PDA

View Full Version : Hey "1C" - Where's the +25 lbs Boost on Spit IX??



Corsair9
06-30-2005, 08:32 AM
After testing in November of 1943, the Brits went to +25 lbs Boost in March 1944 giving the Spit IX/Merlin 66 one hellava increase in performance. It appears from squardon history logs that No 1 and No 165 squardrons were the first to go operational with this higher boost in May 1944.

Test show the aircraft would INDICATE a whopping 350 mph at +25 lbs boost ON THE DECK.

It seems to me if 1C has late 1944 FW-190s and a 1945 FW-190D9 in the game, there ought to be a Spitfire IX with the +25lbs of boost that it actually had.

From the A&AE test report:

Conclusions

..................The increase in performance with the increase in boost from +18 to +25 lb/sq.in. corresponds to :

1) 950 ft/min. in rate of climb in M.S. gear
2) 900 ft/min. in rate of climb in F.S. gear
3) 30 mph in maximum level speed in M.S. and F.S. gear
..................There is also an increase in fuel consumption of approximately 24%.

..................No maintenance difficulties of the engine were experienced.

Loki-PF
06-30-2005, 09:21 AM
Corsair9,

You must be *fairly* new here? The subject of why the allies dont have any late war models has been hashed and rehashed.

In short, It's a game balance issue. The lufties can barely compete as it is. You should have seen the histrionics from the blue camp when they heard that a late 44 lightning was gonna be in the latest patch. Lufties even tried to get Oleg to nerf it before the official patch was even released.

One of them, (most likely Norris or Hristo) will be along presently to shout you down and whinge that they don't get to use the ME262 online anyways, so why should the allies get *prop* fighters that were manufactured by the thousands and saw combat long before the war ended?

The other Luffty excuse is to blame the lack of late war allied birds on the 3rd part modelers (as if they do *all* the planes in the game)

alert_1
06-30-2005, 09:37 AM
It looks like it's due to soem balance, because dont forget that it was not a technical issue (DB605 has 35l stroke volume and has more performance potential then Merlin). But LW was forced to use only 87 or 96 octan fuel while RAF had 100/150 octan at disposal. DB605was also overboosted, but not modelded in them game {Me109F4"Late" till late Me109G/K with 2000 hp). Numbers are of course another thing...

Loki-PF
06-30-2005, 09:53 AM
Alert_1

So your argument here is that Blue should have *more* late war variants?

Thats so.....Typical.

I think the posters question was why the *allies* don't have the most common late war *prop* variants. I may have misread but I don't think he was asking for more 109 or 190 variants

lbhskier37
06-30-2005, 10:22 AM
Loki, go away! You don't help any situation by posting that ****. I'd like to see these posts from Histo and Norris about not wanting Oleg to remove the late P38. And alert is just stating another fact, the LW doesn't have its highest performing planes either, its not a bias or balance thing you twit. Go cry to hayatace leadwhiner and copperhead, they are the only ones around here that appreciate the **** you post.

Corsair9, the +25lb boost mustang III was added because someone on their own submitted data to Oleg. If you have good data and charts about performance and units equiped with +25lb boost IXs send it off to Oleg and it will probably get added.

3.JG51_BigBear
06-30-2005, 10:32 AM
There definitely needs to be balance online or else it wouldn't be fun. If online dogfight servers were historically accurate red would grossly outnumber blue and a blue flyer would be lucky to get off the ground.

For offline though, or for those servers that have the high performance late war Luftwaffe planes I think the Spit IX with the 25 lb boost would make a great addition.

p1ngu666
06-30-2005, 10:36 AM
make spit perform like a k4 25lb boost would.
lufties would whine SO much.

k4 may perform like it has 2000hp engine anyways..

Loki-PF
06-30-2005, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Loki, go away!
You first!


