F4u-4 and F8F

[Laurwin]

thx for the answer icefire.

Well, true enough, good teamwork works well enough with wildcats vs zekes, I hope it would work also with corsair vs george/frank (n1k2 ki84).

Also I'm not ranting, actually as a matter of fact I just had a great evening on skies of valor server, I had personal IL-2 record sofar there. By my own calculations on yesterday's game, I had 16:1 victory/defeat ratio + 3 damaged enemy ac. My aerial defeat came when I went strafing enemy base alone, I got bounced by two p-38s. I had two kills in the bag already though.


On one hand, I understand, that the game would become quite complicated to balance, if we went with completely historically accurate "circumstances"
(lack of spare parts, poor engine quality, poor fuel quality etc...)

On the other hand, aviation fuel quality was quite important technological factor to have in WW2. After all, all engines use fuel, even the best engine is simply an overengineered paperweight, unless supplied with dinosaur-remains, petrol products. Power comes from the chemical energy of the fuel, does it not?

I dunno how accurate this is but here's this web-article, Dr Peter W. Becker, University of South Carolina, for the significance of avgas quality in WW2 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...aug/becker.htm


Essentially, the site says, because of American high quality avgas, Allied airforces were able to field aircraft engines which had better power output. Substantial increases in aircraft speed, range, and ceiling would be made possible with high octane avgas.

These advantages Germany was unable to obtain until 1945 or so, claims the article. I would hazard a guess that the high octane fuel bottleneck prevented Luftwaffe from having properly functioning high altitude fighter aircraft, at an earlier time. Worse German fuel, compared to Allied fuel, would lead to bad compression ratio in German engines, meaning less power output.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Laurwin

These advantages Germany was unable to obtain until 1945 or so, claims the article. I would hazard a guess that the high octane fuel bottleneck prevented Luftwaffe from having properly functioning high altitude fighter aircraft, at an earlier time. Worse German fuel, compared to Allied fuel, would lead to bad compression ratio in German engines, meaning less power output.

The Bf 109 was known to have a higher service ceiling than the Spitfire during the BOB and afterwards.

[Laurwin]

Yes it was perhaps oversimplification on my part, I should not have lumped together 1939 british fuel with high octane American fuel. Probably there was not so much lend-lease during battle of britain.

But as a matter of fact, bf-109 (and also fockewulf) have worse power, speed, climb and ceiling. When compared to more modern Allied fighters in 1943-45 (I consider ta152 as separate design)

matchups against spit mark9, mustangs, thunderbolts...(im unsure if corsair is better up high, vs german)

Reason for this good allied performance, compared to poorer german performanc at high altitude, lies partly in the fuel quality difference (which affects compression rate in engine)

[horseback]

I've been flying Corsairs and Hellcats a lot lately, and I should make a few points about the FMs.

First, while the performance is there with full engine power (110% throttle), it often seems a bit sluggish if not downright weak at less than full power. It sometimes seems an all or nothing proposition with these two. I've found that changing supercharger stages appropriately (stage 1 from sea level to around 4500 ft/1500m, stage 2 from 4500 to 17500 ft, and stage 3 above 17500 ft) helps, keeping your cowl gills (radiator flaps) at 30%, and your prop pitch between 90 and 80% when you want to speed up without overheating are big helps. When you're cruising, drop your rpms to about 2250 and your manifold pressure to about 30-35 inches with your radiator at 30% at any altitude (and the higher you get, the better against the Japanese fighters).

Second, keep the fight in the vertical; dive at 2400 or so rpm (80% prop pitch), with your supercharger at least one stage down and unless you only have a couple of thousand feet to go, don't put your throttles past 90%; you'll pick up speed quickly and you'll need to mash in a lot of left rudder and nose down trim as you gain speed, especially with the Hellcat. Trim is critical with both of these aircraft; being out of trim sucks away a lot of your speed and power, and speed and power are your primary advantages in these aircraft. Make sure you either have a very handy pair of trim axes for rudder and elevator, or easily reached buttons for left & right rudder and up and down elevator trims (I use the POV hat switch on my stick for trim, since I have a TrackIR).

Third, they both give you a lot better forward vision than the Army fighters, and the gunsight is great for estimating angles and distances in a diving attack. Shoot when you have a shot--don't try to follow your target through more than 70 degrees of turn or into a loop; just blow on past, change directions and gradually pull up into a zoom climb. Increase your prop pitch and throttle as you climb, but drop back down to lower pitch and throttle once you've gotten three or four thousand feet above the enemy to keep your engine temps manageable. Most of the time, you won't need to exceed 100% throttle; the real aircraft only went to war emergency if their lives were on the line (and they still got yelled at by the squadron Engineering Officer and or their crew chief when they got back).

