Can P-40 engine timers finally get fixed?

[Sgt_Joch]

On 2/23/2024 at 1:49 PM, CUJO_1970 said:

15 minutes and indicating 600 mph…lmao.

 

Sorry, but: FALSE.

 

Reminds me of the dude that claimed he went 800 mph in a dive in the P-47 and it was reported in his hometown paper. 

huh? No, you are wrong, there are multiple reports of P51s reaching 600 mph IAS in a prolonged dive, look it up.

[HR_Zunzun]

On 2/23/2024 at 1:49 PM, CUJO_1970 said:

15 minutes and indicating 600 mph…lmao.

 

Sorry, but: FALSE.

 

Reminds me of the dude that claimed he went 800 mph in a dive in the P-47 and it was reported in his hometown paper. 

 

Having wrong readings at extreme speeds was common due to instrument error. Many pilots reported extremely high speeds due to this.

Regarding exceeding the maximum permitted times is not necessarily false. I remember reading in another report a P-47 pilot from 56fg that chased a German with water injection on until he exhausted the water deposit.

[Sgt_Joch]

@LukeFF I think most players agree that engine limitations should be realistic, but the Devs opened Pandora’s box with the P-40.

 

Most players would not have any problems with loosening engine timers as long as it is done fairly and across the board, not just to some ACs (i.e. 109s).

 

it was common knowledge that US/UK pilot manuals were overly conservative and that engines were regularly pushed much harder, as shown by the combat report linked to above that P51s were flown at WEP for 15 minutes. One change which could easily be made and is easily justifiable is increasing the WEP time limit of the P47/P51/Tempest/Spitfire IX and XIV to 10 minutes which would put them on par with MW50 equipped 109s and 190s.

[CUJO_1970]

On 2/24/2024 at 5:25 AM, Sgt_Joch said:

huh? No, you are wrong, there are multiple reports of P51s reaching 600 mph IAS in a prolonged dive, look it up.

 

No, I'm not wrong. Overzealous claims by wired up pilots were common in US "reports". Should we believe this one as well?:

 

 

After all - it's a report, correct? Developers please make P-47 dive at 840 mph!!!

 

You should do your research. 600 mph is well beyond the structural capabilities of the P-51 Mustang:

 

 

The RAF also conducted lengthy studies on P-51 structural failures in dives.

 

Eventually the aircraft was restricted to not exceed 450 mph as even after modification were made, structural failures continued.

 

 

 

 

So if you want a real portrayal of actual P-51 maybe you should request developers to restrict it back to correct limits in real life of 450 mph?

[Sgt_Joch]

1 hour ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

No, I'm not wrong. Overzealous claims by wired up pilots were common in US "reports". Should we believe this one as well?:

 

wrong again! 

 

"we were indicating 600 mph"

4-glover-5aug44.jpg (800×1038) (spitfireperformance.com)

 

"our speed was the roughly 650 mph"

4-snell-29may44.jpg (800×1059) (spitfireperformance.com)

 

"air speed indicated 600 mph"

4-werner-6oct44.jpg (800×1036) (spitfireperformance.com)

 

"I was dead astern, indicating 650 mph"

55-bartlett-2nov44.jpg (800×1036) (spitfireperformance.com)

 

"My I.A.S. was 600 and I hit compressibility at 15,000 feet, resulting in violent buffeting and oscillation of my ship."

55-konantz-11sept44.jpg (800×1037) (spitfireperformance.com)

 

"My ship fluttered at approximately 600 MPH"

339-penny-6aug44.jpg (800×1052) (spitfireperformance.com)

 

"I was doing well over the 600 mark"

355-kucheman-24april44.jpg (800×2104) (spitfireperformance.com)

 

"I glanced at the airspeed and I was indicating 620 miles per hour."