You don't help any situation by posting that ****.
Actually I think I do. Just because you don't wan't something to be doesn't make it *wrong*


I'd like to see these posts from Histo and Norris about not wanting Oleg to remove the late P38.
Fact Nerf the 38 Late please (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9591037823/p/1) I didn't say remove, I said nerf. Try to stay current... You'll sound alot more intelligent.


And alert is just stating another fact, the LW doesn't have its highest performing planes either,
Another Lufty that thinks they need more late war planes... I see a pattern here


its not a bias or balance thing you twit.
I never said *BIAS* ever. Funny how you lied there. Nice try. Name calling just proves your weakness, thanks for that.


Go cry to hayatace leadwhiner and copperhead, they are the only ones around here that appreciate the **** you post.
Actually quite a few people here appreciate my posts. Just to give you a little background on me (because you seem ignorant) I usually fly for blue when online because of balance issues (I usually fly on ZvW which is usually Red heavy)


Corsair9, the +25lb boost mustang III was added because someone on their own submitted data to Oleg. If you have good data and charts about performance and units equiped with +25lb boost IXs send it off to Oleg and it will probably get added.
See Corsair9? I told you one of them would be along presently and bring out the "it's the third part modelers fault" excuse

lbhskier37
06-30-2005, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Loki-PF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Loki, go away!
You first!


You don't help any situation by posting that ****.
Actually I think I do. Just because you don't wan't something to be doesn't make it *wrong*


I'd like to see these posts from Histo and Norris about not wanting Oleg to remove the late P38.
Fact Nerf the 38 Late please (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9591037823/p/1) I didn't say remove, I said nerf. Try to stay current... You'll sound alot more intelligent.


And alert is just stating another fact, the LW doesn't have its highest performing planes either,
Another Lufty that thinks they need more late war planes... I see a pattern here


its not a bias or balance thing you twit.
I never said *BIAS* ever. Funny how you lied there. Nice try. Name calling just proves your weakness, thanks for that.


Go cry to hayatace leadwhiner and copperhead, they are the only ones around here that appreciate the **** you post.
Actually quite a few people here appreciate my posts. Just to give you a little background on me (because you seem ignorant) I usually fly for blue when online because of balance issues (I usually fly on ZvW which is usually Red heavy)


Corsair9, the +25lb boost mustang III was added because someone on their own submitted data to Oleg. If you have good data and charts about performance and units equiped with +25lb boost IXs send it off to Oleg and it will probably get added.
See Corsair9? I told you one of them would be along presently and bring out the "it's the third part modelers fault" excuse </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow you really are sad. Did anywhere in there I say I didn't think we should have a +25lb boost spit? I just told him howthe MkIII mustang got in the game, and how he could maybe help get the Spit in. You are always looking to fight "luftwhiners". *sarcasm* I'm so sorry I posted such a luftwhinerish post there, shame on me. *sarcasm off*

And that beautiful link there sure is a good example of whining by Norris and Histo... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Norris didn't even post in that whole thread, and Histo only posted to make fun of people. You sure are a brilliant one.

tascaso
06-30-2005, 01:04 PM
Being a OKL pilot for most of my IL-2 flying. I really don't mind having late model aircraft flying for Red side. It's fun and challenging especially for the squads to tackle these new arrivals in the online wars. I never frequent the AirQuake servers I am just not quick enough for that stuff. As long as you have the historical and objective data submit it and Oleg will try and incorporate it into the game.

I do not know if anything new is being planned for the current FB/AEP/PF? Is there anything for them to do?

