squeezing 1800 hp from their Allison in a new perspective.

 

Somebody just telling you he pulled XY'' MAP doesn't mean all that much if you don't know ambient temperature and dew point as well. Or have you heard on anyone happily pulling 70'' over Leningrad?

 

 

By far the best suggestion so far. Also (very important) - makes the player fully responsible not to ruin the motor.

 

That's the only way this will work without major controversy.

 

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

2 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

makes the player fully responsible not to ruin the motor.

 Like in CLOD ?

[Voyager]

@ZachariasX We do known that Mrs Virginia's 1710-89 was run at 75" @3200 RPM in the 1981 Reno air races. Probably on 145 octane gas, but we should be able to locate actual air conditions from old NOAA data once we find the date and times it the 1981 run was. 

 

Reno 2016
https://www.enginehistory.org/Reno/Reno2016/Reno2016Pub.shtml

 

In the 2016 run, they opted to run it at 55" @3000, because apparently that was a faster setting. Turns out 3200 gave it to much prop drag. 

[Dakpilot]

11 hours ago, Ojisan_Mjoelner said:

Anyways....back to the '40, please give us a 40 with an Allison that we can boost and overrev like stated in so many pilot accounts, please.

 

Everyone has seen the famous memo of Dec 1942, and Golodnikov's experiences of P-40's in Russia and how they interpret those. 

 

Could people please post actual first hand  pilot accounts that so many people have, and refer to, not how P-38 engines performed at reno Air races, not being sarcastic I am genuinely Interested, 

 

Thanks, Dakpilot 

[ZachariasX]

4 hours ago, Voyager said:

@ZachariasX We do known that Mrs Virginia's 1710-89 was run at 75" @3200 RPM in the 1981 Reno air races. Probably on 145 octane gas, but we should be able to locate actual air conditions from old NOAA data once we find the date and times it the 1981 run was. 

 

Reno 2016
https://www.enginehistory.org/Reno/Reno2016/Reno2016Pub.shtml

 

In the 2016 run, they opted to run it at 55" @3000, because apparently that was a faster setting. Turns out 3200 gave it to much prop drag. 

I am wary taking racing specs from today to practical settings back then. Merlins after all are routinely pushed past 100 inches in racing. Same if you restore vintage engines, you can get way more power from those engines than they were originally producing, just by making parts better, both in terms of material quality and building tolerances. Lubrication is far, far better today and with tighter tolerances you can run thinner oils, easing oil circulation and lessening parasitic friction. This has to keep up with your power creep.

 

Predetonation is one thing, but if you crank higher and harder than your oil system is specified for, you‘ll be „making metal“ and your engine will degrade in an unrecoverable manner, requiring a rebuild. This can well happen before predetonation is an issue (as in the 109). In that case you may well return from abusing your engine, but you most likely lost a good number of your horses along the way. And with the Indium coating severed on your crank bearings, your engine has a timer set for failure even under normal operation. If your mechanic finds lots of silvery stuff in your oil filter, then you do don‘t fly. (Unless Joseph says so, of course.)

 

Just to compare that to oils I use in cars, in an L36 V8 of 1969, I use 20W 50 oil. If I use 10W 40 as you get from your local gas station, just adding 20% of that to the rest in the sump makes the engine lose a quart per 50 L gasoline burned (250 km, less in city driving; but what can you do if you casually use the car without taking at least one spare can with you.) This also manifests on the oil pressure gauge as well, giving a lower reading. But as long as you then treat it like an English engine (in case it doesn‘t leak oil, you top it up again), all is fine.

 

I should think the Allison is the toughest engine block of them all, meaning I’d expect it to take little modern goodies to tap reservers of that overengineered thing. And that is how I understand the popularity of that engine today for all kinds of (ab)use. But with the tolerances being as they were and in the situation back then, fuel and lubrication as they were, I think I’d be too old now for experiments past 60 inches. Especially with sharks or jungle underneath.

 

On the end, it comes down to people wanting the aircraft as a single serving cookie or not. I mean, this is a game and I think it is only fair that people can play it in a way they like. (Me for instance, I have mostly a single serving pilot life in this game.) 

 

But far on the horizon, I would see persistent damage among the aircraft of the squadron. I think that would really get me back into offline campaigns. I should think that density altitude should be one of the metrics assessing engine strain. I don‘t know if it is now, but with the increasing number of theaters for this game, it would be nice to see that aircraft have different margins depending on where and when you fly. It would also permit some more generous limits for „the timer“, as payback would also come in number of aircraft availabe for sorties.

