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
  #1  
Old 09-22-2012, 08:06 AM
JtD JtD is offline
Il-2 enthusiast & Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 903
Default

With the original overheat, most engines got damaged after 4:45 minutes of overheat message. That has little to do with overheat, and nothing to do with MW50 time limits. The current model also doesn't have a time limit for MW50, you can use it indefinitely unless you're overheating.

The statement in the 109K-4 manual re: MW50 is "under no circumstances use special emergency power for a duration of more than 10 minutes." It does not say "you can use it for 10 minutes no problem".

Anyway, for the fun of it I also went into QMB and made an 8 vs. 8 K-4 vs. Yak-9u, and I ran MW50 + 110% power for the entire fight right until rtb, for more than 15 minutes. I overheated a couple of times, but this would go away even in climbs at 500ish km/h, let alone in dives or in level flight. Radiators in auto, map Smolensk. No engine damage. The historically better suited Berlin map is another 5° cooler, so I wouldn't expect any trouble there at all.

Engines temps in air start are the same as in take off.

I'm curious about your fighting style, jermin. Do you turn a lot with combat flaps deployed or do you zoom climb up until near standstill? I've attached a plot of my dogfight against said Yak-9u's. More of a b'n'z style fight. As you can see, b'n'z puts a lot of stress on the engine, in particular if the climbing part is done to a very low speed. At about 3 minutes, I climbed up to less than 100 km/h - and you can see the temperatures soar at this time. So I avoided these very low speeds and zoomed up to only about 250 from then on. It can also be seen that the constant speed prop is too slow to adjust to the permanent air speed changes, this way I'm over-revving the engine in every dive. It's also apparent that if you fly above full throttle altitude (5-6 km) you'll be in less temperature trouble.

If you fly like this on the Crimea map, you'll be overheating a lot more (pretty much permanently), if you fly like this on the Berlin map, you won't be overheating at all.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 109k4df.JPG (362.6 KB, 20 views)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-22-2012, 12:48 PM
jermin jermin is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 238
Default

I'm afraid both you and IceFire have missed a very important notion in my statement. Emergency power is supposed to be used only when your life is being seriously threatened. The red button on the front panel should be your last resort while you struggle desperately to save your life, at the cost of your engine longevity.

If you are climbing at 500ish km/h or you flat out at 6000 meters during a battle, your life is not threatened at all. So you should not have enabled MW50.

I did use a lot of boom and zoom and E-fighting maneuvers during the dogfight, as they are how 109s are supposed to be flown, although in the current game most every allied fighters can outclimb contemporary 109s.

You might ask, why don't I try running away? Although both historically and by IL2Compare, K4 is able to outrun a lot of contemporary allied fights, in the game it takes MUCH(!) longer time for German fighters to reach max level speed than allied fighters do. Because of this, K4 can hardly outrun any contemporary enemy fighters.

So, sometimes it is a matter of you shooting that bandit down or you get shot down. This is where MW50 is supposed to come into play. It is in this very situation that sacrificing engine to produce additional power can be justified. You can't deny that it makes much more sense to kill an engine in one flight but save your life, than crash yourself into the ground with your million-dollar flying machine.

And, I have to disagree with your interpretation of the statement regarding the usage of MW50 in K4 manual. I'm sure the 10-minute figure had been carefully calculated before coming into the manual. There should be at least 1-2 minutes' headroom for most engines which were used for testing in order to get that 10-minute conclusion. If quite a big portion of the tested engine cannot last beyond 10 minutes, the figure printed in the manual would have been smaller.

Bear in mind that the engine must have the ability to bring the pilot back to base after a total 26-minute period of MW50 injection, 10 minutes max for any continuous sessions and 5 minutes in between. So, if the pilot is determined to damage his engine during a dogfight, the damage should happen at a later time, where 15-20 minutes is a reasonable guess. Now you can see how 5 minutes is ridiculous.

I'd also like to post here my other requests regarding German fighters (109 and 190) include

1. Improve zoom climb ability. (Speed should drops slower in a zoom and increase faster in a boom)
2. Greatly reduce the time needed to reach maximun level speed.
3. Improve acceleration. (German fighters are renown for their powerful engines.
4. Improve energy retainability. In a corner-speed turn, current German fighters lose speed much faster that allied fighters that have significantly low wing loading. Some uber planes like 25lb spit and those Russian fights even gain speed in a corner-speed turn! 109 is a typical E-fighter, but right now its energy retention ability is even worse than contemporary spitfire, a TnB fighter.
5. Give German fighters correct high-altitude performance. Right now 109s and Antons can hardly maintain a level flight above 8000m. While allied fighters (on western front) can easily maneuver around German fighters without losing much energy. Someone would say the high altitude is not able to be correctly modeled in IL2. But since those allied fighters don't have a problem, I can't see why German ones can't be fixed.
__________________
Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than themselves
regarding the argument while they actually don't have a clue who they are arguing with in the first place?


