Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   FM/DM threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)
-   -   Huricane Mk I 100 Octane perormance tests 1.07.18301 (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=33135)

Robo. 07-16-2012 05:46 PM

Now when we're discussing the fuel again. And again.

Are the Hurricanes modelled correctly in this game? :-P

klem 07-16-2012 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimpy117 (Post 445635)
?? I dunno just from a fuel aspect.

my .02 is that we just give ALL the planes the best Octane available have 100 Octane Me-109's, Spits etc. etc.

then nobody can complain

No, it has to be historical :)

CaptainDoggles 07-16-2012 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by klem (Post 445691)
No, it has to be historical :)

Well, E-4's with the DB601N engine running on C3 fuel would be historical. AFAIK the first ones appeared in very small numbers as early as July of 1940. It would be up to the mission designers (as it is now) to ensure the right aircraft are appearing in the right scenario.

If memory serves, though, there were only a handful of E-4/N aircraft made, so I'm sure there are better areas to spend development time and resources.

Al Schlageter 07-16-2012 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles (Post 445695)
Well, E-4's with the DB601N engine running on C3 fuel would be historical. AFAIK the first ones appeared in very small numbers as early as July of 1940. It would be up to the mission designers (as it is now) to ensure the right aircraft are appearing in the right scenario.

If memory serves, though, there were only a handful of E-4/N aircraft made, so I'm sure there are better areas to spend development time and resources.

What would be more historical would be Bf110s using the DB601N engine.

3 Gruppe of Bf110s and 1 Gruppe of Bf109s (12% of all Bf109s)

From what I have read many of the Bf109s had their DB601N engines swapped out and replaced with DB601A engines.

TomcatViP 07-16-2012 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter (Post 445705)
What would be more historical would be Bf110s using the DB601N engine.

3 Gruppe of Bf110s and 1 Gruppe of Bf109s (12% of all Bf109s)

From what I have read many of the Bf109s had their DB601N engines swapped out and replaced with DB601A engines.

yes. I have this somewhere in mem. I even hve the idea tht the the DB/N fitted to 109 was for the experimental jabo gruppe (the one that had to finish his training dropping bomb in UK).

Same for the MkII. I alrdy gave somewhere the date of first production model and history of nbr 7 that is preserved in RAF museum. A quick ggl search will give the reader the exact answer.

Yesterday I also posted a link to a good copy of the MkII manual (edited in june/ published in july with boost details).

That they were both those rare bird in the sky over the channel, I think yes. That there presence reflect fact and history ? No. Just like saying that all 109 were fitted with an ashtray because we know one that is famous.

EoA for me

Al Schlageter 07-16-2012 09:30 PM

wrong a/c so deleted

TomcatViP 07-16-2012 09:33 PM

And delivered to combat unit ?

Might be good to paste in the right thread. This one is for the Hurri

klem 07-16-2012 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles (Post 445695)
Well, E-4's with the DB601N engine running on C3 fuel would be historical. AFAIK the first ones appeared in very small numbers as early as July of 1940. It would be up to the mission designers (as it is now) to ensure the right aircraft are appearing in the right scenario.

If memory serves, though, there were only a handful of E-4/N aircraft made, so I'm sure there are better areas to spend development time and resources.

I think I read sowehere that only about 35 'N' engines were in 109s during the BoB, not that I want to start another of 'those' arguments.

CaptainDoggles 07-16-2012 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by klem (Post 445718)
I think I read sowehere that only about 35 'N' engines were in 109s during the BoB, not that I want to start another of 'those' arguments.

I think that's about right, hence my statement about prioritizing development resources. :) In a perfect world we'd be able to have all the little subtypes but I'd rather they get the mainstays in good shape first.

Speaking of which, do we know if we'll be getting a Hurri MkII with the Merlin XX, or if it arrived early enough in 1940 to be considered a BoB participant?

I found an ORBAT for Fighter Command but it doesn't list variants.

fruitbat 07-16-2012 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles (Post 445723)
I think that's about right, hence my statement about prioritizing development resources. :) In a perfect world we'd be able to have all the little subtypes but I'd rather they get the mainstays in good shape first.