 

I think that is also a better motivation to do the sensible thing than the partonizing PN is. And you know, Klimovs running constantly at full power age badly as well. Just saying.

[Danziger]

I'd be perfectly fine with sliders or switches or whatever. As long as it puts responsibility on the player or server operators. That way people can bitch about it to someone else.

[ZachariasX]

Ideally, I'd have two kind timers:

 

One for things like predetonation and things that lead to immediate engine destruction. That would be severe overboosting as well as maximum power settings with very low rpm. Also going lean at high power. All things that make a you blow a real engine clean off the airframe right away. This one should be probably more relaxed than we have now regarding power limits and maybe coupled with more readily identifiable cues, if just for playability. The least of all people know how to treat high performance engines right. This kind of timer shoud however destry an engine rather in seconds than in minutes. This logic can be simple, e.g. like >45 inches MAP and switch to lean, 15 sec of noise then kaboom & silence, below 45 MAP, all fine. This is not supposed to be study level, but there are things that really do destroy engines.

 

The second one would be some sort of a counter that adresses the persistent state of the aircraft. Running somewhat exessive power ratings or somewhat unsuitale settings shortens engine life as I mentioned above, but it shouldn't kill the engine outright. But this can make the engine progressively losing compression (and higher oil consumption) as well as other wear that (like crank bearings or gaskets), unless the engine is rebuilt will lead to in flight failure at some point even when flying at conservative power settings. The player may however notice a drop in shaft power for given MAP reading. Same with high revs and low MAP.

 

This second issue should be able to recreate situations like this in campaigns:

 

"[...] My plane’s engine had been completely worn out during fighting. It barely had enough power to take off from this confined aerodrome. [...]"

(Red Star Airacobra, Memoirs of a Sovier Fighter Ace, Evgeniy Mariinsiy)

 

I think this game series is marvellous at recreating those tactical battles. Having the choice of how to treat your aircraft over the course of a battle/campaign could add another valuable element to the gameplay. And at least seen from this side of the forum, it doesn't look like that much of effort required adding it. Also, because you now can destroy your engine in more ways, you can relax on the individual penalties a bit while still producing a credible reason for the ratings as stated by the PN.

 

It would however require to have an added screen where the general state of the aircraft(s) is/are listed. It can be up to the player (at a high rank) to select the aircraft he wants or being handed the lemon as a rookie. Wasn't Boyington known for always choosing the lemon just to show them some courage?

 

It would by all means require some added logic to engine state logging, but nothing of the sort we don't already have. Also players maybe should be reminded how to treat the engine and what breaks them. But all the required info could be placed on the already present screens when selecting an aircraft or from the aircraft roster.

 

This just as an idea. I don't have much issues with things as they are. (I get shot down either way.) But I would hate all the mimimimimimi suddenly being directed at server op's for so unfairly nerfing ones ride while leaving the anyway historically non-existent enemy aircraft with totally OP'd engines.

[=621=Samikatz]

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

"[...] My plane’s engine had been completely worn out during fighting. It barely had enough power to take off from this confined aerodrome. [...]"

(Red Star Airacobra, Memoirs of a Sovier Fighter Ace, Evgeniy Mariinsiy)

 

I'd definitely like to see experiences like this. Even outside of the long-term campaign situation, having to choose in the moment of a fight if you want to thrash the plane for an immediate advantage and limp home, or if you want to play more conservatively and be in a better position to stay up and take more fights, would be interesting

[TUS_KOPTuK]

20.01.2022 в 00:28, Jason_Williams сказал:

What I plan to do is make an engine durability slider so mission makers and server ops can decide how durable engines can be beyond its current limits.

It looks like durability of buildings now.

IMHO, the result of this decision - tons of discussion on forums and full misunderstanding that should you keep in the mind then gaming offline or on server #1/ server #2 etc.

[Strewth]

Okay.
Time to do some testing then:

https://bangshift.com/bangshift1320/we-found-a-freshly-rebuilt-allison-v-1710-engine-on-ebay/

[Voyager]

On 1/19/2022 at 11:28 AM, Jason_Williams said:

Guys,

 

There are no hard or fast answers to this issue. What I plan to do is make an engine durability slider so mission makers and server ops can decide how durable engines can be beyond its current limits. The extreme setting being infinite. That’s really the only option. We’ve spent a lot of time trying to make our limits match the data we have found. It’s not easy. And to make our engines act exactly like real world engine failures is a huge engineering task and right now I can’t even get our one engineer/programmer to finish fuel systems and drop tanks. I’m limited in what I can do.

