LW VS VVS PLANES at 4.10

[AETORAS]

OK i am in game from 2001 first title of IL2 STURMOVIK. I but now i am very disappointed i fly ONLY LW planes why i like them and now i see them very unmatched you fix FM of p 51( yes can fly like a spit ) nice. you fix a lot of other things but why you destroy German planes? so i think you have destroy bf -109 all of them and FW 190 DORA so i like all people say opinions for 4.10 and the planes FM i start first


LW pilot 4.10 EPIC FAIL

[flyingbullseye]

Grabs a bag of popcorn. This should get entertaining.

Flyingbullseye

[pupo162]

Grabs a bag of popcorn. This should get entertaining.

Flyingbullseye

+1

[=SLO=Hellcat]

Well if LW planes were as good as you are saying, Germany wouldn't have lost the war. :D

[JG53Frankyboy]

Im just wondering what "changed" in the 109/190 , beside the default weopon change of the G-14/10 And the famous "bar"...............

[ECV56_Guevara]

Yes, FM has been modified because all LW pilots are ugly, very ugly..and some of them have bad breath.

[JG27CaptStubing]

OK i am in game from 2001 first title of IL2 STURMOVIK. I but now i am very disappointed i fly ONLY LW planes why i like them and now i see them very unmatched you fix FM of p 51( yes can fly like a spit ) nice. you fix a lot of other things but why you destroy German planes? so i think you have destroy bf -109 all of them and FW 190 DORA so i like all people say opinions for 4.10 and the planes FM i start first


LW pilot 4.10 EPIC FAIL

Nothing has been changed in any of the German Planes in terms of an FM.

[THE ERASER]

@AETORAS: Can you please send me some of your pills, mine are out and i need those to live on.

Ah and by the way send some uranium .50 CAL Ammo, they are also out.

:rolleyes::grin:

[Sven]

I'm a little bit disappointed about the fact that there are indeed some fixes for Allied planes but none for LW planes, some issues that still exist is of course like the blast radius of german bombs, the explosive power of the 30 mm shell of the MK108 and some more issues like the FM of the TA-151H ,109K4, but I dont insist on these fixes, TD is doing a magnificent job on whatever they select to fix and that's great! So I actually I shouldnt be disappointed, I should be grateful that they do this all for free.

But I can understand the "anger" it causes when only Allied planes get FM fixes whilst there are also Axis ones around, but I have no doubt that in the future TD will look at these issues as well.

Sven

[=69.GIAP=TOOZ]

Could it be he is talking about the G effects? From what I understand (I fly bombers mostly, so haven't done much fighter flying with 4.10) the traditional BnZ fighters tend to suffer more as they tend to get up to higher speeds than other aircraft (i.e. late 109's and 190's, for example) and if you try to manouvre too hard out of your dive, then you're probably gonna break something.

Perhaps doing a little bit of practice to improve your tendencies to pull too hard on your stick (oo-er, that might be taken the wrong way!) might be what is required here? Or am I wrong in this analysis?

[Richie]

Well if LW planes were as good as you are saying, Germany wouldn't have lost the war. :D

Real dumb answer.

[kendo65]

...to a real dumb question.

Kind of apt, then.

[ElAurens]

P-51 fly like a Spitfire? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

Can't do a bat like pull out in your 190 after diving from low earth orbit?

:rolleyes:

This will end ugly.


Can't wait.

[IceFire]

Could it be he is talking about the G effects? From what I understand (I fly bombers mostly, so haven't done much fighter flying with 4.10) the traditional BnZ fighters tend to suffer more as they tend to get up to higher speeds than other aircraft (i.e. late 109's and 190's, for example) and if you try to manouvre too hard out of your dive, then you're probably gonna break something.

Perhaps doing a little bit of practice to improve your tendencies to pull too hard on your stick (oo-er, that might be taken the wrong way!) might be what is required here? Or am I wrong in this analysis?
That's probably the best guess. That or his medication is making him loopy :D. No FM changes to any Luftwaffe aircraft or really any aircraft at all. Just the P-51 with the smallest of FM changes to fix an old mistake - somehow that is a controversy :) But I'm not surprised.

Even with the G force restrictions it's actually not so bad for German aircraft because they are tougher than most and the FW190 in particular can pull very hard without loosing any structural bits and pieces. At least so far... I've been flying FW190A-9s and Ta152H-1s so far. On the flipside, I saw a La-7 do a hard negative knife edge in front of me and his tail section separated at around 700kph. My FW190 was just fine :cool:

[TinyTim]

Well, I find flight modelling of all planes (that I tried at least) somewhat less wobbly than before, which deserves a big thumbs up in my humble opinion. Up to now some planes (like Hellcat and Corsair) felt like an 1:72 scale model hang up on a couple of elastic strings, wobbling all around. They appear to be a lot more stable now.

[FAE_Cazador]

Even with the G force restrictions it's actually not so bad for German aircraft because they are tougher than most and the FW190 in particular can pull very hard without loosing any structural bits and pieces. At least so far... I've been flying FW190A-9s and Ta152H-1s so far. On the flipside, I saw a La-7 do a hard negative knife edge in front of me and his tail section separated at around 700kph. My FW190 was just fine :cool:

Last night I tested a Fw190A5 in Spits-vs-109 Server (4.10 Unmodded) against a bunch of P39s and La-5Fs. I could get 2 La-5F kills just by hitting them with no more that 7 impacts when they were in a high-G turn, breaking them in pieces (tail or wings broke). I did not see that before, with so few hits (I could count them on my user stats page).

So it seems the new G-load feature works against T&B fighters the same as the initial poster said against B&Z ones. Probably G-overloads had damaged their structure before so hard that some few hits were enough to crack it. I think this is the reason, not my aim, indeed :)

By the way I did not use Fw190 as B&Z fighter but as Hit and Run one.

[Blue 5]

Is the new G-loading applicable to the AI? IRC AI pilots did not suffer from blackouts / redouts, which allowed them a considerable freedom of manouevring.

[ImpalerNL]

OK i am in game from 2001 first title of IL2 STURMOVIK. I but now i am very disappointed i fly ONLY LW planes why i like them and now i see them very unmatched you fix FM of p 51( yes can fly like a spit ) nice. you fix a lot of other things but why you destroy German planes? so i think you have destroy bf -109 all of them and FW 190 DORA so i like all people say opinions for 4.10 and the planes FM i start first


LW pilot 4.10 EPIC FAIL

The Bf109s are fine with 4.10.
It look like they feel a little faster at low alt, and are smoother to fly.

Fw190s are fine also if you ask me.

[Mustang]

OK i am in game from 2001 first title of IL2 STURMOVIK. I but now i am very disappointed i fly ONLY LW planes why i like them and now i see them very unmatched you fix FM of p 51( yes can fly like a spit ) nice. you fix a lot of other things but why you destroy German planes? so i think you have destroy bf -109 all of them and FW 190 DORA so i like all people say opinions for 4.10 and the planes FM i start first


LW pilot 4.10 EPIC FAIL


Years of rersearch, AND MAKING REQUEST ABOUT FM LW, THEY SAY THAT

THEY ARE NOT PERFOM ANY CHANGES IN LW FM!

PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THE ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY CHANGES IN FM LW.

NOT NOT NOT !!! NOT!!! ANDDDDDDDDDDD NOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTT


FM LW CHANGES ?NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTT

Imagine LW pilots Fight in real conditions WITH 1- 6 or 1 - 10 in servers ?

OR Imagine a Buby Hartman In LA7 ??? :rolleyes:


GO AND PLAY WITH THE TEAM RED AND IT`S GOING TO BE MORE, MORE, MORE EASY :grin:

LOL

Or Go and cry whit the loosers

Maybe You need this video... AND CRY BABY!!! :-P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94&feature=player_embedded





OR you can learn how to fly LW

Full real settings against all odds

I admire this pilots

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6917/dibujodfi.jpg
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5286/dibujo2hg.jpg

[swiss]

Drugs....stop doing them.

[Tempest123]

What on earth is all this nonsense?

[Sven]

Drugs....stop doing them.

:shock: ... interesting... some people clearly cant handle it.

[Mustang]

Drugs....stop doing them.
:-P

[BadAim]

:-P

Stop doing them? Hell, I want some of what these guys are smoking!

[JG52Uther]

I think the only thing TD have done to the LW fighters is change the G limits,and forget to load some of the gunpods...

I await the fix for mk 108's myself.One hit to rip a fighter apart,three hits to shred a Flying Fortress.

[=SLO=Hellcat]

Real dumb answer.

Thank you for your constructive and detailed response, Richie.
Man with your level of intellect would surely know that my answer was meant to be dumb and provocative.

[Ernst]

Thank you for your constructive and detailed response, Richie.
Man with your level of intellect would surely know that my answer was meant to be dumb and provocative.

Yes, the causes that leaded the allies to the victory certainly was not technical advantage. All we known that. However i do not want to discuss about and I prefer to not flame the topic. This subject is endless.

[Friendly_flyer]

I think the only thing TD have done to the LW fighters is change the G limits,and forget to load some of the gunpods...

Well, there's the bar below the windscreen in the 190. I'd say improved visibility counts for quite a bit.

[Ernst]

I performed a G endurance test just a time ago. Flying the 190 i heard the "crank" at 8.5 G while the spitfire i heard at 9.7 G. Spits have more G endurance than Focke Wulf! I will say nothing, i am a bit used. As always... :evil:

[Kwiatek]

Try negative G :)

[Mustang]

About to Tecnical advantage

Tecnical advantage.... ???




Erich Hartmann: 352
Gerhard Barkhorn: 301
Günther Rall: 275
Otto Kittel: 267
Walter Nowotny: 258
Wilhelm Batz: 242
TheoWeissenberger: 238
Erich Rudorffer: 222
Heinrich Bar: 220
Heinz Releer:220
Hans Phillipp: 213
Walter Schuck: 206
Antón Hafner: 204
Helmut Lippert: 203
Hermann Graf: 202
Walter Krupinski: 197
Antón Hackl: 190
Joachim Brendle: 189
Max Stotz: 189
Joachim Kirschner: 185
Werner Brandle: 180
Gunther Josten: 178
Joh. Steinhoff: 176
Gunther Schack: 174
Heinz Schmidt: 173
Emil Lang: 173
E.W. Reinert: 169
Horst Adameit: 166
Wolf D. Wilcke: 161
Gordon Gollob: 160
Hans J. Marseille: 158
Gerhard Thyben: 157
Hans Beisswenger: 152
Meter Duttmann: 152

[Ernst]

Try negative G :)

I tested. I could not "crank" the spitfire in negative G and I tried a lot. In fact i could not experience more than -2.0G in the Spitfire. The Focke Wulf is relatively easy to "crank" in negative Gs.

The Focke Wulf broke at -3.8G~-4.0G. I could not anchieve more than -2.0G in the spitfire, maybe if i trim the spitifire negative i ll. I ll try later. In principle appears to me that spitfire has much better G endurance in 4.10. Why? Ask TD.

I did not tested other aircraft, but i guess that i ll have much more surprises. Kwiatek, what you expected to me observe while trying negative g's?

[Ernst]

Certainly "was not" technical advantage, Mustang.

[Mustang]

I performed a G endurance test just a time ago. Flying the 190 i heard the "crank" at 8.5 G while the spitfire i heard at 9.7 G. Spits have more G endurance than Focke Wulf! I will say nothing, i am a bit used. As always... :evil:




:rolleyes:


LOL


SEE 3m 30s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94&feature=player_embedded#!


.

[Ernst]

Yes, Mustang. The allies won the war. They have to win in IL2 too, always. Spitfire is the perfect project, no compromisses. :rolleyes:

[TheGrunch]

Yes, Mustang. The allies won the war. They have to win in IL2 too, always. Spitfire is the perfect project, no compromisses. :rolleyes:

The Focke Wulf broke at -3.8G~-4.0G. I could not anchieve more than -2.0G in the spitfire, maybe if i trim the spitifire negative i ll. I ll try later. In principle appears to me that spitfire has much better G endurance in 4.10. Why? Ask TD.

You just said that the Spitfire could pull fewer negative Gs. This probably has a lot to do with lower average speed and the nose-up trim tendency of the Spitfire. What has that got to do with G endurance? If you could get the Spit to pull 3-4 negative Gs it would break as well. All it means is that an FW-190 can escape more easily in a bunt as long as the pilot is careful. That make sense?

[Ernst]

Ok. But how about the positive g's? Check the messages before this one. However i do not tried to trim the Spitfire to verify if it can go to more negative G's yet. Appears it had some positive trim on take off/start.

[TheGrunch]

Dunno, didn't read that far back, haha. Does sound odd, but it doesn't mean it is wrong in principle. I don't know what either aircraft was stressed to achieve off the top of my head.

[TheGrunch]

Have a read through this (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=16362&page=3), Ernst. EDIT: In fact you posted in that thread, you've probably read it all already.

[Ernst]

Dunno, didn't read that far back, haha. Does sound odd, but it doesn't mean it is wrong in principle. I don't know what either aircraft was stressed to achieve off the top of my head.

I just tried the negative g's because Kwiatek asked me for. Certainly he asked because he wanted that i observe something myself. But he do not come back to explain what.

[Ernst]

Have a read through this (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=16362&page=3), Ernst. EDIT: In fact you posted in that thread, you've probably read it all already.

Yes. But with no data then in principle Focke Wulf and Spitfire must resist the same G loading. Here we have a ~1.3G difference. I can guess the answer: The TD stated that the g loading do not reflect the particularities of each aircraft, except weight. Since Focke Wulf is heavier maybe in the TD code it must to resist less.