Speaking of which, do we know if we'll be getting a Hurri MkII with the Merlin XX, or if it arrived early enough in 1940 to be considered a BoB participant?

I found an ORBAT for Fighter Command but it doesn't list variants.

I'm pretty sure it just missed BoB.

Seadog 07-16-2012 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fruitbat (Post 445725)
I'm pretty sure it just missed BoB.

Apparently squadron deliveries of Mk II aircraft began in September, but IIRC, some late production Mk 1s received the Merlin 20 but retained the Mk I designation and these reached squadron service in August.

lane 07-16-2012 11:49 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Seadog (Post 445740)
Apparently squadron deliveries of Mk II aircraft began in September, but IIRC, some late production Mk 1s received the Merlin 20 but retained the Mk I designation and these reached squadron service in August.

McKinstry and Mason both put the Mk II into service in September 1940 (see attached). Interesting bit about the Mk Is getting the Merlin 20...

Robo. 07-17-2012 06:03 AM

Oh yes, I'd really like to see the Merlin XX Hurricane in this sim, hopefuly one day we'll get the 1941 scenario, too. Bf 109F is in there, just few steps to the rest :D

Sticking to the OP and doing some more testing it seems the Hurricane FMs (all of them) are seriously wrong on many many levels. Is the data from klem's test applicable for the in-game environment? Can we put that in context with Spitfire and 109 tests done by the others?

klem 07-17-2012 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles (Post 445723)
I think that's about right, hence my statement about prioritizing development resources. :) In a perfect world we'd be able to have all the little subtypes but I'd rather they get the mainstays in good shape first.

Speaking of which, do we know if we'll be getting a Hurri MkII with the Merlin XX, or if it arrived early enough in 1940 to be considered a BoB participant?

I found an ORBAT for Fighter Command but it doesn't list variants.

According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) it first flew on 11 June 1940 and went into squadron service in September 1940, also stated here
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles...rricaneII.html

Like the N engine 109s, there are more important things to fix. We should see it in BoM and N Africa - just starting a rumour :).

klem 07-17-2012 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo. (Post 445766)
Oh yes, I'd really like to see the Merlin XX Hurricane in this sim, hopefuly one day we'll get the 1941 scenario, too. Bf 109F is in there, just few steps to the rest :D

Sticking to the OP and doing some more testing it seems the Hurricane FMs (all of them) are seriously wrong on many many levels. Is the data from klem's test applicable for the in-game environment? Can we put that in context with Spitfire and 109 tests done by the others?

I am re-doing the tests. I need to set them against Density Altitude. Also I discovered that the BCO does work, I thought it didn't because it has no effect at SL and 1000 ft tests I did so I assumed it didn't work. However early indications are that it is stilll well below par at low level, more to come.

I'll post here when I finish and completely revise my OP.

phoenix1963 07-17-2012 07:05 AM

OT
 
You're up early Klem!
56RAF_phoenix

Robo. 07-17-2012 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by klem (Post 445770)
I am re-doing the tests. I need to set them against Density Altitude. Also I discovered that the BCO does work, I thought it didn't because it has no effect at SL and 1000 ft tests I did so I assumed it didn't work. However early indications are that it is stilll well below par at low level, more to come.

I'll post here when I finish and completely revise my OP.

Good stuff klem! I assume you meam BCO on original 87 octane Rotol Hurricane. Looking forward for the tests mate.

klem 07-17-2012 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo. (Post 445774)
Good stuff klem! I assume you meam BCO on original 87 octane Rotol Hurricane. Looking forward for the tests mate.

No, I mean BCO on the 100 octane.