 

Jason 

 

That sounds like the best compromise.shy of a major engineering effort, to me as well. 

 

I did discover the Smithsonian does have the entire contents of the US Power Plant lab, and while I think it would be worth it to the industry as a whole to organize an expedition to digitize and index the entire catalogue, we wouldn't be able to start that until the Smithsonian is off lockdown.

 

And, that only (potentially) covers the data side. It would not cover any of the engineering and modeling to turn that into consistent predictable engine simulations. 

 

Not a two weeks from Tuesday solution ?

[Angry_Kitten]

On 1/17/2022 at 4:18 PM, Voyager said:

There is a glorious letter from the Allison Engineering team asking pilots to please stop doing that I saw a while back. I don't have a copy or link handy, unfortunately, but it was quite memorable. 

 

I think I found it burried somewhere in the WWII Aircraft Performance website. That was also where they've got a copy of that P-51 after action report where the guy was running his engine at 75" for some ridiculous length of time chasing a 262, and convinced that he could shave caught the guy if he just had access to the 81" setting the Brits were using.

 

One thing that also struck me is the reported airspeeds are also absolutely impossible. I wonder if there is a transonic effect that really screws with air speed readings in period planes that isn't being modeled yet? 

 

 

True airspeed or indicated air speed?

 

Earlier last year i got bored, did the math while flying the p40 in game.. and lo and behold,, when using the factory conversion calculations to convert the airspeed on the dial to ACTUAL air speed, our lovely P 40 is actually perfoming as the US factory testing says it should based upon technical readings they achieved

[Voyager]

11 hours ago, pocketshaver said:

 

 

True airspeed or indicated air speed?

 

Earlier last year i got bored, did the math while flying the p40 in game.. and lo and behold,, when using the factory conversion calculations to convert the airspeed on the dial to ACTUAL air speed, our lovely P 40 is actually perfoming as the US factory testing says it should based upon technical readings they achieved

 

I'll have to go dig it up but I recall pilots reporting they were going 600mph+ including a couple of P-47 pilots that were absolutely certain they'd broke 700mph in a dive. 

 

By impossible, I'm talking air speeds higher than the true air speed of the current world record holders, and by 10's and 20's and 50's of miles per hour, and likely higher than the air speeds that would cause the propellers to discombobulate under the drag. 

 

 

Addendum: I stand corrected. I thought they were talking true, but apparently we've got guys claiming an indicated air speed of 600mph above 15,000ft:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/55-konatz-11sept44.jpg

 

Another claiming 600mph indicated at a lower altitude: 

353-hinchey-14nov44.jpg (800×1033)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/353-hinchey-14nov44.jpg

 

A reported 650mph indicated following a 109, which broke up in flight: 

4-snell-29may44.jpg (800×1059)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-snell-29may44.jpg

 

He doesn't report the pullout altitude, but they started at 20,000ft, so definitely below that. 

[Angry_Kitten]

5 hours ago, Voyager said:

 

I'll have to go dig it up but I recall pilots reporting they were going 600mph+ including a couple of P-47 pilots that were absolutely certain they'd broke 700mph in a dive. 

 

By impossible, I'm talking air speeds higher than the true air speed of the current world record holders, and by 10's and 20's and 50's of miles per hour, and likely higher than the air speeds that would cause the propellers to discombobulate under the drag. 

 

 

Addendum: I stand corrected. I thought they were talking true, but apparently we've got guys claiming an indicated air speed of 600mph above 15,000ft:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/55-konatz-11sept44.jpg

 

Another claiming 600mph indicated at a lower altitude: 

353-hinchey-14nov44.jpg (800×1033)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/353-hinchey-14nov44.jpg

 

A reported 650mph indicated following a 109, which broke up in flight: 

4-snell-29may44.jpg (800×1059)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-snell-29may44.jpg

 

He doesn't report the pullout altitude, but they started at 20,000ft, so definitely below that. 

 

that one with the plane crash, what an SOB trying to claim a kill on a plane that went down by accident/pilot error

but realistically, the engine is working as it should be. 

 

Yeah it takes a few minutes to get the airspeed up,  but its an energy fighter last i checked, and if you climb up to say 5,000 feet, and dive down and level off at say 3,000 you will be surprised at your final speed on the dash.