123_Tony_123VEF

Vipez-
06-30-2005, 02:19 PM
Im all for Spit 9 with +25 boost, but yes that definately would require some more 109 and 190 variants as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Like K-4 and G-10 with DB 605 DC http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

JG53Frankyboy
06-30-2005, 02:42 PM
bulll**** !
there are already enough standart late war LW fighters in game ( ok, i would like to have a G14 with 20mm nose canon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

a 25boost SpitIX would be great for historical misionbuilding. my opinion is , since this topic raised the first time for months (!).

let the SpitIXc be a 18boost plane for 1943(like it is).
change the SpitIXe performance to 25boost as 1944 plane.
that would give the Spitifre familie a good difference.
now only (SpitI will not come because of BoB) a 1942 SpitfireIXs would be nice - but will also not come http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
and the MkXIV is in the pipeline http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

56th BMAC
06-30-2005, 02:48 PM
You need a spit that performs even better than the ones we now have???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
06-30-2005, 02:57 PM
I'd just like to say that currently, including the Seafire variants, there are 15 Spitfire variants in game already. There is no other aircraft family in the game that has more variants as flyable. Not even the Yaks (they have 14 variants, BTW) have more!!

And if we do get the Spit XIV, that will make it 16. Do we really, honestly need ANOTHER Spit variant?? I most definately do not think so.

We could use the Mosquito, Ju-88, Pe-2/3, Italian fighters, Po-2, maybe one or two other types, allied or axis, but certainly not another Spitfire variant, or late war fantasy aircraft, or any other aircraft with only the tiniest nuance of a difference in it's performance from any of the aircraft families already in the game!!!

JG53Frankyboy
06-30-2005, 03:16 PM
well, the differences between a lot of these Spit variants in game are very small...

but sure, if the SpitXIV will be released, all RAFWHINERS will be quiet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
06-30-2005, 07:33 PM
I cant believe that ppl are creating divides like 'lufties' and so on.

It shows a servere lack of intelligence http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I also cant believe that ANYONE in their fav ride, would be scared of a p38 however late war.

The Spit,KI84,190D can fly rings around it. Dont even start on the Me262.
I know a well flown P38 Late CAN compete but all it can usually do is Boom and Zoom, or run away quickly.

If I see a P38, even if I'm in an unfavourable position, I just think 'meat on the table'. Sad but true.

VW-IceFire
06-30-2005, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
I'd just like to say that currently, including the Seafire variants, there are 15 Spitfire variants in game already. There is no other aircraft family in the game that has more variants as flyable. Not even the Yaks (they have 14 variants, BTW) have more!!

And if we do get the Spit XIV, that will make it 16. Do we really, honestly need ANOTHER Spit variant?? I most definately do not think so.

We could use the Mosquito, Ju-88, Pe-2/3, Italian fighters, Po-2, maybe one or two other types, allied or axis, but certainly not another Spitfire variant, or late war fantasy aircraft, or any other aircraft with only the tiniest nuance of a difference in it's performance from any of the aircraft families already in the game!!!
Lets go through the list:
1) Spitfire Mark Vb
2) Spitfire Mark Vc (Tropical)
3) Spitfire Mark VIII
4) Spitfire Mark IX
5) Seafire III

Everything else is identical except for clipped wings or armament variants. I'm sure you know this and forgot.

At the moment, blue does indeed seem to have the advantage in later war aircraft. I too have finally succumed to this point of view in terms of looking at Luftwaffe VS Allied opponents. The game in this theater (for online play) is very balanced upto the end of 1943. Past that we have three aircraft to be considered anything past 1944...and those are the Mustang Mark III, P-38L Late, and P-51D-20. Not a bad stable...it'd be alot better if we had either or all of the following:
1) Tempest Mark V
2) Spitfire Mark XIV
3) Spitfire IX +24 Boost

Meanwhile, the blue stable for the 1944 range includes (counting major versions and modifications):
1) Bf109G-6A/S
2) Bf109G-10
3) Bf109K-4
4) FW190A-9
5) FW190D-9 (with both types of boost functions - superb fighter aircraft)
6) Ta-152H
7) *Me-262
*Admittedly not present in any major scenarios due to its exceptional performance

But lets stop that numbers game.

People SHOULD be interested in gameplay, history, and above all warbirds. When did people forget about the history and the warbird aspect...these are planes, we love them no matter how good or bad they are but I have to say that the Western Allied side is a bit lacking when it comes to scenarios past December 1943.

