[JG27_PapaFly]

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

I load up 4.11, start the QMB on the Okinawa map, start in the TA 152 H1 at 1000m of height, and fly for exactly one minute (so that the random number generator of 4.11 does not start my engine hot or cold), and then slowly ramp up power from 90% to 110% (all this on auto prop pitch) and put it into a combat dive and then semi-steep climb.

Your test method is severley flawed. The charts I've posted on page 1 of this thread prove that there is no "random number generator" starting your engine hot or cold. Engines have exactly the same temp at mission startup, and that's why the time-to-overheat is so reproducible in my experiment.

My tests unmisakably show that the TA's only problem is the auto rad being a little sluggish. Flown with manually opened radiators, it overheats after the spit25lbs during a full power climb at slow speed (260IAS). In fact, the TA152-H1 can maintain a constant 260kph IAS climb at 95% power above 4000m on the crimea map, without ever overheating. That's very very good IMO.

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

I achieve overheat on a brand new fresh engine in ~15 seconds. And I am no where close to the apex of the climb or stalling.

No wonder, you're on an extremely hot map. That proves nothing.
What were the oil and coolant temps of all tested planes the moment you applied full power?
Given the relation between time-to-overheat and speed, what is the speedprofile for every plane tested?
I'm sorry WD, but your methodology is no good. One track proves nothing, you need to deliver a thorough test if you want to be taken seriously. You're not helping your case at all. All i see are politics, allegations with no proof. Only fools will nod, everyone knowledgeable will shake their heads at your "data".
As I've stated in your other post, you must design an experiment in such way that everyone can reproduce it. We have no idea whatsoever what speeds, flight attitudes, oil and coolant entry temps you had in your one experiment. There are no average values, no error bars, but strong allegations.

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

The combat climb portion of the overheat model, which is so essential to BnZ planes (but not to TnB ones) widens an already noticeable gap in favor of the UFO fliers and is by far inaccurately modeled (and incorrectly applied to two planes that use the same engine).

Look at my data at the bottom of my first post: the spit overheats considerably faster than the TA during a combat climb (260 kph IAS) on the crimea map.

I've clearly shown you how such test are to be done in order to be taken seriously. Feel free to test several planes the way i did at different constant speeds, and we might have a complete profile showing the relation between time-to-overheat and speed for those planes. Yes, that would be a lot of work. It's much easier to throw a flawed "test" into the discussion, flown on a different, much hotter map, to support your case.