However maybe in real life it was more well built, exactly because it was heavier. And in part maybe its heaviness is exactly because this allowed the 190 to carry more weight and resist the g-forces yet. Since the TD could not consider the differences in construction of the aircraft it uses a simple matter of weight that not defines well the problem. However since they are incapable to simulate the construction particularities the heavier aircrafts has serious disadvantages.

However if this is true the 109 must endure better in the TD code, since it was lighter than spitfire. I do not tested the 109 yet. But if we test it and verify it is worse tha Spit, then there is something very odd.:cool:

[rakinroll]

Actually, i really love that exploded deflection shots while "ubers" trying to classic turn baby turn style high G flight. Thanks TD... :cool:

[TheGrunch]

It seems like you're right. With various contemporary models of Spit and Fw 190 I found about a 0.5-1G advantage to the Spitfire (about, of course, it's hard to gauge, but holding for example the Spit LF IXc 25lbs at 8-8.5 Gs didn't tend to overstress over a period of just a few seconds where 8.5+ Gs did, while the Fw 190 A-9 overstressed at 8-8.5 Gs every time over similar periods of just a few seconds (2-3s) at these Gs. The Spit can hit higher Gs more easily accidentally with its lighter elevator, and regardless of this the Spit will eventually hear the overstress sound if 8+ Gs is held long enough. It's very hard to gauge, though, since these maneuvers must be very short and unsustainable by nature, and the sensitivity of the Spit's elevator makes it hard to hold a particular G loading. I was testing by diving to 650kph TAS from 5000m and pulling out.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

About to Tecnical advantage

Tecnical advantage.... ???

Erich Hartmann: 352
Gerhard Barkhorn: 301
Günther Rall: 275
Otto Kittel: 267
Walter Nowotny: 258
Wilhelm Batz: 242
TheoWeissenberger: 238
Erich Rudorffer: 222
Heinrich Bar: 220
Heinz Releer:220
Hans Phillipp: 213
Walter Schuck: 206
Antón Hafner: 204
Helmut Lippert: 203
Hermann Graf: 202
Walter Krupinski: 197
Antón Hackl: 190
Joachim Brendle: 189
Max Stotz: 189
Joachim Kirschner: 185
Werner Brandle: 180
Gunther Josten: 178
Joh. Steinhoff: 176
Gunther Schack: 174
Heinz Schmidt: 173
Emil Lang: 173
E.W. Reinert: 169
Horst Adameit: 166
Wolf D. Wilcke: 161
Gordon Gollob: 160
Hans J. Marseille: 158
Gerhard Thyben: 157
Hans Beisswenger: 152
Meter Duttmann: 152

Things like combat experience and the environment count at least as much as technical considerations.

[WTE_Galway]

The Spitfire was far to effete and pretty to take the same G as planes with more machismo.

This needs to be taken into account :D

[6S.Manu]

IMO the G effect is more against the Red planes than the Blue ones. Overall against Spitfires since you must be careful after the BnZ with those planes (because BnZ is not a Blue tactic, it's THE tactic).

And of course if you are damaged you can't turn hard anymore, a thing that usually average blue fighters don't do.

Anyway, in full onesty I want to respond to those who claim that Axis FM are ok since the blue pilots' online scores you: it's not the plane, it's the pilots... blue pilot must use tactics and be very skilled (trained) to be successful, while usually in red planes (not PTO) you don't need to use great tactics to score some kills... because of these IMO the average blue pilot is more skilled than a red pilot; I can say it because in many times I've fled as Red (I fly both sides to balance the mission) usually I don't find cooperation with Red pilots (pilots of my squad are witnesses too).

You know, "every idiot can fly a Spitfire"... :-)

The times you use correct tactics and cooperate with your teammates (example 3 spits at 5km against multiple Antons) you win easily. And think about multiple P51 or P47 at high altitude, it's the nightmare of blue pilots... still today I find very few red pilot flying with correct tactics...

And at last all the 190s and partially the 109s in the stock IL2 are REALLY weird respect to the most of the other planes who are quite correct (the new Spitfire for example...). PM me if you want the reasons...

I have to admit that the P51's improvement really pisses me off... because P51 were used by pilots in the 190's way (but P51 being still better in everything except for the guns)... we tested now and they are improved, while 190s are still the flying bricks.

[Mustang]

yes. But with no data then in principle focke wulf and spitfire must resist the same g loading. Here we have a ~1.3g difference. I can guess the answer: The td stated that the g loading do not reflect the particularities of each aircraft, except weight. Since focke wulf is heavier maybe in the td code it must to resist less.

However maybe in real life it was more well built, exactly because it was heavier. And in part maybe its heaviness is exactly because this allowed the 190 to carry more weight and resist the g-forces yet. Since the td could not consider the differences in construction of the aircraft it uses a simple matter of weight that not defines well the problem. However since they are incapable to simulate the construction particularities the heavier aircrafts has serious disadvantages.

However if this is true the 109 must endure better in the td code, since it was lighter than spitfire. I do not tested the 109 yet. But if we test it and verify it is worse tha spit, then there is something very odd.:cool:

I make some researchs:

http://il2.mega.kg/forum/index.php?showtopic=840

About FW 190

Во-вторых, конструкция FW190 была гораздо более прочной, чем у его конкурента: коэффициент запаса прочности, заложенный в конструкцию планера, был 1.2 против 1.02 у Bf109. Это позволяло самолету безболезненно переносить гораздо более серьезные боевые повреждения, чем Bf109. Немаловажным фактором в обеспечении живучести, а также увеличения угловой скорости входа в вираж, было расположение всех топливных баков исключительно в фюзеляже, что, с одной стороны, уменьшало их поражаемую площадь, а с другой, снижало момент инерции самолета при маневрах по крену.

прочность конструкции самолета иллюстрирует следующий эпизод: в период переподготовки с мессершмитта-109 на фокке-вульф, опытный летчик, ранее летавший в авиакомпании "люфтганза", проявил необъяснимое мальчишество и решил поднять самолет на практический потолок. в результате самолет свалился в вертикальное пикирование с большой высоты с мотором, работающим на полную мощность. скорость быстро приблизилась к критической отметке - более 800 км/ч. приложив все свои силы, летчик сумел выдернуть истребитель из пике и перейти в горизонтальный полет. после возвращения на аэродром самолет оказался в полной исправности: ни деформаций силовых элементов или панелей обшивки, ни выпавших заклепок!


Translated:

In the second place, construction FW190 was much more durable, than in its competitor: the safety factor, placed in the construction of glider, was 1.2 against 1.02 in Bf109. This made possible for aircraft to painlessly transfer much more serious battle damages than Bf109. Important factor in the guarantee of vitality, and also increase in the angular entry speed into the turn, was the arrangement of all fuel tanks exclusively in the fuselage, which, from one side, decreased their beaten area, and with another, was reduced the moment of the inertia of aircraft while maneuverings along the bank.