SO....if you want to run D-Day scenarios, Ardennes scenarios, and the like...then a +24lb Spitfire would be perfectly acceptable as would a Tempest V, and a Spitfire XIV which all served during this time period. At the moment, most of the Allied stable is limited to aircraft specifications residing in 1943...or very early 1944.

Frankly, anyone who flies a Spitfire now, with overheat modeled, with its amazing energy features mostly gone, can easily see how IX pilots were left trailing in the dust behind much faster Axis aircraft of the period which is why many IX/XVI models were moved to 2nd TAF and operated as lower altitude tactical fighters dropping bombs and strafing vehicles. Mind you, the Luftwaffe was also hard to find...

We should be setting up cordons of flak and everyone goes to fly red as thats how it really was http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG53Frankyboy
06-30-2005, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

1) Spitfire Mark Vb
2) Spitfire Mark Vc (Tropical)
3) Spitfire Mark VIII
4) Spitfire Mark IX
5) Seafire III

Everything else is identical except for clipped wings or armament variants. I'm sure you know this and forgot.

............

well, at least the Seafire and SpitVb have a low level and a normal level altitude variants http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
06-30-2005, 08:46 PM
Ah, IceFire, a bit of mis-information there I suspect!!

Well, I'm going to list each of the 15 Sea/Spitfire variants in game in the order as they appear in the QMB list.

You may accuse me of being pedantic, but I don't care.

1) Seafire L.Mk.III, 1943
2) Seafire F.Mk.III, 1943
3) Spitfire Mk.Vb, 1941
4) Spitfire Mk.Vb (CW), 1943
5) Spitfire L.F.Mk.Vb, 1942
6) Spitfire L.F.Mk.Vb (CW)
7) Spitfire Mk.Vc(2), 1941
8) Spitfire Mk.Vc(4), 1941
9) Spitfire Mk.VIII, 1943
10) Spitfire Mk.VIII (CW)
11) Spitfire Mk.IXc, 1943
12) Spitfire L.F.Mk.IXc (CW)
13) Spitfire Mk.IXe, 1944
14) Spitfire L.F.Mk.IXe (CW)
15) Spitfire H.F.Mk.IXe 1944

This is what I am talking about, having umpteen variants of the same aircraft, that have marginal differences in the model, in performance, and whatever else. Do we really need these?

Granted, they are relatively easy to make, as most only require slight adjustments to the model, or the FM. But I would gladly take an aircraft from a entirely different family, like a new Japanese fighter, or Italian fighter, or a bomber aircraft, or a transport or reconnaissance aircraft, or anything but yet another 109/spit/190/Yak/whatever variant that is little different from the other variants already in the game.

A Tempest V would be great, and a Spit XIV is different enough for me to want it (it just looks mean!), but I don't want yet another Spit IX, or something that we already have.

VW-IceFire
07-01-2005, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
Ah, IceFire, a bit of mis-information there I suspect!!

Well, I'm going to list each of the 15 Sea/Spitfire variants in game in the order as they appear in the QMB list.

You may accuse me of being pedantic, but I don't care.

1) Seafire L.Mk.III, 1943
2) Seafire F.Mk.III, 1943
3) Spitfire Mk.Vb, 1941
4) Spitfire Mk.Vb (CW), 1943
5) Spitfire L.F.Mk.Vb, 1942
6) Spitfire L.F.Mk.Vb (CW)
7) Spitfire Mk.Vc(2), 1941
8) Spitfire Mk.Vc(4), 1941
9) Spitfire Mk.VIII, 1943
10) Spitfire Mk.VIII (CW)
11) Spitfire Mk.IXc, 1943
12) Spitfire L.F.Mk.IXc (CW)
13) Spitfire Mk.IXe, 1944
14) Spitfire L.F.Mk.IXe (CW)
15) Spitfire H.F.Mk.IXe 1944

This is what I am talking about, having umpteen variants of the same aircraft, that have marginal differences in the model, in performance, and whatever else. Do we really need these?

