have you found that link yet? :)

I have no problem if cutout is now modelled correctly since the planes are easier to fly and I like them. I am not qualified to comment.

However, the change log did state that the devs thought they had it right in the first place. I think this is where the dumbing down comments stem from. I.e. they changed the model from what they thought was correct to something else. Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with luthier's English, assuming he wrote it!

After further testing, I must admit that Merlins were more realistic pre-patch. The only thing that's better now is that one can fly straight in turbulent weather without losing engine power - that was nonsense.

A dead engine should windmill if the prop is not feathered, simply because you're driving an airfoil through the air at an angle of attack. It's like blowing on a pinwheel, except you're blowing at 200-300mph. The difference is that instead of the engine providing the energy to turn the prop, you forward airspeed is being sapped to drive the system.

In a piston engine, if the crank is rotating, and the spark plugs functioning, once the fuel/air mixture reaches a combustible ratio, provided nothing else is wrong, the engine will start. This include the entrance conditions of either no fuel at all, or no air at all, though in the no air case, I would be worried about other systems failing before the correct fuel/air ratio is resumed.

That was one of the things that bugged me about the engine modeling in late Il-2: if the engine was shut down, for whatever reason, the prop was glued in place until you tried to restart, and then the restarts were always flaky at best.

Turbines and turboprops are a different kettle of fish, because they've got a howling gale going through them when in the air, which they don't in a ground start.

Salute

The engine was clearly too sensitive before, there are no reports of aircraft suffering the fuel starvation simply because of turbulence, in fact there are quite a few accounts of Allied pilots flying in stormy conditions without any mention of this. (see BoB Tuck's bio, Sandy Johnstone's bio, etc. etc.)

Second, those who want the Merlin to actually die, stop and have to be restarted, have the wrong expectation. These engines would temporarily suffer a loss of power, but I have NEVER read in any bio or account a RAF pilot say his engine actually died because of negative G. The fact you could kill the engine in the originally modelled FM, is a clear indication it was overdone.

Third, there is a time/intensity factor. Negative G cutout happens when you:

a) induce a lot of neg G abruptly

or

b) maintain smaller amounts of neg G for a longer period of time

Cutout shouldn't happen when small amounts of neg G are introduced momentarily. An engine will fire through this type of occurence simply because of the existing inertial effects, as well as the overflow space within the float bowl.

It seems to me Merlin engined aircraft have a clear disadvantage with the currently modelled effect, cutout is clearly modelled, there is no reason to make further changes.

It was mentioned before that engine misfires could occur at G reduction (0,25-0,5G - values which we had before) lasting a longer period of time ( 2 seconds) but not instantly like it used to. And currently we don't have this in game. And if this information is true i don't see why there is no reason to make further changes.

I think we should have something in between the prepatch and postpatch behaviour. Before it was over sensitive. Now it is like old IL2 which was far too easy and unrealistically insensitive to low g.