Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik > Daidalos Team discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 01-15-2012, 06:35 AM
JtD JtD is offline
Il-2 enthusiast & Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 903
Default

I wish you guys would focus on something else but take off, it is a bit longer than it should be and it was said it is going to be changed a.s.a.p. So if that is your only worry, you don't need to worry any more at all.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 01-15-2012, 07:03 AM
h0MbrE h0MbrE is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JtD View Post
I wish you guys would focus on something else but take off, it is a bit longer than it should be and it was said it is going to be changed a.s.a.p. So if that is your only worry, you don't need to worry any more at all.
How about an answer to this one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JtD
"It says 409 mph top and this is what you get in game."


How is this achieved? Altitude, throttle, pitch, fuel, armament, difficulty switches (overheating on/off)? I have never been able to get this out of a Corsair in this sim in level flight with full real settings or otherwise. Please give me a scenario and I will try to duplicate it.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 01-15-2012, 07:42 AM
sawyer692 sawyer692 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JtD View Post
I wish you guys would focus on something else but take off, it is a bit longer than it should be and it was said it is going to be changed a.s.a.p. So if that is your only worry, you don't need to worry any more at all.
Excellent news! That will make a lot of carrier jocks happy!
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 01-15-2012, 08:01 AM
h0MbrE h0MbrE is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sawyer692 View Post
Excellent news! That will make a lot of carrier jocks happy!
That's a start but the issue of the decreased speed of the aircraft still needs to be and addressed.

Last edited by h0MbrE; 01-15-2012 at 08:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 01-15-2012, 08:43 AM
MadBlaster MadBlaster is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanK View Post
Hombre be more specific at what altitude ?

Try everything at Sea level Crimea. See what numbers you get then compare them to a specific chart from your reference.

Also read the title of that report .. it refers to a test for max performance at War Emergency Power of a "Cleaned up version"



When I test in 4.11 Again Crimea Midday, WEP, RAD 2, 100% Fuel at 19,000ft (FTH Supercharger 3) I get the following:
240KIAS,280MPH IAS, 633KMH TAS (that works out at 393MPH TAS or 342Knots TAS)

The Max speed achieved in the Cleaned up test aircraft was as the report shows 429MPH TAS (averaged of the 2 runs). Its also worth pointing out they flew the test at 23,000ft, rather than the 19,000ft I flew the test.
Besides the altitude difference accounting for your slower in game speed, weather/temperature differences? Looks like the real life test was done during winter time. Not sure what the Crimea Midday temp is modeled to. But it's not a winter map, or is it?
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 01-15-2012, 08:59 AM
h0MbrE h0MbrE is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 22
Default

The season they did the tests in is irrelevant. It was probably done in Hawaii or somewhere in the southern part of the US where there is no winter. Besides... as I pointed out in an earlier post, this test was done early in 1943 on the earlier 1942 F4U-1s. After which the improvements were made and the C and D models were produced. Once again, refer to THIS document for the relevant test results on the 1944, 1945 C and D models we use in the sim:


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1d-acp.pdf


We need to stick to the facts here and not be assuming things that might or might not be a factor. These tests were conducted at different altitudes and weapon/fuel loadouts, but the planes were ALL loaded as the official documents clearly point out.

Edit: Also if you notice at the bottom of that doc you will see "Water available for approximately 8.5 minutes at combat power". Wasn't the water cooling removed with 4.11 which causes it to overheat more quickly?

Last edited by h0MbrE; 01-15-2012 at 09:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 01-15-2012, 09:02 AM
JtD JtD is offline
Il-2 enthusiast & Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h0MbrE View Post
How is this achieved? Altitude, throttle, pitch, fuel, armament, difficulty switches (overheating on/off)? I have never been able to get this out of a Corsair in this sim in level flight with full real settings or otherwise. Please give me a scenario and I will try to duplicate it.
I achieved 660 km/h full switch minus
- unlimited fuel in order to keep conditions constant
- cockpit off so I could see the speed
- no wind and turbulence as this adds a random element
in a F4U-1D, standard loadout, 100% fuel at 20000ft on the Crimea map, noon, all out, rads closed, 3rd gear charger.

I could maintain that for a while before the engine gave in. 660 km/h is 410 mph.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 01-15-2012, 09:14 AM
MadBlaster MadBlaster is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h0MbrE View Post
The season they did the tests in is irrelevant. It was probably done in Hawaii or somewhere in the southern part of the US where there is no winter. Besides... as I pointed out in an earlier post, this test was done early in 1943 on the earlier 1942 F4U-1s. After which the improvements were made and the C and D models were produced. Once again, refer to THIS document for the relevant test results on the 1944, 1945 C and D models we use in the sim:


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1d-acp.pdf


We need to stick to the facts here and not be assuming things that might or might not be a factor. These tests were conducted at different altitudes and weapon/fuel loadouts, but the planes were ALL loaded as the official documents clearly point out.

Actually, the rl report that you provided says it was -30/-32 degrees C for the runs. It does matter because temperature is modeled in the game on each map. That's why there are summer and winter versions, desert...etc. The airspeed are slower on the warm maps and faster on the cold ones. It has to do with density of the air. So if Ivank is test flying on a warm map he is going to get a slower non-comparable result. And if he is flying at a lower elevation than the real life (as he pointed out), he is going to get a slower result. Assuming everything was modeled in the ballpark. I would trust Ivank based on past experience.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 01-15-2012, 09:21 AM
h0MbrE h0MbrE is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JtD View Post
I achieved 660 km/h full switch minus
- unlimited fuel in order to keep conditions constant
- cockpit off so I could see the speed
- no wind and turbulence as this adds a random element
in a F4U-1D, standard loadout, 100% fuel at 20000ft on the Crimea map, noon, all out, rads closed, 3rd gear charger.

I could maintain that for a while before the engine gave in. 660 km/h is 410 mph.
I'll give that a try. One thing I'm wondering is what you mean by "the engine gave in". How long did this take? The corsair was able to travel fairly decent distances at this speed without a problem. This is taken from Wikipedia:

"On 1 October, the XF4U-1 became the first single-engine U.S. fighter to fly faster than 400 mph (640 km/h) by setting an average ground speed of 405 miles per hour (652 km/h) during a flight from Stratford to Hartford."

That's over 50 miles from wheels up to wheels down. That is a pretty sustained distance and I'm sure they weren't blowing their engine to do it.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 01-15-2012, 09:34 AM
h0MbrE h0MbrE is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 22
Default

Okay, I stand corrected on the atmospheric temperature but it also says the top speed was 431mph... should we dwell on that now as well? Besides you already dismissed the data in question when you made the little red arrows pointing to the fact that the aircraft used in that test was "the cleaned up version". And as I have pointed out twice since then:

This test was done early in 1943 on the earlier 1942 F4U-1s. After which the improvements were made and the C and D models were produced. Once again, refer to THIS document for the relevant test results on the 1944, 1945 C and D models we use in the sim.


What I want to know is why are you trying to nit-pick at every little thing you can find simply to dismiss the facts when YOU KNOW the F4U in the game have nowhere near the capability they should. The real world data is in front of you, please just fix the mistake.

Last edited by h0MbrE; 01-15-2012 at 10:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.