![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
The torque effects will be VERY different. If the current flight model is geared for this figure at 3000rpm then it's wrong - the best cruise settings for the Mk V (I don't have the data for the IX) were: - 230mph IAS, +2.75lb, 1800rpm @ 2000ft = 35 gallons per hour - 200mph IAS, -1.5lb, 1800rpm @ 10,000ft = 29 gallons per hour - 250mph IAS, +3.75lb, 2000rpm @ 10,000ft = 42 gallons per hour - 200mph IAS, -1.75lb, 2200rpm @ 20,000ft = 36 gallons per hour - 230mph IAS, +1.5lb, 2400rpm @ 20,000ft = 46 gallons per hour - 180mph IAS, -3.25lb, 2850rpm @ 30,000ft = 41 gallons per hour It seems that a minimum of 200mph was recommended, with 230-250 preffered. This represents cruise over friendly/neutral territory; there's no way any self respecting Spitfire pilot wandered around over enemy ground at 170mph - combat cruise should be faster still than even these airspeeds I have given, and at higher revs and boost. I'll see what figures I can find for that, if any. My point still stands which is - as you can see - even at these higher speeds we're not at full rpm so torque effects are reduced again, therefore, less need to correct for it in the airframe. I suspect that TD have gotten their spits set up incorrectly on 2 counts: 1) a/c inherently trimmed at far too low a cruise speed 2) compounded by these being attained at much lower rpm in reality - therefore TD are correcting for too much torque at that airspeed. Cheers. Last edited by Fenrir; 01-20-2011 at 10:26 PM. |
|
|