4.11 overheat and engine damage test results

[JG27_PapaFly]

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

I load up 4.11, start the QMB on the Okinawa map, start in the TA 152 H1 at 1000m of height, and fly for exactly one minute (so that the random number generator of 4.11 does not start my engine hot or cold), and then slowly ramp up power from 90% to 110% (all this on auto prop pitch) and put it into a combat dive and then semi-steep climb.

Your test method is severley flawed. The charts I've posted on page 1 of this thread prove that there is no "random number generator" starting your engine hot or cold. Engines have exactly the same temp at mission startup, and that's why the time-to-overheat is so reproducible in my experiment.

My tests unmisakably show that the TA's only problem is the auto rad being a little sluggish. Flown with manually opened radiators, it overheats after the spit25lbs during a full power climb at slow speed (260IAS). In fact, the TA152-H1 can maintain a constant 260kph IAS climb at 95% power above 4000m on the crimea map, without ever overheating. That's very very good IMO.

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

I achieve overheat on a brand new fresh engine in ~15 seconds. And I am no where close to the apex of the climb or stalling.

No wonder, you're on an extremely hot map. That proves nothing.
What were the oil and coolant temps of all tested planes the moment you applied full power?
Given the relation between time-to-overheat and speed, what is the speedprofile for every plane tested?
I'm sorry WD, but your methodology is no good. One track proves nothing, you need to deliver a thorough test if you want to be taken seriously. You're not helping your case at all. All i see are politics, allegations with no proof. Only fools will nod, everyone knowledgeable will shake their heads at your "data".
As I've stated in your other post, you must design an experiment in such way that everyone can reproduce it. We have no idea whatsoever what speeds, flight attitudes, oil and coolant entry temps you had in your one experiment. There are no average values, no error bars, but strong allegations.

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

The combat climb portion of the overheat model, which is so essential to BnZ planes (but not to TnB ones) widens an already noticeable gap in favor of the UFO fliers and is by far inaccurately modeled (and incorrectly applied to two planes that use the same engine).

Look at my data at the bottom of my first post: the spit overheats considerably faster than the TA during a combat climb (260 kph IAS) on the crimea map.

I've clearly shown you how such test are to be done in order to be taken seriously. Feel free to test several planes the way i did at different constant speeds, and we might have a complete profile showing the relation between time-to-overheat and speed for those planes. Yes, that would be a lot of work. It's much easier to throw a flawed "test" into the discussion, flown on a different, much hotter map, to support your case.

[BadAim]

BTW, Thank you for your tests PapaFly. Lots of valuable, verifiable information, with not a shed of ego stroking.

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

Kindly, dear sirs, what 'engineer' (s) made this patch ?

See post #148. That is how a proper testing should be performed.

[Luno13]

Gents, I am the guy who published a well read (and correct article) about the use of PP in IL2. Yes, I know that, thank you, but I just wanted the simplest test possible, and for most situations, the TA does better on auto than manual prop pitch.

And it does not negate my main point,

THE OVERHEAT MODEL IN 4.11 IS MESSED UP, .... BADLY

Then you ought to know that a full-power dive in any plane even with kommandogerat is going to over-rev it and shorten the time to an overheat condition.

It's hardly a "Simple" test because you can't make any reasonable comparisons with a full-power dive and then apex-climb with different aircraft unless you can reproduce the flight path exactly. Otherwise, it's just "feelings" which are useless in a scientific comparison.

So yes, it completely negates your main point.

The overheat model in 4.11 is fine...what's bad are your flying habits and attitude.

[WhistlinggDeath]

Papa - Here is another test (and the last one I will be doing), with the TA 152 H1 on the Crimea map, with rad set full open, auto pitch, from 1000m full dive on WEP, and then semi-steep combat climb. Reached overheat condition by the apex (in one climb):

http://www.mediafire.com/?dzxqgfh1gbducwd

I do not reach overheat in one climb on this map with those conditions with the Spit 25lbs or M185 71. Not even close.

[WhistlinggDeath]

As to the rest of you (or the majority), it reminds me of debating an ardent Democrat or Republican here in the States. You strike them down on one topic or prove how silly it is, and they change topic and attack from a different direction. Your need for an exact reproducible experiment is something I strongly support (I am a university educated engineer in real life, and I cherish the scientific method above almost all else except for good sex or great surf). And I have done so, twice now. And under very easy to reproduce conditions.

Dont wanna listen to me cause you cant see past your personal animosity because I blow up people online without being apologetic about it.

That's cool.

As I said, there are like 150 guys a week flying online at any of the decent servers. The online portion of the game is all but dead. I will fly 4.10.1 on my own rig and use the 185 M-71 when I visit the clownwagon contests that are predominately left today (and using 4.11).

Planes with brand new engines did not in WWII come out of a dive and then overheat on boost in one climb.

Period.

No how. No way.

The interview with Capt Holcomb, will be put up at Mission4Today.com in a few days. If interested, make your way there and enjoy. His comments about so many things that deal nothing with P51 engine performance are entertaining in their own right.

End of this thread for me. Good luck Team D, however you decide to guide future patches. S! Gents.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

As I said, there are like 150 guys a week flying online at any of the decent servers. The online portion of the game is all but dead.

Online game is not dead at all, its just most people who do fly, don't fly on airquake servers that you seem to think is all il2 is.

Most will instead like myself fly with there squad and do historical stuff instead.

I can't think of anything more dull than going on a airquake sever, and yes just cause its locked pit and no icons etc, its still airquake, if your just racing around in la7's fw 190d9's spit25lbs etc.... Yawn.....

Currently i'm flying in a internal online squad event set in N.Africa 1940 flying Gladiators and bleinhems vs the other half flying cr42's and sm79's. Guess you've never even been in any of those planes since there not late war uber planes, oh expert.

Originally Posted by t}{or

see post #148. That is how a proper testing should be performed.

+10000

[jameson]

Wonder what the good Captain said when WD told him he nosed over his p51 into a dive at full throttle plus WEP? The sound of silence or laughter must have been something to behold. Some of our experten are gonna have to learn to fly, at last.

[Redroach]

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

Planes with brand new engines did not in WWII come out of a dive and then overheat on boost in one climb.

Period.

No how. No way.

If you really are an 'university-educated engineer', then you should know that you have to back up each and every claim with hard facts. Also, academics strive to stay as objective as possible. Bending reality in order to stay superior in one's own favourite mount doesn't fit the picture in a way.
Looking forward to that interview, too

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

Dont wanna listen to me cause you cant see past your personal animosity because I blow people online without being apologetic about it.

Hey that's entirely a personal thing, dude. Your love life is none of our business.