Patch 4.11 is a gift to open pit UFO fliers

[WhistlinggDeath]

Interesting info Papa, but I respectfully disagree. The TA in particular has been toasted and the FWs and Mustangs to a slightly lesser degree. And yes, any team (even relatively untrained members) can use five FWs to bring down one Spit 25lbs. I could use five Japanese float planes to do the same thing too. That is pretty much meaningless. And that is not a true test of metal. What counts is one versus one, same alt, ... no firing on first pass, then the fight is on. Try it and you will clearly see the deterioration of the engine in most BnZ centered planes with 4.11.

I think tomorrow, I am going to release a flight model for the TA 152 H1 in 4.11 that sets specs for it back to the 4.10.1 flight model. I will call this new model TA 4.10.1, but it will be made only for fully patched 4.11 versions of IL2. Then Ulti and I will demonstrate quite clearly for all who enjoy ntrks, just how badly it has been borked in 4.11. Whichever one of us flies the 4.10.1 model will beat the living s%%! out of the other one, and do so easily.

Once we test it and make some laughable NTRKs, we will release it to some select testers.

Another point many of you are not catching is that I (or we, my few buds) are not against overheating models or more realistic engine handling.

WE $%^&$%! LOVE THAT STUFF !

Heck, I wrote a guide about prop pitch at M4T to help out guys who got confused. We welcome more realistic engine flight models. We just dont think it is applied fairly as it stands in 4.11. The BnZ planes took it in the butt, and the TA got double teamed into the toilet, while the Spit 25lbs and 185 are very lightly affected. Also, from what I can read so far (and I have more to learn), the 4.11 TA or FW models arent holding up to the general consensus on real world planes. In real life, I keep seeing a figure of ten minutes for boost with the TA. It was designed to be a diving killer, .. not an overheating Ki-61 turd that exits out of the fight after pass one.

So Papa, do what I did. Take the TA 152 H1, get her up to 1000m in level flight at 530 kph and dont pressure the engine (take a bit to get up to full speed). Then take a small dive to translate a little KE and put on boost and power up to 110% and climb steeply (as if escaping a chasing spit 25lbs). By the time you reach your apex (after about 1870m of climb) and are close to complete stall, your engine will be in serious overheat.

In one pass.

Now try this in ole 4.10.1 and notice the extreme difference. The delta is large in 4.11 for the TA. Very large.

Now try this for say the Spit 25lbs. The difference between 4.11 and 4.10.1 is fairly small. A bit of overheat but nothing really kicks in for quite a bit.

Ponder on it a bit.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

What counts is one versus one, same alt, ... no firing on first pass, then the fight is on. Try it and you will clearly see the deterioration of the engine in most BnZ centered planes with 4.11.

How exactly do you perform this BnZ with BnZ centered plane in a co-alt co-E situation as described (e.g. classic duel)?

Doing usual BnZ a lot, I didn't find anything unusual in 4.11.

[Luno13]

German planes may have had 10 minutes if WM50, but that doesn't mean it HAD to be able to be used continuously throughout that time.

Your average Mustang has ~25 seconds worth of ammo, but if you held the trigger for that long, the guns would be ruined. If gun overheating were modeled, would you complain about that too?

Flying as a team seems like a pro's suggestion. But please find me a decent populated stock 4.11m non-arcade server where teamwork can come into play.

What's more, we are talking about purely aircraft performance here. Please keep tactics and teamwork aside.

I think a certain someone here claimed that actual pilot references would prove his point about certain aircraft.... Actual pilots used tactics and teamwork, which go beyond pure performance. Furthermore, the proportion of trained to untrained pilots in the Luftwaffe lessened with the progression of the war, while allied pilots could train in safety. Many rookies didn't know how to get the best out of their planes, and that shows in reports.

And how many pilots got the chance to sit in a P-51 and then a factory fresh (not sabotaged by groundcrew to prevent capture, with all pilot manuals to prevent breaking the engine in a silly way) Fw-190 to compare? There is more subjectivity to those old accounts than many realize.

Come on, TD. Do you really think an aircraft produced in 1939 (I-153P-M62) is able to give a late-war German piston fighter (Bf-109K-4 C3) a hard time in dogfight?

Hey cheer up! We've all been there, you just need some practice.

So Papa, do what I did. Take the TA 152 H1, get her up to 1000m in level flight at 530 kph and dont pressure the engine (take a bit to get up to full speed). Then take a small dive to translate a little KE and put on boost and power up to 110% and climb steeply (as if escaping a chasing spit 25lbs). By the time you reach your apex (after about 1870m of climb) and are close to complete stall, your engine will be in serious overheat.

You must remember that the Ta-152 was designed and tuned for high altitude work. Down low, that big wing is just slowing it down.

P51, the monster of WWII that soared at 12000m escorting bombers and dove on opponents at 900 kph, can be caught in level flight by spit 25lbs and several other uber planes (P51 goes about 550/560 on 110% with boost, and Spit can now catch it, as can the well known 185 M-71 (two of these were made in WWII) at 580 kph).