On the 87 Octane it was there only as an EMERGENCY override, not a performance control. I don't think it does anything on the CoD MkI 87 octane but when I get around to testing that I'll see. There is a 'Boost' parameter that I pick up in the scripting and although the 'Manifold Pressure' parameter only appears to be a reflection of the gauge reading, the 'Boost' parameter goes higher. Early indications are that pulling the tit makes no difference up to 5000 feet where it still does not at 3000 rpm but does at 2650rpm. But its early days and I want to make more tests.

klem 07-17-2012 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoenix1963 (Post 445771)
You're up early Klem!
56RAF_phoenix

Where were you at 5:30a.m.?

Robo. 07-17-2012 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by klem (Post 445775)
No, I mean BCO on the 100 octane.

On the 87 Octane it was there only as an EMERGENCY override, not a performance control.

Oh I am aware of that, but I got confused by DnR's testing on the other forum as he stated the BCO works on the old 87 octane Rotol, too. You can pull the plug for something like 0.02 lbs. boost increase as far I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by klem (Post 445775)
Early indications are that pulling the tit makes no difference up to 5000 feet where it still does not at 3000 rpm but does at 2650rpm. But its early days and I want to make more tests.

Oh yes it does work indeed, from sea level all the way up to some 12000ft. Gauge reading is only +8lbs (wrong on both 100 octane aircraft, but the other way around)

All you have to do is:

1. Pull the tit
2. Wiggle your throttle back and forth (otherwise nothing happens)
3. Voila - we have BCC-O activated, boost gauge now reads +8lbs (I assume that's just a bug as the performance feels like +12, also wrong on Spitfire)

glitch: you have to set the mixture to lean in order to use it at 3000rpm as intended, on rich there is 2600rpm max (engine will shake the Dickens out of you if you don't). Speed on S/L is greater and the manifold pressure decreases nicely as you aproach full throttle height.

TomcatViP 07-17-2012 09:48 AM

You guys are incorrigible. Hurri MkII in Aug 1940 ?! :confused::grin:

Of course... and 1943 for the Meteor ... or 1945 for the AIM9?

Just like saying that the F22 was in service in 1995 as the ATF was tested by USAAF. ;)

Robo. 07-17-2012 10:03 AM

Klem just did a series of quick tests - everything works as described, you don't need to do the throttle thing to disengage BCC-O.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP (Post 445788)
You guys are incorrigible. Hurri MkII in Aug 1940 ?! :confused::grin:

What are you talking about? :o

TomcatViP 07-17-2012 10:19 AM

Look at post #111

Delivered does not mean in Operation. Try to keep that in mind.

Robo. 07-17-2012 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP (Post 445793)
Look at post #111

Delivered does not mean in Operation. Try to keep that in mind.

I don't think he said anything about having Hurricanes Mk.IIs in operation in August 1940. All he said was an interesting and true fact about transition to Merlin XX powered Hurricanes in the RAF.

If they will model this variant in CloD (which I hope they will eventually), it would be used for late 1940 scenarios and mainly the 1941 era.

Anything else you'd like to add to Merlin III 100 octane testing? Do you also find the mixture glitch weird?

klem 07-17-2012 12:12 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo. (Post 445777)
Oh I am aware of that, but I got confused by DnR's testing on the other forum as he stated the BCO works on the old 87 octane Rotol, too. You can pull the plug for something like 0.02 lbs. boost increase as far I know.



Oh yes it does work indeed, from sea level all the way up to some 12000ft. Gauge reading is only +8lbs (wrong on both 100 octane aircraft, but the other way around)

All you have to do is:

1. Pull the tit
2. Wiggle your throttle back and forth (otherwise nothing happens)
3. Voila - we have BCC-O activated, boost gauge now reads +8lbs (I assume that's just a bug as the performance feels like +12, also wrong on Spitfire)

glitch: you have to set the mixture to lean in order to use it at 3000rpm as intended, on rich there is 2600rpm max (engine will shake the Dickens out of you if you don't). Speed on S/L is greater and the manifold pressure decreases nicely as you aproach full throttle height.

Fek Me!

Probably explains the attached. Don't bother speculating.
Back to the cockpit.......

Robo. 07-17-2012 01:22 PM

Yeah mate I was trying to join you on the No.56 test server but there was a password :(


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.