 

But using Km per hour DOES make it seem faster

[Voyager]

48 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

 

that one with the plane crash, what an SOB trying to claim a kill on a plane that went down by accident/pilot error

but realistically, the engine is working as it should be. 

 

Yeah it takes a few minutes to get the airspeed up,  but its an energy fighter last i checked, and if you climb up to say 5,000 feet, and dive down and level off at say 3,000 you will be surprised at your final speed on the dash.

 

But using Km per hour DOES make it seem faster

600mph ias at 15,000ft is greater than the speed of sound. 

 

Which is more likely? 

1) The planes were actually doing anywhere close to the numbers reported 

2) The pilots were making up numbers

3) The air speed measurement instruments they were using have false high readings when they hit compressibility

 

Remember we've also got two separate P-47 pilots who reported IAS that would have significantly exceeded the sound barrier, before it was even known to be a thing. 

 

Note: I'm not arguing that the true air speeds are wrong, I'm suspecting that the reported indicated air speeds are what we would get from a modern air speed indicator, and that period instruments may read extremely higher near mach limits. And that that may be something worth digging into. If that is the case, it would also likely account for the perception difference we seem to see, based on period accounts. 

 

Also, maneuver kills are still considered kills if it is apparent that the pilot forced the opposition into the error. 

[Angry_Kitten]

Voyager. 

 

I cant remember the name of the pilot, or the actual plane but there was a british pilot i believe it was over india.  They did spitfire dive testing with the super prop after the war ended and the pilot was recording air speeds that were discovered to be above what the plane was actually flying. i believe perhaps 120km faster than was actually done. 

 

If you want to play around turn the HUD on, and do some dive lessons. Start at say 10,000  pull the throttle down so that you are at stall speed, then go to full idle and DIVE.  say 45 degrees 

 

I was playing in a kuban bomb mission in a 109, i cant remember my starting speed but when i pulled out of my dive, with the engine on max continoius power, my speed after i had gotten level flight was 812 km per hour. i thik i got a screen shot of it. 

[Voyager]

@pocketshaver That's basically the point I'm trying to make. 800kph is a reasonable speed to top out in a dive, but pilots were reporting the indicated equivalent of 1000kph+ true airspeed. That's why I'm suspecting the period gauges may have been reading higher than expected, and higher than modern instruments will at high mach values. 

 

Your comments about Spitfire pilots reporting out speeds up to 120kph higher than real lines up with that. 

 

Addendum: handy converter tool for this: Airspeed Calculator (IAS/CAS/EAS/TAS/Mach) | AeroToolbox
https://aerotoolbox.com/airspeed-conversions/

 

You'll see a true air speed of 800kph at 5000ft lines up with a modern IAS of only 450mph, no where near the 600mph reported numbers. 

[Angry_Kitten]

But the problem is, the HUD is not actually doing the conversions for us.. you have to do that with a calculator on your own. And you need to run the engine at certain requirements to see the discrepency between the game and real life testing that the engine maker/plane factory put out.

 

 

Also one MUST remember that the soviet mechanics were letting the pilots run the engine over stated limits for longer periods.... but the russian mechanics were changing the engines out after what, 2 comat flights at those over limit power levels. 

 

SO yes, it can be done in the real world but the cost is an engine swap every other flight at least.

 

Its like putting a 3.9 liter v6 into a Geo Metro "jeep" that left the factory with a 1.5 liter engine.  Itll be freaky fast, until you make a turn and your suspension rips off.

[GANsmither]

On 1/26/2022 at 10:22 PM, Strewth said:

Okay.
Time to do some testing then:

https://bangshift.com/bangshift1320/we-found-a-freshly-rebuilt-allison-v-1710-engine-on-ebay/

By far the easiest option to resolving the P-40 debate ?

[Voyager]

@pocketshaver Um, where am I talking about the game hud? Those are 1944 reports from live aircraft by live pilots stating that the needle in their airspeed indicators were at the 600mph mark when their altimiters were indicating >15,000 ft.

 

I am not arguing that the in-game flight models are incorrect; I am arguing that the real, physical, 1944 airspeed indicators that were actually flown into combat must have been reading extremely, artificially, high when flown at high mach numbers to produce the reported readings. 

 

Modern airspeed indicators are designed to read correctly when transonic effects start because mode of our commercial air traffic operates in that speed regime, but no-one knew how any of that worked in the 1940's. I don't think we've ever gone back and taken a serious look at how the real period instruments really behaved when you're pushing high mach numbers. 