Look around to make sure that you're clear and nobody is on your tail and then set up for your next attack. Use the Lean Forward POV to see behind and below you--you'll be glad you did.

Fourth, the in-game Zero has an UNGODLY acceleration from 200 to about 350kph IAS; in addition, its in-game weapons are much more effective than the real life performance, and as you might guess, the AI are unaffected by the limitations of little things like a standard convergence. I've been de-winged from over 600m by Rookies when I made the mistake of flying straight and level once I thought I had enough distance...

If you're flying Japanese aircraft, you will find that in general they are more manageable to fly than the USN fighters; much less trimming, no nose dropping as speed increases, don't overheat as quickly and they will go exactly where you point them if you keep the 'ball' centered--and the instruments are wonderfully clear and correct--something the Corsair and Hellcat are largely missing. But once they get to 350 kph, they lose steam and oomph quickly--in real life, the Zero and Oscar's stick forces 'heavied up' at speeds over 220 mph/365kph, and you were supposedly able to evade them fairly easily with a hard roll right and a dive--they just couldn't follow.

That doesn't seem to be part of the Il-2 '46 flight model for A6Ms or Ki-43s, but they are slower than you so keep fast and change directions slightly every couple of seconds until you have 700m or more separation with a speed in excess of 460 kph/280mph/250 knots.

IMHO, the Japanese FMs are almost all overoptimistic, period. Away from the carriers and major bases like Rabaul or Saipan, the maintenance was poor to non-existent, never mind the fact that the Allies had choked off most of their logisticis lines and by the time the Philippines were invaded in late 1944, most of the skilled manpower the IJN and IJA started the war with were dead or trapped on some jungle island, and that definitely included their aircraft ground crews. I suspect that actual factory performance figures that are published were ideals that were rarely met by production aircraft, particularly after mid-1944.

As mentioned earlier, the FMS seem to be based on US tests made with higher octane fuels and a certain amount of maintenance and repair far superior to anything apart from the original manufacturer's facilities that an IJN or IJAS aircraft would have received just to make it safe to fly by Western standards. The designs themselves were often quite good, but engines were generally less powerful than the designs needed and the actual production standards to build them properly were often beyond the abilities of the Japanese work force of the 1940s, especially as more and more able bodied men with technical backgrounds were absorbed (and often misused) by the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy.

cheers

horseback

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by horseback

in addition, its in-game weapons are much more effective than the real life performance, and as you might guess, the AI are unaffected by the limitations of little things like a standard convergence.

I have to wonder if 0.30 caliber/5.62mm guns aren't overpowered in general in the game.

Originally Posted by horseback

If you're flying Japanese aircraft, you will find that in general they are more manageable to fly than the USN fighters; much less trimming, no nose dropping as speed increases, don't overheat as quickly and they will go exactly where you point them if you keep the 'ball' centered--and the instruments are wonderfully clear and correct

Strange. I find that the engines on the Zero overheat fairly quickly, although they also cool down fairly quickly, too.

Other than that, the A6M and Ki-43 series are a joy to fly. I assumed that was because both planes were noted for their crisp handling - at least at low speeds.

Originally Posted by horseback

IMHO, the Japanese FMs are almost all overoptimistic, period. Away from the carriers and major bases like Rabaul or Saipan, the maintenance was poor to non-existent

I can believe this, but do you have data to prove it?

I do know that once the U.S. started hitting the home islands in 1944-45, Japanese airframe and engine quality dropped badly. Likewise, fuel quality was poor. (At least per anecdotes in Saburo Sakai's autobiography)

Two of my big wishes for some future IL2 patch are:

a) The ability to specify 100 or 87 (or whatever) octane fuel for planes.

b) The ability for mission builders or server admins to degrade aircraft performance (maybe using a slider or percentage increment) to simulate battle damage, poor maintenance or overall wear.

[Fighterace]

It's a real crying shame that the "Dash 4" Corsair and Bearcats cant be added to IL-2

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I have to wonder if 0.30 caliber/5.62mm guns aren't overpowered in general in the game.

That's interesting... most people consider them to be chronically underpowered. Why would you think that?

The reason for the feeling of them being underpowered is due to the lack of a really complex damage modeling system so weapons that do a lot of structural damage are getting most of the benefit and other weapons that do internal systems damage are not getting as much of an effect. Example... radiator cooling systems are not fully modeled so you can shoot a 109 in the radiator with little real effect.

The problem with the Japanese guns is twofold:

1) Lack of sources of detailed information on weapons and correct belting

2) The in-game guns use close approximations of whatever the Japanese were using and often use the German equivalent.

