Any thoughts on new neg G cutout post beta patch?

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

The engine was clearly too sensitive before, there are no reports of aircraft suffering the fuel starvation simply because of turbulence, in fact there are quite a few accounts of Allied pilots flying in stormy conditions without any mention of this. (see BoB Tuck's bio, Sandy Johnstone's bio, etc. etc.)

Second, those who want the Merlin to actually die, stop and have to be restarted, have the wrong expectation. These engines would temporarily suffer a loss of power, but I have NEVER read in any bio or account a RAF pilot say his engine actually died because of negative G. The fact you could kill the engine in the originally modelled FM, is a clear indication it was overdone.

Third, there is a time/intensity factor. Negative G cutout happens when you:

a) induce a lot of neg G abruptly

or

b) maintain smaller amounts of neg G for a longer period of time

Cutout shouldn't happen when small amounts of neg G are introduced momentarily. An engine will fire through this type of occurence simply because of the existing inertial effects, as well as the overflow space within the float bowl.

It seems to me Merlin engined aircraft have a clear disadvantage with the currently modelled effect, cutout is clearly modelled, there is no reason to make further changes.

[unknwn]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Third, there is a time/intensity factor. Negative G cutout happens when you:

b) maintain smaller amounts of neg G for a longer period of time


Cutout shouldn't happen when small amounts of neg G are introduced momentarily. An engine will fire through this type of occurence simply because of the existing inertial effects, as well as the overflow space within the float bowl.

It seems to me Merlin engined aircraft have a clear disadvantage with the currently modelled effect, cutout is clearly modelled, there is no reason to make further changes.

It was mentioned before that engine misfires could occur at G reduction (0,25-0,5G - values which we had before) lasting a longer period of time ( 2 seconds) but not instantly like it used to. And currently we don't have this in game. And if this information is true i don't see why there is no reason to make further changes.

I think we should have something in between the prepatch and postpatch behaviour. Before it was over sensitive. Now it is like old IL2 which was far too easy and unrealistically insensitive to low g.