[Crocogator]

It would be nice to see some random variation in the engines' endurances. We all know that engines tended to vary a bit even between the ones mounted on the very same aircraft. Perhaps this would need to come after some further indicators of engine status, some additional feedback, probably after something else is done re engines. Just a thought.

[MikhaVT]

oh, this thread again. 

 

I'd love a later-war engine mod option for the P-39s and P-40s, or a "no engine timer" option in realism settings. 

[Jumoschwanz]

On 1/13/2022 at 1:41 PM, EduardoMCfly said:

I like flying the P-40, I feel very good when shooting down a target with a far less competitive aircraft.... It just makes me feel a better pilot! But the thing is the engine.... There is no need to explain the problem abut the engine, it has been discussed 1000 times, so will the engine performance and timers be fixed in the future, or the P-40 is gonna be left as it is right now?

 

     You contradict yourself by first saying how great you feel with a "less competitive aircraft" then complain about it having less power than you would like.

 

       I never liked Chuck Yeager as a human being, but he was a good pilot and stated that the pilot with the most experience would always win in air combat no matter what he was flying. Also historically WWII pilots flew with wingmen and using teamwork with many other of their squadron etc. flying with them to get the job done, which also took away the need for having "uber" aircraft.

 

      Since the IL2 series began over 20 years ago, in most cases where a virtual pilot complains about some performance parameter of their aircraft or it's weaponry, simply means they are not that good a pilot or are not flying in a historical manner and need extra performance or weaponry to make up for their fantasies and shortcomings.

 

       At one time, when we were all flying CFS2 WWII simulator people who did not think their aircraft had enough power/guns etc. figured out how to hack the sim so their favorite prop aircraft had the speed of a jet and it's guns shot 500 lb bombs, then in IL246 those who did not like the way their favorite aircraft flew hacked that sim and modified their favorite aircraft and it's weapons to suit what THEY thought it should have, fifty cals hitting like German 20mm for instance etc.. In both instances these people divided and destroyed the online flying community for those flight sims.

 

      So either stick to one story or another, show us what great enjoyment you get out of flying your slow aircraft. If you can come up with actual documentation instead of hearsay about common power levels your aircraft was used at then great, put it up. It is common in internet forums for any subject at all for participants to simply say something about it with zero documentation to back up what they say. Hopefully the developers of this sim have the integrity to stick to documentation for aircraft performance and not buckle to pressure to ad non-historical performance and features to aircraft because gamers are not having fun playing "wwii ace".

 

       If you no longer can  have fun as you claim flying a "less competitive" aircraft, then switch to an aircraft which is the most powerful in it's historical theater so that it's superiority in speed and weaponry can let you have "fun" again.

[BlitzPig_EL]

The problem isn't so much the performance of the P40, but the fantasy land engine timers used to enforce a play style that is in direct conflict with how these aircraft were used by every single nation that flew them, and that in NO WAY reflect the reality of the robust nature of the Allison V1710.

 

That sir is the real immersion break from reality.  This is supposed to be a simulation, well, there are no "timers" in the real world.

[Jumoschwanz]

On 2/20/2022 at 11:25 AM, BlitzPig_EL said:

  This is supposed to be a simulation, well, there are no "timers" in the real world.

 

  You are 100% wrong about that. Any expert on internal combustion engines will tell you they all have a service life measured in hours, and how many hours directly depends on the level of power they are operated at, that life literally shortens exponentially the higher the power setting.

 

    Most of the time a WWII fighter-planes engine would be spent at a lower power setting except for taking off or the few minutes of it's life it might spend in combat. In reality, if a WWII pilot treated his engine the way computer flight-sim pilots have treated theirs since the IL2 series came out 20 years ago, hardly any of them would have lasted long enough to complete the first half of one mission without them blowing up.

 

     An old friend/neighbor of mine growing up went to Yale university for engineering and worked directly for Hap Arnold during WWII troubleshooting problems with WWII aircraft in every theater of the conflict in the Gypsy Task Force, including working on the development of the b29 and overseeing the nuclear missions to Japan in those aircraft. He said once any WWII engine was run at WEP, that was that engines last mission without being replaced or overhauled or scrapped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

[BlitzPig_EL]

Nice story bro.  Tell that to the men who caned their engines well beyond the book limitations, repeatedly, to save their asses and allow them to do it all over the next sortie.

