4.11 overheat and engine damage test results

[WhistlinggDeath]

Actually, I agree with your post two above Jumo.

(as a side note though, earlier, about 5 pages back, you said, "You don't seem to understand that IL2 4.11 is a different flight sim than IL2 4.10.1". I understand it alright, I just dont agree with the 4.11 interpretation of the data. Just like one guy looks at Macchu Picchu and sees ancient aliens helping man, I just see man being ingenious. 4.11 needs further tweaking. And I dont make my own aircraft. I simply take the FM from 4.10.1 and put it in 4.11 and then adjust the speed/drag specifics and overheat parameters to function as it did in 4.10.1. The TA still overheats, it just does not do so in one combat climb now.)

Believe me, if I had the free time, I would love to 'make' my own planes. Starting with a correctly done F4U-D and the missing F4U-4.


Trust me when I say, if there is one guy flying online who is hoping for more advanced CEM, it is WD (with the caveat it is applied in an accurate model, or as best can be hoped for).

Yes, Shaun, I am that sadistic. Full real... should mean, just that. No aids, ... nada. You and your instruments.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Better game:

http://www.hackedfreegames.com/game/1701/cowboy-duel

(And its already hacked! Yay!)

[Redroach]

@WD:
a) zero, in any direction
b) a = x''; Newton 2; mass is mostly assumed constant.

I don't even know why I'm bothering with this... I think the thread is deteriorating rapidly now (actually, it has been since after Post # 1)

[T}{OR]

Posting equations to prove your point? I guess you see something new every day.

These personal assaults you mention stared from you, no one else WD. Had you started your discussion as an academic you claim to be - people would definitely listen. This way you and only you are responsible for this thread deviating from the original subject / problem and people insulting you back.

Right now when someone looks at your posts sees a 5 year old kid looking for attention. Calling out for "duels" and honor"?! Saying that you a better pilot than any of us here? Why is this even important to the discussion? How can a sane person not question your credibility? Please tell me...

(quite hilarious I am afraid)

[DD_crash]

I was going to put WD on my ignore list but he is very entertaining (in a silly sort of way.)

[Jumoschwanz]

This page from the FW190A5 flight manual gives interesting facts about the recommended use of the aircraft's engine under all conditions.

Emergency power, 1.42 ata manifold pressure, is recommended for 3 minutes. In the P-51d this is the same as using 67" manifold pressure.

Steig- und Kampfleistung, Climb and Combat power is the 1.32 ata manifold pressure has an endurance of 30 minutes. In the P-51 Combat power is 61" manifold pressure.

This shows again how in patches prior to 4.11 how even with CEM engaged, the way we used the engines power on duel and fast dogfight servers was not historical or realistic at all.

According to the FW190 flight manual and data from other WWII aircraft, a flight sim like IL2 might let you:

Use emergency power in a FW190 for 3 minutes, or until the engine is actually overheated, if you continue to use it without reducing throttle you are going to damage it.

Use Climb and Combat power for 30 minutes before the engine has to be throttled back.

If you use Emergency power for as long as the engine can stand it, then until the engine cools down, you probably will not even be able to use regular Combat and Climb power for several minutes until your engine cools enough, leaving you vulnerable to those around you who fought only with Combat power and kept their engines cool!

So that is your gamble. If you fly as if you were in pre 4.11 patches of IL2 using full emergency power in your FW or P-51, then you had better be able to defeat your enemy and get to safety in the time span of a few minutes, because you could be left largely without engine power for a period of time!

If on the other hand you cultivate tactics and techniques that allow you to run actual Combat power then you will be able to fight and stay in combat for a very long time, maybe until you have to leave because either the job is done or you are out of fuel....

4.11 has handed IL2 pilots more realism. Those IL2 pilots who can't hack it or adapt and either stick with older patches or manufacture MODS and hacks to switch 4.11 aircraft back to 4.10 style CEM and power, are labeling themselves as gamers, and not WWII flight simmers.

It is interesting that finally the IL2 sim gets a non-crippled 1.42 190-a4 right at the same time the extra power becomes unavailable for use except for a more limited amount of time. Oh well...

S!



Lastly, in many theaters and periods of WWII aircraft parts and supplies were very scarce for one reason or another. Engines and parts were used past their recommended service lives, or with the threat of no future supplies squadrons used strategies that would let them get the most use and inflict the most damage before their equipment was used up. It is easy to find WWII pilot accounts where they are flying fighter aircraft that are past their prime and/or patched together with parts cannibalized from damaged aircraft etc..

So not only might a WWII fighter pilot be even more apt to try to preserve his engine with the threat of short supplies, he may not even have been ABLE to use it's full performance as it was built because of lack of parts, poor fuel or an amount of hours on the engine and airframe that meant it could break even below combat power and stresses.