The structural strength of aircraft illustrates the following episode: in the period of retraining from the Messerschmitt -109 to the Focke-Wulfe, experienced pilot, previously flown in the airline " [Lyuftganza]" , appeared inexplicable boyishness and decided to raise aircraft to the service ceiling. As a result aircraft fell down into the vertical dive from a high altitude with the motor, which works at full power. Speed rapidly approached the critical mark - more than 800 km/h. After exerting all his forces, pilot knew how to pull out fighter from peak and to pass into the level flight.
After return to the airfield the aircraft proved to be in complete proper working order: neither deformations of load-bearing elements or panels of skin nor fallen rivets!


:grin:

[Tempest123]

Things like combat experience and the environment count at least as much as technical considerations.


-And the fact that Allied pilots where on rotation much more often.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

-And the fact that Allied pilots where on rotation much more often.

Indeed. And many of them went to training units to pass their experience. AFAIK only few experienced LW pilots went to command training units, like Herman Graf.

[Ernst]

I tested more two aircraft. The rough P-47 made the "crank" at ~9.0G. Since i am doing the experiments there is some room of error, maybe in future someone ll can do some autopilot tests and compare this kind of info.

I tested the 109 but cannot pull more than ~7.0G. The elevator is so heavy at high speeds that is impossible to go beyond the sevice G, maybe this is an advantage because the pilot can pull back back the stick with no worry. I did not used the trim in 109 to "cheat" the turn.

I overstressed the aircrafts i tested quite a lot but not passed 10Gs. I did not observed any structural damage or penalty except that weird sound. How much must i overstress my plane to have problems? What kind of problems? This is a question to TD guys.

p.s.: if somenone break the 109 by Gs deserves be proclamed a Saint. Because is a miracle.

[WTE_Galway]

Indeed. And many of them went to training units to pass their experience. AFAIK only few experienced LW pilots went to command training units, like Herman Graf.


Essentially with experten leading operational Jagdgeschwader those Jagdgeschwader were the final combat training unit. As the war went on and attrition occurred this system proved detrimental.

Also ... one thing to remember about the target rich environment and 24/7 year in year out fighting of Eastern Front Jagdgeschwader is the entire war became a training exercise for those that survived.

Hartmann did not necessarily start the war with more talent or skill than his lower scoring allied counterparts. Early career, iif provided with the target rich Eastern Front environment that the LW enjoyed, some of the allied aces may even have scored substantially better.

However that is beside the point, by the wars end Hartmann and soem of the other experten had several thousand more hours in combat than any non-soviet allied pilot and over 300 "practice kills" against live targets under his belt. It seems unlikely anyone else, no matter how talented, could compete with that level of experience in actual combat.

Its a bit like comparing a talented high school footballer with a seasoned professional. Time in the hot seat really counts.

[Tempest123]

Essentially with experten leading operational Jagdgeschwader those Jagdgeschwader were the final combat training unit. As the war went on and attrition occurred this system proved detrimental.

Also ... one thing to remember about the target rich environment and 24/7 year in year out fighting of Eastern Front Jagdgeschwader is the entire war became a training exercise for those that survived.

Hartmann did not necessarily start the war with more talent or skill than his lower scoring allied counterparts. Early career, iif provided with the target rich Eastern Front environment that the LW enjoyed, some of the allied aces may even have scored substantially better.

However that is beside the point, by the wars end Hartmann and some of the other experten had several thousand more hours in combat than any non-soviet allied pilot and over 300 "practice kills" against live targets under his belt. It seems unlikely anyone else, no matter how talented, could compete with that level of experience in actual combat.

Its a bit like comparing a talented high school footballer with a seasoned professional. Time in the hot seat really counts.

Having read "I flew for the Fuhrer" (great book), I got the impression that many of the experienced Luftwaffe pilots (if they had survived) were worn down and fatigued in the later years of the war. With not enough rest, and high attrition, with few safe places to rest as they where under constant attack. Keep in mind that many allied pilots flew many hours and rarely encountered an aircraft with black crosses, whereas the Germans nearly always faced enemy aircraft after 1944, I'm surprised that any Luftwaffe experten who survived the war would still have any interest in flying after being put through all that.

[TheGrunch]

I overstressed the aircrafts i tested quite a lot but not passed 10Gs. I did not observed any structural damage or penalty except that weird sound. How much must i overstress my plane to have problems? What kind of problems? This is a question to TD guys.

Ernst, according to the documentation for 4.10 each aircraft possesses an in service and ultimate load limit. The ultimate load limit is the G loading at which the aircraft will structurally fail completely. Every time you exceed the in service limit your ultimate load limit is progressively lowered. Carrying external stores lowers these two limits until they are jettisoned. The other thing to try would be to apply both heavy elevator and some aileron at the same time during a pullout, thus creating an asymmetrical load - I haven't tried this myself but I would be interested to see if this has an effect.

[LoBiSoMeM]

The first time I flew in 4.10 I jump into a P-51 to test the corrected FM, online.

Got two 109s in turn fights and play with a FW in my tail.

It's just a matter of time to some weak blue pilots start to cry. But yesterday I had a hard time with a good FW pilot chasing me. Now the P-51 is a good match to the FW, before the plane had SERIOUS issues about stability. The changes in FM just let the P-51 more stable and more reliable, two things that usually ruins the day of a pilot if lack.

The P-51 isn't "better" now, is NORMAL. The FW don't have this kind of problem, the 109 don't enter in crazy spins, so, don't need to be fixed.

The p-51 isn't a Spitifre now. TD just "improved" the P-51 from a potential air coffin to a fast plane, because of the corrected lenght in FM.

[Ernst]

But the 109 characteristics guarantee a nice flying and a very gentle stall. The deployment of slats guarantee to the pilot a warning when the aircraft is about to stall. The P-51 was known for some high speed spin characteristics due to the laminar flow wing. Do not known because i do not fly too much P-51 in IL-2 but i do not think that simple remove that charateristic is the right thing to do only because the allies players wants a "better" P-51 to match the German counterparts.

Dou you fly FW? To me FW is just like or worse the older P-51. Focke Wulf had no acelleration and it have to. My only only complain is: give FW its accelaration. FW acelleration was very good. Initial acceleration was quite the same than spitfire, but the medium range and top end was much better.

Acctualy FW accelerates like a truck. When you lose some energy you cannot rebuild it fast.

If you see the video above the pilot states that there is no way a p-51 could turn fight a 109 in medium to low range of speed. Then i ask, based on what do you state that the new p-51 are correct?

The old P-51 was not an air coffin, it was to you because you tried to turn fight in it. The old was very fast and impossible to pursuit in any fighter. The good P-51 pilot remained untouched.

I pursuited the p-51s many times and no way i could catch it, even in Doras. The ones i destroyed are flying low and turning a lot.