 

I've worked with engines most of my adult life, I understand they have limited life spans, and those life spans are shortened, sometimes dramatically so, by running them hard.  But I also understand that if you have to push it hard to save your life, you will do that, regardless of what some fobbit higher up the chain of command says just to save money and appease a bunch of bloody politicians at home that are more worried about saving money than anything else.

[Art-J]

Not to mention documented, factory high-power bench tests performed at prolonged periods exactly to estimate how far it can go and to choose optimal operational limitations for longer service. Nobody says engines used at WEP didn't have shortened life pan, or that they didn't need extra maintenance/overhaul/replacement even. Sure they did and that's not the point of this thread.

 

The point is, they didn't blow up just after 5 minutes either.

 

Now, how to take ths into account in simulation while at the same time discourage players from running WEP till their ears bleed - ha, that's another story and the biggest problem for Jason and his team.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Art-J

[76IAP-Black]

Jason wrote:

Anything we do will be universal. 

So when there will be a new theater around, with a P-40 version, i believe they will rework the old one. As they did with the P-47. The first version was no as expected, so they have reworked its fm and introduced it with the new version.

[[CPT]Crunch]

4 hours ago, Jumoschwanz said:

 

  You are 100% wrong about that. Any expert on internal combustion engines will tell you they all have a service life measured in hours, and how many hours directly depends on the level of power they are operated at, that life literally shortens exponentially the higher the power setting.

 

    Most of the time a WWII fighter-planes engine would be spent at a lower power setting except for taking off or the few minutes of it's life it might spend in combat. In reality, if a WWII pilot treated his engine the way computer flight-sim pilots have treated theirs since the IL2 series came out 20 years ago, hardly any of them would have lasted long enough to complete the first half of one mission without them blowing up.

 

     An old friend/neighbor of mine growing up went to Yale university for engineering and worked directly for Hap Arnold during WWII troubleshooting problems with WWII aircraft in every theater of the conflict in the Gypsy Task Force, including working on the development of the b29 and overseeing the nuclear missions to Japan in those aircraft. He said once any WWII engine was run at WEP, that was that engines last mission without being replaced or overhauled or scrapped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Engines are just like airplanes, some are just going to be crap and meet the minimum spec, others will exceed all expectations.   The difference between the commanders show bird and the squadrons hanger queen.  The men who have to operationally use them rapidly figure out which is which.    In normal times the limitation is discovered and built up on an average, a bell curve is generated as data is presented by the users, not set in stone by a court of law.  In war time all bets are off and performance is pushed to the extreme, as witnessed by the cannibalized scrap heaps present on every WWII operational field.

[Jumoschwanz]

23 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

  In war time all bets are off and performance is pushed to the extreme, as witnessed by the cannibalized scrap heaps present on every WWII operational field.

 

   This is exactly the mentality the average IL2 pilot has who believes that the power of a fighter aircraft's engine makes or breaks success in battle. Nothing is further from the reality of WWII combat flying. Erich Hartmann did not become the highest scoring ace of WWII because he flew his 109 on WEP all the time, he would have been just as successful flying the slowest 109 Germany had to offer him.  His success was because he was not a sim-child that abused the aircraft, his secret weapon was brains and sanity.

 

    And EL, of course some WWII pilots used WEP to get out of a tight spot, but they sure did not go back out the next day in the same aircraft with that engine in it. The only stories that have been bandied about since WWII are the exceptions, the ones that are marketable and dramatic and that make good stories. So of course it is easy to find stories of the few exceptions where pilots ran home to mommy on WEP. Most of the stories are actually of the pilots who's engines broke and who did not get home or were killed or captured, or did not have high-scoring careers worthy of books or headlines, they did their jobs and went home or they died or vanished and that was the end of it. To believe that the glitzy stories of success used in WWII history books to thrill readers represent what is normal, is pure ignorance.

[-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138]

The problem with the P-40 is that you cant catch enemies sometimes because of the timer. You should be able to but can't because you risk blowing the engine. Also in desperate fights against 109's (not the ones you want to be in but the ones you sometimes end up in regardless of your tactics or good judgement) you lose because the 109 can push harder without having to worry about bricking the engine like you can in the P-40 or you cant get away for the same reason. This probably also has a lot to do with the plane feeling under powered because you can't safely hold the engine at higher pressures for very long at all without it instantly dying. The engine was historically robust and it simply isn't represented well in the game right now. The timers are a stop gap measure just like many other things have been. These things need to be corrected for the game to be good. Why would I want to buy more content for a game left in such a state?