P.S. In this video I attack ace p-38 lates with a 44' Dora and I never use the "erhohte notleistung" or "increases emergency power". Instead of creating an E advantage with the engine and WEP as most of us have always done in the past, I make sure I start out with a 2000 meter altitude advantage and do not abuse the engine for combat. I have limited and old equipment to fly with, and in the heat of battle I have two settings available for prop pitch, so I set them to the two most useful settings I want to try. Here I try auto and 0% prop pitch. Other settings may have worked, and switching from auto may not even be necessary at all when WEP is not used, we will all just have to test our favorite aircraft and find out what we like and what will let us do what we need to do....

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=.../6/LiUWt3jR47A

[WhistlinggDeath]

Originally Posted by T}{OR

Posting equations to prove your point? I guess you see something new every day.

These personal assaults you mention stared from you, no one else WD. Had you started your discussion as an academic you claim to be - people would definitely listen. This way you and only you are responsible for this thread deviating from the original subject / problem and people insulting you back.

Right now when someone looks at your posts sees a 5 year old kid looking for attention. Calling out for "duels" and honor"?! Saying that you a better pilot than any of us here? Why is this even important to the discussion? How can a sane person not question your credibility? Please tell me...

(quite hilarious I am afraid)

Not a cool way to start the new day. Since it is early here WCT, I will overlook the remarks. You got data Thor (like Papa or Jumo are trying to present), post it. If not, kindly keep it to yourself.

Red - Answer A is right. B is incorrect for all three. F=ma is an ODE (ordinary differential equation). a=x'' simply indicates that acceleration is the second derivative of position, and is not the type of equation F=ma represents. It has order two (not Newton 2), and is a second order ODE with linear outcome. Its simple solution (assume non-harmonic) is the integration of the force/mass with relation to position X plus a constant. The chain rule is used. Mass is not 'mostly' assumed. It remains constant unless you indicate a variable mass problem (which we didnt).

[WhistlinggDeath]

Jumo and Papa - Quite busy since I have to host a visiting PI around La Jolla today. Beyond the limited scope at hand, I will kindly ask you this; Whose interpretation is the 'right one' ?

Whenever I pop into these type of forums, I am always greeted by the aviation book nuts. And they will pull up all types of esoteric diagrams and plots trying to argue that their view is the only and 'right' view, about how fast an airframe could fly, or how long, its boost could last, etc... Unlike engineering though (my profession), where the scientific method holds sway, there is no exact repeatable test (in 99.9999% of cases) since we dont have the unrestored warbird to give us the exact answer. In engineering we dont base our answers on what some shear test gave in 1944 gave for a certain sheet of metal, or hold that to be the one true answer. More deeply though, how certain are you that you have the definitive source when German aviation manual A says X and German aviation manual B says Y.

I am no aviation historian but I am always struck by the various accounts which often mutually disagree. One of the most interesting things (at least to me) in speaking with Capt. Holcomb on the phone, was when he indicated that the manuals they were required to know, should sometimes be disregarded, and that is something he learned later only as he got to his operational squadron. Further, I am not qualified to judge (to be honest, as I mentioned before, no developer for IL2 was a real WWII warbird pilot) who has the definitive 'right' flight model for a specific airframe. After looking at your (Papa's and Jumo's) data, I see strong points of overall historical accuracy, but also small differences. And this for me, is the wiggle room we appear to disagree over. While in broad strokes, I support new overheat models for IL2 (anything which adds realism to all the UFO planes, which for the past years I have had to duel is welcome), I do feel it is difficult to apply one or two simple algorithms to dozens of flyable airframes, and I still cannot find any evidence that planes on boost went into overheat in one combat climb.

So, to you Papa and Jumo, can you find direct evidence supporting the reduced flight model of the TA 152 H1 in 4.11 ?

When I do the quick flights on the Crimea map with auto pitch, I get:

Ta 152 H1 in 4.10.1

Top speed at sea level on full WEP at 110% = 570 kph

Ta 152 H1 in 4.11

Top speed " " " = 530 (and you cannot maintain that for long due to the overheat model)

You have resources (or know of) a great many aviation manuals (or so it would seem). Does the historical documentation support 4.11 or 4.10.1 ?

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

When I do the quick flights on the Crimea map with auto pitch, I get:

Ta 152 H1 in 4.10.1

Top speed at sea level on full WEP at 110% = 570 kph

Ta 152 H1 in 4.11

Top speed " " " = 530 (and you cannot maintain that for long due to the overheat model)

You have resources (or know of) a great many aviation manuals (or so it would seem). Does the historical documentation support 4.11 or 4.10.1 ?

Now this is a base for discussion. You might want to add a couple of tracks while you are at it.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz

I did not have the manual for any aircraft with the Jumo engine like the Ta152.

The rpm limits of the Ta 152H-1 are 3250 rpm at WEP. In dives, it had to be throttled back and the short term limit of 3300 rpm was not to be exceeded.