[rakinroll]

I am flying FW-190 Anton 8 and Bf-109 Gustav 6 Erla for years. I only can say that those fighters, especially Anton 8, should be better according to history. But i am not complaining about it. Becuase it forced me to be better and better with tactics. However, lack of cannon power and weak damage modelling of German fighters still makes me feel crazy. As i wrote in my video pages, i like to fight Oleg. :grin:

Even so, i am very appreciated to Oleg and his team for this "greatest" simulation.

Happy New Year Oleg and all community.

[SturmKreator]

How to use the new Mustang? I can't use this airplane in right way. What pitch, fuel you set? Becouse I can never reach 710 km/h at 7500 meters

[_1SMV_Gitano]

How to use the new Mustang? I can't use this airplane in right way. What pitch, fuel you set? Becouse I can never reach 710 km/h at 7500 meters

If you fly with cockpit on you see the IAS, Indicated AIr Speed and not the TAS, True Air Speed. The difference between TAS and IAS is 0 at sea level and grows with altitude. You can chek with the no cockpit view your TAS.

[SturmKreator]

If you fly with cockpit on you see the IAS, Indicated AIr Speed and not the TAS, True Air Speed. The difference between TAS and IAS is 0 at sea level and grows with altitude. You can chek with the no cockpit view your TAS.

I understand how to see the TAS and IAS, the question is: With german planes like the TA-152 h1, Bf-190 k4, FW190 D9 44, I could reach in the first case 740 km/h@9600 meters TAS,in second case 730 km/h TAS@6500 meters and the third case 730km/h TAS@5500 meters, If I try to reach with the mustang at 710 km/h TAS@7500 meters, mi engine dies before I could reach maximun velocity, I set radiator fully closed, fully power @ 3000 rpm and 60 mmhq, What I did wrong? Waht pitch I need to set? Please dont think I am a noob again.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Would sure be nice if TD could just check the values of planes, to make sure they are as they should. And I mean red and blue planes alike :)

[TheGrunch]

lack of cannon power and weak damage modelling of German fighters
Lolwat.

[rakinroll]

Lolwat.

Seems that i can not help you my friend.

[TheGrunch]

What, you mean you're incapable of discussing the points you have made? The 190 is one of the sturdier fighters in the game and the MG151/20 and MK108 are both fantastic cannon. Jeez. I said that with confidence because I have no problem with either. The 109 is one of my favourite aircraft to fly in the game.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Please don't think I am a noob again.

Sorry, wasn't my intention. Anyway try lower prop pitch and set radiator flaps to auto.

[SturmKreator]

Sorry, wasn't my intention. Anyway try lower prop pitch and set radiator flaps to auto.

No problem My friend, but how my english is not so good, many times the people think I am a noob, becouse I can not explain my idea so well, I shall try to do the thing you tell me, thank you

[Tempest123]

The first time I flew in 4.10 I jump into a P-51 to test the corrected FM, online.

Got two 109s in turn fights and play with a FW in my tail.

It's just a matter of time to some weak blue pilots start to cry. But yesterday I had a hard time with a good FW pilot chasing me. Now the P-51 is a good match to the FW, before the plane had SERIOUS issues about stability. The changes in FM just let the P-51 more stable and more reliable, two things that usually ruins the day of a pilot if lack.

The P-51 isn't "better" now, is NORMAL. The FW don't have this kind of problem, the 109 don't enter in crazy spins, so, don't need to be fixed.

The p-51 isn't a Spitifre now. TD just "improved" the P-51 from a potential air coffin to a fast plane, because of the corrected lenght in FM.

This is the truth, the most sensible post here. The P-51 fuselage length was corrected (a well known bug) by 40cm, ***that's all***, a 109 can still turn inside a mustang, and a mustang still stalls and spins, honestly I don't know what planes you guys are flying...

"simple remove that charateristic is the right thing to do only because the allies players wants a "better" P-51 to match the German counterparts."

That never happened, nothing was removed or tuned up, just 40cm was added to make the fuselage the correct length. This was a well known bug with the D-models and was visible in the object viewer.

Btw I too fly the 109 regularly and have no problem with it, it flies great, and if you can't shoot stuff down with the cannons, well I can't help you.

[IceFire]

Ok. But how about the positive g's? Check the messages before this one. However i do not tried to trim the Spitfire to verify if it can go to more negative G's yet. Appears it had some positive trim on take off/start.

Despite appearances otherwise the Spitfire is actually a very strong aircraft. I'm not an expert on G tolerances but I have read combat reports and several Spitfires were able to dive to incredible speeds and pull out at the last moment - usually with a warped airframe and had to be scrapped later. Anecdotal but the Spitfire wasn't weak... I'm not sure how it compares to the FW190.

Which FW190 model was it? A-5? What about the D-9?

[rakinroll]

What, you mean you're incapable of discussing the points you have made? The 190 is one of the sturdier fighters in the game and the MG151/20 and MK108 are both fantastic cannon. Jeez. I said that with confidence because I have no problem with either. The 109 is one of my favourite aircraft to fly in the game.

This is better, thanks.

According to your comments about FW's stability, i only can say agree but after get damage even with single 50 cal bullet to wing, you can not keep your plane fast and maneuverable after that. It always surprised me because i see only one or few little dot on my wing but the plane acting like old lady. I have experienced this situation many many times for years. So, i really would like the same with red planes.

For cannons, unfortunately we (German pilots in game) have good cannons but extremely strong enemy fighters to kill. Especially, when i fly P39 or La5, even with huge holes on my wings and with black smokes from my engine, i always can fly longer and can do any maneuver without loosing power and stabilization against German fighters. And i do not believe that it is historical.

These are my opinions which i experienced for years. You guys may not agree with me but at least, please do not answer jeeringly.

Regards...

[Baron]

This is better, thanks.

According to your comments about FW's stability, i only can say agree but after get damage even with single 50 cal bullet to wing, you can not keep your plane fast and maneuverable after that. It always surprised me because i see only one or few little dot on my wing but the plane acting like old lady. I have experienced this situation many many times for years. So, i really would like the same with red planes.

For cannons, unfortunately we (German pilots in game) have good cannons but extremely strong enemy fighters to kill. Especially, when i fly P39 or La5, even with huge holes on my wings and with black smokes from my engine, i always can fly longer and can do any maneuver without loosing power and stabilization against German fighters. And i do not believe that it is historical.

These are my opinions which i experienced for years. You guys may not agree with me but at least, please do not answer jeeringly.

Regards...


My experiance to.


U think it will be changed? Maby when hell freezes over.