Granted, they are relatively easy to make, as most only require slight adjustments to the model, or the FM. But I would gladly take an aircraft from a entirely different family, like a new Japanese fighter, or Italian fighter, or a bomber aircraft, or a transport or reconnaissance aircraft, or anything but yet another 109/spit/190/Yak/whatever variant that is little different from the other variants already in the game.

A Tempest V would be great, and a Spit XIV is different enough for me to want it (it just looks mean!), but I don't want yet another Spit IX, or something that we already have.
Well I'd rather have a new plane like a Tempest V or a Spitfire XIV over yet another model of the IX. I hear you and understand that completely. My feeling is that if both have gone into the mist never to be seen again...which I worry about, then a 24 pound boost Spitfire IX would fill in some gaps.

Most of those Spitfires you list either have a variation of armament, a clipped wing, or a high altitude/low altitude engine modification. When you look at actual specific models of Spitfires included you have only the ones that I listed. There is no external difference between Seafire F.III and L.III...they are the same plane with a different supercharger gear ratio - I think its great that Oleg paid attention to these things as most developers just assume there is one Spitfire model per number and go from there. So when you list the 15 different versions, yes they are there on the list, but its not the same as the number of 109s that we have of which many are all quite different (and I wouldn't want to give up a single one either).

Its like the people who were in love with the idea of getting the FW190A-6. Some asked: whats the big deal? Its just another FW190...but the A-6 is a neat addition that gives us a middle ground between A-5 and A-8 and I'm glad that we have it and many others are too. But its just another version http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As I said, I'd much prefer to solve the problem with a Tempest V or a Spitfire XIV (which is borderline on a entirely different plane anyways). That'd balance the books out quite a bit giving good compliments to the FW190D-9, Ta-152H and Bf109K-4.

AFJ_Locust
07-01-2005, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Loki-PF:
Corsair9,

You must be *fairly* new here? The subject of why the allies dont have any late war models has been hashed and rehashed.

In short, It's a game balance issue. The lufties can barely compete as it is. You should have seen the histrionics from the blue camp when they heard that a late 44 lightning was gonna be in the latest patch. Lufties even tried to get Oleg to nerf it before the official patch was even released.

One of them, (most likely Norris or Hristo) will be along presently to shout you down and whinge that they don't get to use the ME262 online anyways, so why should the allies get *prop* fighters that were manufactured by the thousands and saw combat long before the war ended?

The other Luffty excuse is to blame the lack of late war allied birds on the 3rd part modelers (as if they do *all* the planes in the game)

"game balance"

Well thats **** I mentioned this the other day to them & they said give us reality LOL

"The lufties can barely compete as it is."
Are you high man ? have you flown a 109g6as or the Dora44 or just about any german ac now are slaying machiens!!! Allies ac are more realistic I agree but the German ac are over the top now

Scen
07-01-2005, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Loki, go away! You don't help any situation by posting that ****. I'd like to see these posts from Histo and Norris about not wanting Oleg to remove the late P38. And alert is just stating another fact, the LW doesn't have its highest performing planes either, its not a bias or balance thing you twit. Go cry to hayatace leadwhiner and copperhead, they are the only ones around here that appreciate the **** you post.

Corsair9, the +25lb boost mustang III was added because someone on their own submitted data to Oleg. If you have good data and charts about performance and units equiped with +25lb boost IXs send it off to Oleg and it will probably get added.

"The LW doesn't have the highest performing planes either"

Are you sure about that statment? What do you call an Me 262 and the rest of the high end LW hardware?

Just curious is all.