355-priest-2nov44.jpg (800×1057) (spitfireperformance.com)

 

"I followed him until I hit compressibility at approximately 600 M.P.H." 357-gailer-12oct44.jpg (800×1136) (spitfireperformance.com)   "I pulled out with an indicated air speed of 650 mph at 500 feet." 359-burt-5aug44.jpg (800×1149) (spitfireperformance.com)   “When I noticed my IAS was between 550 to 600, I started to pull out of the dive." 359-caid-21nov44.jpg (800×1040) (spitfireperformance.com)   "I finally closed on the 190 and fired at about 10000 ft. going over 600 MPH." 359-perrin-11sept44.jpg (800×1155) (spitfireperformance.com)   "During the dive my IAS was between 550 and 600 mph. 359-wetmore-15march45.jpg (800×1145) (spitfireperformance.com)

 

"At 8,000 feet while still going straight down indicating above 650 mph, I had to trim the a/c out of the dive. " 364-farrell-5dec44.jpg (800×1041) (spitfireperformance.com)   "My speed was just approaching 600 mph…" 364-voss-12sept44.jpg (800×1040) (spitfireperformance.com)   The maximum recorded dive of a P-51 according to official tests was Mach 0.84 which actually works out to 617 m.p.h at 10,000 feet, so well in line with the combat reports.

Edited February 24, 2024 by Sgt_Joch

[LukeFF]

Guys, I'm only going to say this once: keep the name-calling out of the discussion, or don't reply at all. You can debate the merits of further FM revisions all you want, but keep terms like "Luftwhiners, "Wheraboos," "Alliedtard" and "fanboys" out of it. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

I really think only certain planes should be further tweaked as data and corroborated historical reports allow. I don't think values should be increased across the board, only when not doing so changes the essential character of a certain plane which was the case for the P-40 which, due to weight and ridiculously low engine limits, was a flying turd before this update.

 

So with that being said, it seems to me the following should be looked at:

 

-low speed control effectiveness due to a lack of an aileron stall (hopefully coming soon?)

-Spitfire tail damage hobby-horse effect

-Mosquito roll rate

-Tempest CL Max/turn performance

-Twin engine low speed handling across the board (the 110 and 410 dogfight with Spitfires online no problem, also due to flap abuse which should also be looked at)

-410 turret gunner effectiveness

-Maybe the 51 and Typhoon wings should be looked at? Both seem incredibly weak. The 109 may also have an issue with weak wing spars.

-liquid-cooled engines damage model

-P-47 damage model (should be the toughest fighter in game IMO)

 

For a game with so many planes, that's pretty good and the recent updates give me hope of continued refinements and fixes! 

Edited February 27, 2024 by =DW=_Drewm3i-VR

[gimpy117]

On 2/27/2024 at 6:40 PM, =DW=_Drewm3i-VR said:

So with that being said, it seems to me the following should be looked at:

 

-low speed control effectiveness due to a lack of an aileron stall (hopefully coming soon?)

-Twin engine low speed handling across the board (the 110 and 410 dogfight with Spitfires online no problem, also due to flap abuse which should also be looked at)

 

The two most glaring issues in the entire game for many aircraft. No reason why me, an admittedly casual player can out perform a Hurricane in a low speed rolling scissors in a 110, or for that matter aircraft can prop hang and make ridiculous shots. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

14 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

The two most glaring issues in the entire game for many aircraft. No reason why me, an admittedly casual player can out perform a Hurricane in a low speed rolling scissors in a 110, or for that matter aircraft can prop hang and make ridiculous shots. 

This

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

On 3/10/2024 at 6:50 AM, gimpy117 said:

The two most glaring issues in the entire game for many aircraft. No reason why me, an admittedly casual player can out perform a Hurricane in a low speed rolling scissors in a 110, or for that matter aircraft can prop hang and make ridiculous shots. 

Bump... any news on the aileron stall?

[gimpy117]

On 8/14/2024 at 9:37 PM, 356thFS_Drewm3i-VR said:

Bump... any news on the aileron stall?

I think it's full steam ahead with Korea, but hopefully we will still get some support for great battles.