[TheGrunch]

Rakinroll, I wouldn't say that's so much a result of bias as damage modeling not being as advanced on the earlier aircraft. You don't *see* so much damage on the 190, but that doesn't mean you haven't received it because it seems like there are only two stages of damage on the 190 wing, mildly peppered and *gone*. :eek: The effects of wing damage on the 190 are likely to be more noticeable to the pilot because it has such a high wing loading - a lot higher than the P-39 or La-5. Although I agree that this does seem a tad exaggerated in the game. What I definitely agree with is that the 190 seems to receive a *much* larger penalty to speed with damage than nearly any other aircraft. But then this inconsistency in the DM of planes is not blue or red specific - see the P-40's porcelain engine, for example. Now there's a plane that got a raw deal in the sim, an ugly model means that the opening of the chin radiator is nearly twice as large as it should be, becoming an utter single-bullet engine-failure magnet. Go anywhere near a rear gunner and you may as well turn back to base. And you can't even look good doing it because it has twice the dihedral it should do. :( Then there's the F6F-5's majorly gimped speed, and the F4U's crazy pendulum-like wobbling behaviour even after coordinated control inputs. There are lots of things people like to point out as "bias" in this game, but in truth, they're a collection of fairly evenly distributed inaccuracies and mistakes across both "sides".

[LoBiSoMeM]

The P-51 was known for some high speed spin characteristics due to the laminar flow wing.

(...)

If you see the video above the pilot states that there is no way a p-51 could turn fight a 109 in medium to low range of speed. Then i ask, based on what do you state that the new p-51 are correct?

The old P-51 was not an air coffin, it was to you because you tried to turn fight in it. The old was very fast and impossible to pursuit in any fighter. The good P-51 pilot remained untouched.

I pursuited the p-51s many times and no way i could catch it, even in Doras. The ones i destroyed are flying low and turning a lot.

First, the P-51 wasn't know for some "high speed spin characteristics" in real life, sorry. It's always some point people trying to impinge to this aircraft in basis of IL-2 model. The P-51 was know as one of the better WWII aircrafts, stable, reliable. And the loss of control in high speed maneuvers still there, but in HIGH SPEEDS AND AGREESIVE MANEUVERS, as any other aircraft, and in P-51 - because os laminar airflow wing, or other model factor - is more intense than other aircraft in IL-2.

What we don't have more are medium-low speed crazy stalls/spins.

Regards turn fighting in P-51, I got two 109s in the initial turn. The P-51 now is stable an as in real life can turn great initialy, but in IL-2 and real life can't sustain energy in slow turning against an 109. So, the P-51 isn't a Spitfire, but it CAN TURN FIGHT A DORA OR ANTON, for example, without enter in a crazy spin.

[ElAurens]

As to "single bullet" damage to wings not being a factor for "red" planes, I guess you don't fly Yaks much huh?

One hit to the wing and you are combat ineffective.

All this Blue vs. Red whining is just a smokescreen by the whiners on both sides. It isn't about historic performance, it's about the points online.

Be sure.

[TheGrunch]

^ Pretty much.

[fruitbat]

As to "single bullet" damage to wings not being a factor for "red" planes, I guess you don't fly Yaks much huh?

One hit to the wing and you are combat ineffective.

All this Blue vs. Red whining is just a smokescreen by the whiners on both sides. It isn't about historic performance, it's about the points online.

Be sure.


for once we are in 100% agreement:)

happy new year:cool:

[Ernst]

Maybe i used the wrong term, but the p-51 had characteristics that lead it to an accelerated stall, something like a "snap roll", quite easily compared to other aircraft. It was stable but not for turn fights, it was built for speed not tight turns.

Maybe the 109s are too fast and the elevator heavy.

[ElAurens]

for once we are in 100% agreement:)

happy new year:cool:

Happy New Year fruitbat. All the best.

:cool:

[rakinroll]

Ok, try to attack to an airfield which covered by flacks with any russian planes (except Migs) or any raf planes or any american planes. Then try to do the same with any Stuka, Bf or FW series. You will see how the German planes weak against any hit from ground. It is the same against any gunfire from Ally planes. If i am wrong, i will never talk about this.

[Igo kyu]

In my experience, offline only, attacking airfields, flying red, is suicide. I refuse those missions. I fully believe that they are also suicide for blue, but that's not different from red.

[swiss]

.... flying red, is suicide .... are also suicide for blue

bingo. ;)

[Ernst]

First, the P-51 wasn't know for some "high speed spin characteristics" in real life, sorry. It's always some point people trying to impinge to this aircraft in basis of IL-2 model. The P-51 was know as one of the better WWII aircrafts, stable, reliable. And the loss of control in high speed maneuvers still there, but in HIGH SPEEDS AND AGREESIVE MANEUVERS, as any other aircraft, and in P-51 - because os laminar airflow wing, or other model factor - is more intense than other aircraft in IL-2.

What we don't have more are medium-low speed crazy stalls/spins.

Regards turn fighting in P-51, I got two 109s in the initial turn. The P-51 now is stable an as in real life can turn great initialy, but in IL-2 and real life can't sustain energy in slow turning against an 109. So, the P-51 isn't a Spitfire, but it CAN TURN FIGHT A DORA OR ANTON, for example, without enter in a crazy spin.

The flying envelope for the P-51

http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/p_51d_v_g_diagram_119.jpg

[Bearcat]

They didn't coin the phrase Luftwhiners for nothing..

[Flanker35M]

S!

Placebo effect working to the maximum. Except the increased stability the Pony has not changed a bit regarding performance charts. Checked with InfoMod. TD could write vaguely of a FM change in the ReadMe, even nothing would be made and "aah ooh praise them" would ensue ;)

Happy new year.

[rakinroll]

They didn't coin the phrase Luftwhiners for nothing..

Man, i am trying to be polite but your comment frocing me to be rude. These kind of stupid answers violating this forum, at least this thread. Who do you think you are? Shut your big mouth up if you have nothing to write about thread!

Sory guys but i am really bored of these kind of kids!

Regards...

[LukeFF]

Someone hand rakinroll a tissue.

[rakinroll]

Someone hand rakinroll a tissue.

Thanks Luke, i see that school days comments are very popular for members like you.

One more time i understand that it is impossible to discuss validly here.

[6S.Manu]

First, the P-51 wasn't know for some "high speed spin characteristics" in real life, sorry. It's always some point people trying to impinge to this aircraft in basis of IL-2 model. The P-51 was know as one of the better WWII aircrafts, stable, reliable. And the loss of control in high speed maneuvers still there, but in HIGH SPEEDS AND AGREESIVE MANEUVERS, as any other aircraft, and in P-51 - because os laminar airflow wing, or other model factor - is more intense than other aircraft in IL-2.

What we don't have more are medium-low speed crazy stalls/spins.

Regards turn fighting in P-51, I got two 109s in the initial turn. The P-51 now is stable an as in real life can turn great initialy, but in IL-2 and real life can't sustain energy in slow turning against an 109. So, the P-51 isn't a Spitfire, but it CAN TURN FIGHT A DORA OR ANTON, for example, without enter in a crazy spin.

It always could.

Before this patch P51 was still the better Allied plane (my favourite one): I love escort mission or free hunt over Germany in it. If you're smart you are untouchable.

The spin was there but you could avoid it with a pair of hours of tight dogfight to understand the plane's limits. That spin at high speed was a little annoying when you thought that you have a good firing solution if you pull the stick a little bit more... anyway you could wait for the next attack since in a P51 it's not a "now or never": you ARE faster with a really good BnZ trait.