Scendore

faustnik
07-01-2005, 12:02 PM
"The lufties can barely compete as it is."
Are you high man ? have you flown a 109g6as or the Dora44 or just about any german ac now are slaying machiens!!! Allies ac are more realistic I agree but the German ac are over the top now

Be specific in you claims of LW planes being "over the top". It's not true of all the planes. Can you say any version of the Fw190A is "over the top". Not all Bf109 versions are there either. Using a blanket statement like that makes it easy to discount your opinion.

lbhskier37
07-01-2005, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Loki, go away! You don't help any situation by posting that ****. I'd like to see these posts from Histo and Norris about not wanting Oleg to remove the late P38. And alert is just stating another fact, the LW doesn't have its highest performing planes either, its not a bias or balance thing you twit. Go cry to hayatace leadwhiner and copperhead, they are the only ones around here that appreciate the **** you post.

Corsair9, the +25lb boost mustang III was added because someone on their own submitted data to Oleg. If you have good data and charts about performance and units equiped with +25lb boost IXs send it off to Oleg and it will probably get added.

"The LW doesn't have the highest performing planes either"

Are you sure about that statment? What do you call an Me 262 and the rest of the high end LW hardware?

Just curious is all.

Scendore </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many of the G10s and K4s out there had engines rated for 2000hp (not sure the exact engine model), but the models in the game use the lower rated engines (1800ish hp I think)

I'm not anywhere saying this is a reason to keep a higher performing spit out, I am using this as an example to those who want to believe otherwise that there isn't some conspiracy to keep the allied pilots from having their best performing variants.

Another point is that german planes have been added since the begining of the game, while allied planes have only really been added since AEP. Since AEP the majority of new development has been adding new allied fighters, so its really fair to say the allied side is being neglected, the US and British sides are just newer.

Tooz_69GIAP
07-01-2005, 12:53 PM
I have no problaem with the Me-262. It flew in numbers, and saw combat, and it started flying in combat in 1944! I really can't see why people are so mad about seeing them fly in servers.

They should be there, if the map and scenario warrants it, and they are fairly easy to shoot down if you manage to bring your guns onto them: they flame very nicely!

I have no problems with bringing in odd aircraft, or rare aircraft, but only if they flew in combat before the end of WWII. What I don't like is adding yet one more variant of this or that aircraft.

This sim was released as Forgotten Battles, and it had modelled aircraft that no other sim had modelled before. The direction it has taken over the last 2 years or so has really annoyed me, because all these third party modellers have simply turned this sim into yet another generic allies v axis sim with spits, hurris, stangs, bolts, lightenings, v 109s and 190s and zeros, and so on.

Where is the "forgotten" aspect of the sim got to?

Monty_Thrud
07-01-2005, 01:33 PM
Well i would dearly and i mean DEARLY love to see the 25LB boost Spitfire MkIxe added to the planeset, as much as the Tempest and Mk XIV and believe me i SOOOO want these aircraft in game it hurts.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif.. ok i need to get out more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.. but it helps those from both camps, online and offline historical types...whether you want to fly them, or shoot 'em down...and thank you to the Lufty fans for wanting the Mk IX 25Lber, the support is appreciated http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

And i think Oleg already has all the info he needs on Spit Mk IX 25Lb (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html)

And on a final note..i vote Icefire for President..er..Prime Minister...erm..Emperor Dude http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
07-01-2005, 02:54 PM
2000hp 109s where 45 aircraft really. c3 fuel and MW50 for 1.98ata. there useage wasnt much because of lack of fuel.

incidently, the k4 ingame climbs waay too good, its climbrate stays the same upto 5k i think, it didnt irl http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Scen
07-01-2005, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Loki, go away! You don't help any situation by posting that ****. I'd like to see these posts from Histo and Norris about not wanting Oleg to remove the late P38. And alert is just stating another fact, the LW doesn't have its highest performing planes either, its not a bias or balance thing you twit. Go cry to hayatace leadwhiner and copperhead, they are the only ones around here that appreciate the **** you post.

Corsair9, the +25lb boost mustang III was added because someone on their own submitted data to Oleg. If you have good data and charts about performance and units equiped with +25lb boost IXs send it off to Oleg and it will probably get added.

"The LW doesn't have the highest performing planes either"

Are you sure about that statment? What do you call an Me 262 and the rest of the high end LW hardware?