Are you just trolling on purpose? 900kph is 560 mph. No piston powered war-plane could reach that in level flight. In totally level flight, the P-51 can reach a higher max speed than the spitfire in just about any regime of flight except at and below 1000m. According to Il-2 compare, the Mustang's TAS can reach 710 kph at 7000m. The spit's theoretical max TAS is 640 kph, at 5000m. At 7000m with the mustang, it starts decreasing, to 630 kph, and drops considerably above that.

Remember that the Mustang has practically the same engine as the Spitfire, but is 1.5 times as heavy. The difference in performance comes about through aerodynamics. That said, it takes a longer time for the Mustang to reach its top speed than the Spit.

Your "tests" prove nothing.

[jermin]

LOL. Seriously, you really thought I need practice? Trust me, I can easily shoot your ass off in a duel. I really don't know why some of you like to treat complainers as noobs, every time.

As for the MW50 usage, I suggest you do some reading before putting up something like that.

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by jermin

LOL. Seriously, you really thought I need practice? Trust me, I can easily shoot your ass off in a duel. I really don't know why some of you like to treat complainers as noobs, every time.

As for the MW50 usage, I suggest you do some reading before putting up something like that.

Maybe that is because you are one?

MW50 was not meant to allow you to stay longer in a fight, it was meant to allow you to get your ass back home in one piece. It should allow the pilots to get out of a nasty spot in the fastest way, helping to cool/prevent further heating of the engine in level flight or shallow dives/climbes at max rated power.

You really are not able to present yourself in any way as a respectable contributor to the present argument.

[jermin]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Maybe that is because you are one?

MW50 was not meant to allow you to stay longer in a fight, it was meant to allow you to get your ass back home in one piece. It should allow the pilots to get out of a nasty spot in the fastest way, helping to cool/prevent further heating of the engine in level flight or shallow dives/climbes at max rated power.

You really are not able to present yourself in any way as a respectable contributor to the present argument.

What creative thoughts! You thought those German aces earned that multitude of kills by running home to mama?

No offense. But now I begin to doubt your sanity.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by jermin

What creative thoughts! You thought those German aces earned that multitude of kills by running home to mama?

No offense. But now I begin to doubt your sanity.

It's not like they singlehandedly attacked a whole fighter wing and shot down most them*.
It was either hit and run, one to one, or the the foxhunt tactics.

* that did happen, but then it was one German state of the art fighter vs many soviet pos planes.

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by jermin

What creative thoughts! You thought those German aces earned that multitude of kills by running home to mama?

No offense. But now I begin to doubt your sanity.

No, you are of course quite right, they stayed in their fights against multiple opponents until their engines blew up in their faces and out of respect the enemies darted their planes in the ground as a farewell to them while they were gliding back to base.

God, you are so stupid words fail me...

[Luno13]

Well, in Il-2 WM 50 works a little differently and is only associated with higher boost settings. Don't expect to be able to run 10 minutes of high boost just because WM 50 is engaged with absolutely zero consequences, especially if you're slow and turning

If you do some reading as well you will find that the max continuous operation time could vary, and be as little as 5 minutes. There was a required "cold-down" period before it could be engaged again. Engines that went to full boost for any practical length of time developed cracks and fouled spark plugs and had to be overhauled. Engines that went to full boost without the WM 50 would have seized within a few minutes.

Anyway, I did a quick run in a Bf-109, and it was a full two minutes before the "Overheat!" message appeared (it is a bit conservative, BTW). A little over 15 minutes later, the fuel ran out (I spawned in the air with 50%). There was no loss of RPM or manifold pressure throughout the time that WM50 was engaged.

So what exactly is the problem again?

[jermin]

Originally Posted by Luno13

Well, in Il-2 WM 50 works a little differently and is only associated with higher boost settings. Don't expect to be able to run 10 minutes of high boost just because WM 50 is engaged with absolutely zero consequences, especially if you're slow and turning

If you do some reading as well you will find that the max continuous operation time could vary, and be as little as 5 minutes. There was a required "cold-down" period before it could be engaged again. Engines that went to full boost for any practical length of time developed cracks and fouled spark plugs and had to be overhauled. Engines that went to full boost without the WM 50 would have seized within a few minutes.

Anyway, I did a quick run in a Bf-109, and it was a full two minutes before the "Overheat!" message appeared (it is a bit conservative, BTW). A little over 15 minutes later, the fuel ran out (I spawned in the air with 50%). There was no loss of RPM or manifold pressure throughout the time that WM50 was engaged.

So what exactly is the problem again?

Who said I expected to run MW50 at 110% for ten minutes every time? But if you have ever lasted for 10 mins before the engine dying out in game, please upload the ntrk.

If 10 mins was historically a rare number that is extremely hard to achieve. Why would they include it into the manual? They must have already left some margin here. 10 mins should have been a quite common number during aircraft service that is not so difficult to achieve.

And we would like to see your ntrk for the test fly you described.