If it was wrong I'm happy they fixed it.

But still P51 is one of many allied airplanes when instead Germany can count only in two main airplane types (three if we see the Dora as a complete different 190). One kind of these, the Anton one, is still not accurate with its awful energy retention. I don't understand why it's not been fixed in these years...

[robtek]

I might not share rakinroll's opinion of blue aircraft, but shure i share his opinion to those comments!

[ImpalerNL]

It always could.

Before this patch P51 was still the better Allied plane (my favourite one): I love escort mission or free hunt over Germany in it. If you're smart you are untouchable.

The spin was there but you could avoid it with a pair of hours of tight dogfight to understand the plane's limits. That spin at high speed was a little annoying when you thought that you have a good firing solution if you pull the stick a little bit more... anyway you could wait for the next attack since in a P51 it's not a "now or never": you ARE faster with a really good BnZ trait.

If it was wrong I'm happy they fixed it.

But still P51 is one of many allied airplanes when instead Germany can count only in two main airplane types (three if we see the Dora as a complete different 190). One kind of these, the Anton one, is still not accurate with its awful energy retention. I don't understand why it's not been fixed in these years...

The purpose of blue airplanes are to enhance the reds gameplay.
:grin:

It would be nice to see some fw190/bf109 FM changes.

[Ernst]

Why my picture was removed? Is the picture too big? Ok, i will provide the link:

P-51 FLYING ENVELOPE
(http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2950/p51d.jpg)

[Sven]

Why my picture was removed?

you mean the flying evelop of the P51? The site where you got it from does not allow that to be displayed other then their own site.;)

[Ernst]

you mean the flying evelop of the P51? The site where you got it from does not allow that to be displayed other then their own site.;)

Then got another from other site. This outrageous since the picture is not from them but from a magazine. There is many styles of that picture. They copied the picture from another site or magazine too.

And the admin gave the wrong site, since the picture was not from this f-16.net!

[JAMF]

This ultrageous since the picture is not from them but from a magazine.
It's most likely not a copyright issue, but using their server bandwidth.

It's like your neighbour using your WiFi to connect to the internet. If you don't know him, you will object to him using it without asking (or without paying his part).

[LoBiSoMeM]

The beautiful curve posted in Ernst chart is great to show how predictable a P-51 can be in some speed and G-load.

I like to notice that "accelerated stalls" occurs even in a Zero fighter.

But I can't stress more the point that in "old" P-51 we don't have just accelerated stall, we have the "unpredictable" stall and "crazy spin". Today we can still easily enter in a accelerated stall with the light inputs of P-51, or die entering in a flat spin.

And the plane is more stable in normal flight now. All other things remains the same.

[Richie]

Thank you for your constructive and detailed response, Richie.
Man with your level of intellect would surely know that my answer was meant to be dumb and provocative.

Well here in my town I thought my name was Stupid until I was 35.

[Mustang]

I must be honest :

BF 109 – maybe OK :rolleyes:

FW190 – ??? :confused:


FW 190´s taxing power ??? :(
something go very badly
I must use prop pitch.... Auto OFF…. every time



I love the P-40's

But…. porcelain engine ??? :evil:

[TheDawg]

OK i am in game from 2001 first title of IL2 STURMOVIK. I but now i am very disappointed i fly ONLY LW planes why i like them and now i see them very unmatched you fix FM of p 51( yes can fly like a spit ) nice. you fix a lot of other things but why you destroy German planes? so i think you have destroy bf -109 all of them and FW 190 DORA so i like all people say opinions for 4.10 and the planes FM i start first


LW pilot 4.10 EPIC FAIL

I admit, I have not read even the 2nd post in this thread.
I'll also admit I didn't like it when the neutered the climb rate of the hurri-C, and fixed the hithole between the tail booms on the P-38.
Whilst coffee brews, I'll read the rest, and while my local weathertard couldn't predict the weather this weekend, I will predict the outcome of this particular topic with frightening accuracy.

[Furio]

The beautiful curve posted in Ernst chart is great to show how predictable a P-51 can be in some speed and G-load.

I like to notice that "accelerated stalls" occurs even in a Zero fighter.
.

You’re right. Accelerated stalls can be achieved with any plane. I practiced them in a 100 hp trainer... The flying envelope of the P51 has nothing unusual. All planes have similar patterns, with different speed listed, as all aircraft obeys the same rules and fly through the same air.
Spin characteristic vary from type to type, of course, and can be more or less benign, more or less dangerous, but this has not much to do with wing loading.

[TheDawg]

I made it half way down page 5 before I landed at the enemy base, and told them everything I know.
This could be taken right out of a UBI post in 2004 http://www.pilotspub.org/phpBB3/images/smilies/Na-Na.gif

[IceFire]

I must be honest :

BF 109 – maybe OK :rolleyes:

FW190 – ??? :confused:


FW 190´s taxing power ??? :(
something go very badly
I must use prop pitch.... Auto OFF…. every time



I love the P-40's

But…. porcelain engine ??? :evil:
In-line engines are always made of porcelain...didn't you know? :)

[ElAurens]

As you can probably tell by my sig pic, I am a huge fan of the Curtiss Hawk series of fighters.

The Hawk 81 through 87 series (P40 to P 40N) were robust aircraft which made them very well suited to the fighter/bomber role that they eventually fell into. The Allison V-1710 12 cylinder engine was probably the toughest inline engine of the war. So much so that even today, the unlimited class air racers that run Merlin engines almost all use the connecting rods from the Allison V-1710 because they are so much stronger than the Rolls-Royce rods are.

Do we see this reflected in the sim?

Hardly.

One rifle caliber hit ahead of the leading edge of the wings and the engine is either stopped instantly, or barely able to make power above idle speed.

And the airframe itself leaves something to be desired. The wings are pretty strong, but fuselage hits always cut multiple control cables (true for many types in game and no doubt reflects the 9 year old+ game engine).

Sorry, I can't stop myself when it comes to my favorite aircraft of all time.

[DKoor]

As you can probably tell by my sig pic, I am a huge fan of the Curtiss Hawk series of fighters.

The Hawk 81 through 87 series (P40 to P 40N) were robust aircraft which made them very well suited to the fighter/bomber role that they eventually fell into. The Allison V-1710 12 cylinder engine was probably the toughest inline engine of the war. So much so that even today, the unlimited class air racers that run Merlin engines almost all use the connecting rods from the Allison V-1710 because they are so much stronger than the Rolls-Royce rods are.

Do we see this reflected in the sim?

Hardly.

One rifle caliber hit ahead of the leading edge of the wings and the engine is either stopped instantly, or barely able to make power above idle speed.

And the airframe itself leaves something to be desired. The wings are pretty strong, but fuselage hits always cut multiple control cables (true for many types in game and no doubt reflects the 9 year old+ game engine).