Just curious is all.

Scendore[/QUOTE]

Many of the G10s and K4s out there had engines rated for 2000hp (not sure the exact engine model), but the models in the game use the lower rated engines (1800ish hp I think)

I'm not anywhere saying this is a reason to keep a higher performing spit out, I am using this as an example to those who want to believe otherwise that there isn't some conspiracy to keep the allied pilots from having their best performing variants.

Another point is that german planes have been added since the begining of the game, while allied planes have only really been added since AEP. Since AEP the majority of new development has been adding new allied fighters, so its really fair to say the allied side is being neglected, the US and British sides are just newer.[/QUOTE]

I don't think there is a conspiracy but there is some moaning going on from time to time. I seen some strange bais that shows up in some of the postings on this board.

Personally I don't care to choose a side but for game balance sake it would be nice to see some later war Allied planes.

In addition it would be nice from a gameplay aspect that there is a restriction on the number of late war planes are allowed for a given map. The idea being it will allow for some of the jet stuff to fly and come late war props to go up against them. It doesn't have to be super accurate but balanced in terms of teams.

My 2 cents

Badsight.
07-01-2005, 04:10 PM
it makes sence to add a 25 Lb Mk8 or 9 into the game just like what the Mustang MkIII model

but to try & say the line-up of G 109s is different to the line-up of Spitfires is a bit of a stretch !

same differences occur in both sets , faster you get the worse it handels

thing the Messers dont have is specific low alt performance models

the original poster said :

Test show the aircraft would INDICATE a whopping 350 mph at +25 lbs

well i pointed out in the ORR that theres a Spitfire test , Mk 9 @ 18 Lbs boost at the spitfireperformance website that says 350 Mph on the deck

in FB the 18 Lb boost LF Mk9 doesnt want to accellerate past 530 Km/H or 310 Mp/H flying level on the deck

Aaron_GT
07-01-2005, 04:11 PM
Loki, having been involved in the efforts to bring the Mustang III to the game I can assure you that game balance is not an issue here.

Monty_Thrud
07-01-2005, 05:00 PM
In addition it would be nice from a gameplay aspect that there is a restriction on the number of late war planes are allowed for a given map. The idea being it will allow for some of the jet stuff to fly and come late war props to go up against them. It doesn't have to be super accurate but balanced in terms of teams.


Exactly...

Can you imagine a fleet of Bombers...B25's, A20's,(shame B17,B24 isnt flyable)...on the bomb run, covered by MkIx's,XIV,P51,P47's & III's being attacked by Me262's or Me 163 or He162...mission to bomb target and get most back to home base...team work..paramount


I'm surprised there still isnt a jet War Server

faustnik
07-01-2005, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
it makes sence to add a 25 Lb Mk8 or 9 into the game just like what the Mustang MkIII model


It sure does make sense, a no-brainer. No external/cockpit work needed, just add horsepower and label "Spit IXe +25 boost 1944". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Loki-PF
07-02-2005, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Loki, having been involved in the efforts to bring the Mustang III to the game I can assure you that game balance is not an issue here.

Very interesting Aaron, thanks for the input. Since you are an insider, how do you explain the dearth of late war allied aircraft?

Aaron_GT
07-03-2005, 04:25 AM
Loki,

Most of the late war Axis planes were added a while ago, in the AEP pack, apart from those added in PF. We've had very little new Axis stuff on any sort since then - one Ki and a flyable G4M that was supposed to be in PF from release. Oleg hadn't been provided with convincing evidence on +25 boost performance for Spitfires at the time of AEP.

I think Oleg is having to concentrate on BoB, and the sheer scope and scale of PF is now such that adding planes without a revenue stream from doing so is probably difficult to justify (it means more planes to check if a patch needs to be issued, so it means more manpower cost). However if we get one last (paid for?) add on, then we might be able to push for a +25 Spitfire, and hopefully a Mosquito. It's worth aiming for.