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-22-2012, 03:18 PM
JtD JtD is offline
Il-2 enthusiast & Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 903
Default

I shot down four Yak's while my life wasn't threatened.

I quoted from the K-4 manual. It's not an interpretation.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-22-2012, 03:44 PM
jermin jermin is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 238
Default

If I were you, I would have shot down a few more than that.

I'm writing all these words not to complain the game is too difficult for me. Actually I am much better than you can imagine.

What I want is the most viable WW2 flight sim in the world to be more and more realistic, not the other way around.
__________________
Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than themselves
regarding the argument while they actually don't have a clue who they are arguing with in the first place?


Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-22-2012, 03:51 PM
JtD JtD is offline
Il-2 enthusiast & Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jermin View Post
If I were you, I would have shot down a few more than that.
Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than them regarding what they are arguing about while they actually don't have a clue about who they are arguing with in the first place?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-22-2012, 03:58 PM
jermin jermin is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 238
Default

This is my combat stats in a Russian server called AlexServer. And I flew all sorties alone.

http://spread-wings.ru/21000/index.p...334/index.html

You can see why I was so confident.
__________________
Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than themselves
regarding the argument while they actually don't have a clue who they are arguing with in the first place?


Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-22-2012, 05:12 PM
ElAurens's Avatar
ElAurens ElAurens is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Great Black Swamp of Ohio
Posts: 2,185
Default

Stats generated while playing a game have no relevance to any aircraft's historic performance envelope.

This is a gamer's argument, not an historian's.

We have all heard these types of arguments for one's favorite aircraft for 10 years in this sim.

Simply repeating it over and over does not make it any more true.

109K4 outclimbed by all Allied aircraft? Never flew a P47 in the sim have you?
__________________


Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943.
~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-23-2012, 08:12 AM
jermin jermin is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 238
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElAurens View Post
109K4 outclimbed by all Allied aircraft? Never flew a P47 in the sim have you?
I would ask you the same question. Seriously, when is the last time you flew K4 against a P47 online?
__________________
Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than themselves
regarding the argument while they actually don't have a clue who they are arguing with in the first place?


Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-22-2012, 07:54 PM
X-Raptor X-Raptor is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Italy
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jermin View Post
If I were you, I would have shot down a few more than that.

I'm writing all these words not to complain the game is too difficult for me. Actually I am much better than you can imagine.

What I want is the most viable WW2 flight sim in the world to be more and more realistic, not the other way around.
I agree 100% with you and your opinion jermin about incorrect and uber FM of LA 5 -LA 7 Yak and LAGG Soviet Planes Ingame.
The problem is " only" that there are people who don't want to adjust the FM of this planes. And I add me at your whislist to see the corrrection of those uber FM soviet planes , it will give a new life at this flight sim.
I Hope someone at TD Team will hear us.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-24-2012, 12:45 PM
gaunt1 gaunt1 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: India
Posts: 314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Raptor View Post
I agree 100% with you and your opinion jermin about incorrect and uber FM of LA 5 -LA 7 Yak and LAGG Soviet Planes Ingame.
Well, the FM of all Lavochkins are really nonsense, but Yaks arent that bad, especially those with the VK-105. Yak-9T&K are overmodeled, true, but as far as I know the 1942 model Yak-9 and the Yak-9D have one of the most realistic FMs in the sim.

Quote:
Bear in mind that Russian engines are historically unreliable and easily overheating.
ASh-82 engines were quite reliable in La-5. But yes, some engines, like the VK-107 were terribly unreliable and overheated quickly even @ normal operation due to poor quality seals and bearings, and poorly constructed oil pumps. In addition to that, it was very risky to run them @ WEP, engine seizure could occur at any minute, if not any second. A while ago, I did a little test, I was flying a La-7 against a Yak-9U, I quickly scored a hit on its engine, which started to emit black smoke. The Yak flew more than 5 minutes without any signs of reduced performance (I didnt shot it down to test the endurance of its engine), and it caught fire about a further 5 minutes later.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 02:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.