Sorry, I can't stop myself when it comes to my favorite aircraft of all time.
This game is quite funny TBH... in one hand you have aircraft such is LaGG, Fulmar, FW-190 and some others which can soak up tons of LMG ammo directly in prop/engine and still spinning, and on the other hand you have P-40, P-51, Bf-109 and others, which, if you sneeze harder in their engine it seizes at best and will set on fire/explode in few sec in worst case scenario.

It wouldn't bother me really if the difference isn't this huge.

BTW send me some of whatever the topic starter is on, I could use some:D .

[Ernst]

Do not forget, Focke Wulf had RADIAL engine. Yes, the difference is HUGE.

[ElAurens]

Do not forget, Focke Wulf had RADIAL engine. Yes, the difference is HUGE.

Ever flown a P-47 in game?

Rifle caliber one shot insta-stop of the engine is quite common. Also happens to the F6F.

And then we have the overheating problems that the air cooled radials have in this sim, which is utter nonsense.

[Ernst]

Yes i flied a P-47 and the engine is difficult to stop. Obviously, the engine is not indestructible. Even Focke Wulf engine. About the overheating i agree. Even at high speeds the engine cooling is not good. I have no data to show the engine cooling is wrong, but at medium-high speeds i believe the engine cooling is better in radial ones and in game some inline engines cool much more easy.

I am not necessarily disagree but some data will make you much more truthfull.

[fruitbat]

Ever flown a P-47 in game?

Rifle caliber one shot insta-stop of the engine is quite common. Also happens to the F6F.

And then we have the overheating problems that the air cooled radials have in this sim, which is utter nonsense.

in the r2800's you get 10 mins before you suffer any engine damage at all, from when overheat message comes on. if at 9:59mins you get the engine overheat message to disappear, and then firewall the engine again, you get 10 mins again from when the engine overheat message appears. rince and repeat. no other engine in game has such a generous time limit, not even close.

other air cooled engines in game are defiantly not so fortunate, for sure though.

[Ernst]

A good place to discuss engines and get some real data:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/

[SturmKreator]

A good place to discuss engines and get some real data:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/

This site is very subjective, administrators select the datas that suits them best, they are pro allies. If you want to know search engine research books such as the Ta152-H1 by Dietmar Harmann

[Ernst]

This site is a forum and receive docs by many users. Ok, most of them can be someway biased for both sides but if you search a little you will find very interesting documents.

[Blackdog_kt]

Just a little reminder guys...when talking about overheat in IL2, be also sure to take into account the excessively unrealistic boost/manifold pressure/ata values we are permitted to run in this sim.

In my personal opinion, it's useless discussing how much the overheat modeling in the sim penalizes the player when

a) we can reset it with no damage at all to the engine and
b) we judge overheat effects as excessive but we measure them at boost values that would cook the real engine within seconds

For example, just because the manifold pressure needle goes up to 70 mmHg, doesn't mean it's meant to be ran that way. This is a power reserve generated by superchargers/turbochargers for flying in higher altitudes where the ambient air pressure drops a lot, not normal power to be used on lower altitudes with total impunity.

It's easy to understand that the higher the pressure of the air entering the engine the more dense the air is, which means we have more air for the same volume and thus more power for each "burn" cycle.

Now let's go back to our example. If the engine is rated for a maximum of 50 mmHg of MP on all altitudes then that is already over-boosted on sea level. That means it's more than the pressure of the ambient air that's getting sucked into the engine, which usually varies around 30 mmHg. That's why an engine that's turned off will display about 30 mmHg on the MP gauge, since the gauge reads the ambient air pressure.

But what about the rest of the manifold pressure up until the 70 mmHg mark(and thus available power) that we use in IL2 on sea level with total impunity? Well, in reality that's not meant to be used to go over the 50 mmHG mark that our example hypothetical engine is rated for. In fact, just because an engine is rated for a max power of 50 mmHG doesn't mean it can run it indefinitely, that's where the rated "max continuous power" setting comes in and it's also a bit lower. Let's assume that for our example engine this is rated at 45 mmHG.

A plausible power chart would then look like this:

Take off power: 55 mmHg for no more than one minute

Absolute max power: 50mmHg never to be exceeded (except in take-off), for a time of X minutes or until oil temperature reaches Y degrees or cylinder head temperature reaches Z degrees.

Max continuous power (also called METO power=Max Except for Take Off): 45mmHg, you can run this all day long.

Then we would have a couple of lower settings for:
Climb at 42.5 mmHg
cruise climb (aka slow climb) at 38 mmHg
cruise at 35-38mmHg and finally
slow cruise at 32 mmHg.

It's obvious that the engine's ability to generate reserve manifold pressure up to the 70 mmHg mark comes in handy not to go over the engine limits, but to keep close to them as the ambient air pressure drops. It's not meant to provide a speed boost at sea level or other low altitudes, but to compensate for power loss from ambient air pressure drops at higher ones.

So, what happens if you do exceed it? Hard to say. Engine knock, rapid cylinder head temp rise (aka overheat) or it might even break something if you firewall the throttle to 70mmHg while sitting on the runway.

The way i see it, IL2 is a 10 year old engine that couldn't precisely simulate all this at the time it was created, but the developers also didn't want to let the player run totally unchecked on higher difficulty settings, hence the overheat mechanics in the game.

However, it's pretty clear that it's not much use comparing overheat behaviour in-game without comparing in-game and real-life engine operating data.

[IceFire]

Ever flown a P-47 in game?

Rifle caliber one shot insta-stop of the engine is quite common. Also happens to the F6F.

And then we have the overheating problems that the air cooled radials have in this sim, which is utter nonsense.

I haven't experienced a insta-stop P-47 engine in a long time. It used to be there and be quite common to the point that it was utterly insane to even think about taking a bit of damage in a P-47 as you'd know that you would have a tough airframe surrounded by a dead engine. But that was a while ago.. Now the P-47 is probably the hardest single engine fighter to bring down. And rightly so!

[PE_Tigar]

Thanks Luke, i see that school days comments are very popular for members like you.

One more time i understand that it is impossible to discuss validly here.

...or in other words WAAAAAAAaaaaAAAAAAaaaaAAAAAaaaAAAAA :):):)

[PE_Tigar]

Just a little reminder guys...when talking about overheat in IL2, be also sure to take into account the excessively unrealistic boost/manifold pressure/ata values we are permitted to run in this sim.

Absolutely right - and I'd also add that the same goes for RPM values too. For most people I fly with, the prop pitch control serves no purpose at all, because they take off with 100% and leave it there for the whole flight.

Maybe it would be good to start thinking about modelling the engine controls and, most importantly, limitations correctly. However, it is my feeling that the overheat in the game is an artificial construct, i.e. the Il-2 engine does not support separate CHT, EGT, TIT etc values...

[rakinroll]

...or in other words WAAAAAAAaaaaAAAAAAaaaaAAAAAaaaAAAAA :):):)

What kind of kid you are Tigar? It is impossible to understand because we do not have this kind of "unschooled" adults who still wearing diapers.