The Type 99 20mm cannon in-game is a MG-FF/M benefitting from the German weapons slightly higher fire rate, much higher muzzle velocity (although still low), and is belted with the Mine round of which I doubt the Japanese were using. There were actually two Type 99 cannons used during the war and later model Zeros had the 99-2 fitted with an even lower fire rate but much higher muzzle velocity.

Sorry for the sidetrack

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by IceFire

The reason for the feeling of them being underpowered is due to the lack of a really complex damage modeling system so weapons that do a lot of structural damage are getting most of the benefit and other weapons that do internal systems damage are not getting as much of an effect. Example... radiator cooling systems are not fully modeled so you can shoot a 109 in the radiator with little real effect.

Examples:
Every aircraft in IL2 1946.







.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by IceFire

That's interesting... most people consider them to be chronically underpowered. Why would you think that?

Perhaps it's related to gunnery accuracy, but many times I've been shot down (PK or engine fire) flying against planes equipped with single 0.30/5.62 mm flexible gun positions. Sometimes I've been stupid and have been making almost dead astern attacks without manuevering, but a few times I've gotten zapped while doing things properly and making head-on or high-side high deflection shots.

Also, it seems like light caliber guns are a bit too effective at getting control surface critical hits.

Of course, on the other hand, flying planes like the Ki-43 or Hurricane Mk I is a challenge due to their light armament. But, that's sort of realistic since it reflects a conscious armament decision by the planes' builders which didn't work out so well in reality.

Originally Posted by IceFire

The reason for the feeling of them being underpowered is due to the lack of a really complex damage modeling system so weapons that do a lot of structural damage are getting most of the benefit and other weapons that do internal systems damage are not getting as much of an effect.

Hmm. I thought that each bullet is modeled as an "arrow" which penetrates through the plane model, like in "arcade mode". If it intersects with a vital system, there's a chance for a "critical hit." If it hits armor, it gets slowed or blocked. That's about as realistic as you can get without modeling things like explosive shell/bullet bursts, bullet fragmentation, or deflection/ricochet effects.

Originally Posted by IceFire

Example... radiator cooling systems are not fully modeled so you can shoot a 109 in the radiator with little real effect.

Isn't this a problem with individual planes (especially the older ones) rather than a systemic problem? Since I haven't looked at the DM for the various planes I don't know.

The problem with the Japanese guns is twofold:

Originally Posted by IceFire

1) Lack of sources of detailed information on weapons and correct belting

Strange. You'd think that the US military would have collected this sort of information. They did pretty extensive testing of just about every weapon they captured.

Originally Posted by IceFire

2) The in-game guns use close approximations of whatever the Japanese were using and often use the German equivalent.

Strange, since it's at least possible to get ballistic data for Japanese weapons.

[horseback]

Originally Posted by IceFire

That's interesting... most people consider them to be chronically underpowered. Why would you think that?

The reason for the feeling of them being underpowered is due to the lack of a really complex damage modeling system so weapons that do a lot of structural damage are getting most of the benefit and other weapons that do internal systems damage are not getting as much of an effect. Example... radiator cooling systems are not fully modeled so you can shoot a 109 in the radiator with little real effect.

The problem with the Japanese guns is twofold:

1) Lack of sources of detailed information on weapons and correct belting

2) The in-game guns use close approximations of whatever the Japanese were using and often use the German equivalent.

The Type 99 20mm cannon in-game is a MG-FF/M benefitting from the German weapons slightly higher fire rate, much higher muzzle velocity (although still low), and is belted with the Mine round of which I doubt the Japanese were using. There were actually two Type 99 cannons used during the war and later model Zeros had the 99-2 fitted with an even lower fire rate but much higher muzzle velocity.

Sorry for the sidetrack

In my experience, any gun is going to be underpowered if I'm the one firing it...and if it is being fired at me, then it is undoubtedly overpowered.

I recently was re-reading Fire In the Sky, by Eric Bergerud. In it, he mentions that the Zero's cannon were originally license built MG-FFs. If they were slower firing than the German models, he doesn't say, but the LW moved exclusively to MG151/20s pretty quickly when it became possible. I seem to recall from possibly other sources that later 20mm cannon models the Japanese used were literally scaled up Browning designs, identical to the US M2, just bigger. I recall that the display at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington DC certainly reflected this.

In any event, the Japanese had issues with their cannon having very different ballistics and trajectory from their light machine guns, and found that the cannon were less effective in their favored close-in maneuvering combat; it seems that the cannon rounds often went somewhere different from the MG rounds if you fired during high-G turns (they were slower firing and <probably> started firing a fraction of a second later than the MGs).

cheers

horseback