Aaron_GT
07-03-2005, 04:26 AM
P.S. I'm not an insider, I just helped with one thing +25 boost, I just got no impression of any bias from what we got from Oleg. I think he is just very busy and has to look at commercial realities. Work with no obvious revenue stream attached is probably work he can ill afford.

Plelv44_Mangrov
07-03-2005, 10:48 AM
Hi!

So much discussion about adding new type of a fighter in the game. I have flown He-111 and other 193*-1941 bombers against 1945 P-80 and and so on. When I will get my uber Junkers Ju 390 or Ar 234? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ImpStarDuece
07-03-2005, 11:02 AM
I'd rather a +16lbs Merlin 61 Spitfire instead of a +25 lbs Merlin 66/71 Spitfire.

mid 1941-late 1942 is my favourite period for WTO Air operations; introduction of the 190A, 190G2 and Spitfire IX, Spitifire Vb Vs 109F2 and F4, the Westland Whirlwind makes its first combat sorties as does the Mosquito, Hurricanes on cross-channel jabo work, the RAF 'continous offensive', Spitfire II and III squadrons still popping up in early '41, introuduction of the first RAF 4 engined bombers, the Beaufighter begins to mature, the FAA use their Martlets in combat, ect, ect. Just a tremendously exciting period for Aerial Warfare, not even including Africa, Russia, Asia or the Far East.

Spitfire IX +25lbs; Good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Spitfire IC +16lbs; Better! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Loki-PF
07-03-2005, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"P.S. I'm not an insider, I just helped with one thing +25 boost, I just got no impression of any bias......"

Bias?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Who said anything about bias? My point was just the opposite. I think you are confusing me for someone else in this long and distinguished thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG52Karaya-X
07-04-2005, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
2000hp 109s where 45 aircraft really. c3 fuel and MW50 for 1.98ata. there useage wasnt much because of lack of fuel.

Completely true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif


incidently, the k4 ingame climbs waay too good, its climbrate stays the same upto 5k i think, it didnt irl http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The climbrate on the real K4 like in FB actually rises from 0m to about 3000m slightly and then stays the same to about 5000m. That's the way it was - Oleg already commented on that. Did you read about the spanish Bf109G10 rebuilt? It has a peak climb of 29m/s... and the K4 should be better because of refined aerodynamics and a more efficient propeller - so 30m/s should be quite possible.


And yes give us 25lbs boost SpitIXs... we'll be getting the Mk.XIV anyway so what's the deal. And Bf109F droptanks/bombs, same for FW190D9, PB for 190F8, Bazookas for the P51, torpedo planes, reduce yawing because of wing-mounted cannons and fix zoom climbs... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JG52Karaya-X
07-05-2005, 02:11 PM
BumP

hop2002
07-05-2005, 06:49 PM
Did you read about the spanish Bf109G10 rebuilt? It has a peak climb of 29m/s.

At what weight? Is that with guns, armour, armament and full fuel?


nd the K4 should be better because of refined aerodynamics and a more efficient propeller - so 30m/s should be quite possible

The Germans tested it during the war, and didn't get better than 25 m/s.


The climbrate on the real K4 like in FB actually rises from 0m to about 3000m slightly and then stays the same to about 5000m. That's the way it was

No. The real life climb rate peaked at very low altitude (less than 1lm, then fell fairly sharply by 5000m, from a peak of just under 25 m/s to just over 20 m/s at 5000m.

That's what's to be expected. The 109 had a hydraulic clutch that drove the supercharger as fast as was needed.

At sea level, you don't need to drive the supercharger very much, so it doesn't use much power. At 5 km, it needs a lot of power, so there's less for the plane to climb with. And the air is getting thinner, so the plane won't climb as well even if it had the same power.

Here's the 109K4 at 1.8 ata:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1120610785_109kclimb2.jpg
(picture originally posted by Pyro from Aces High)

Note again, that's at 1.8 ata, so it will climb better at 1.98 ata. But we alledgedly don't have 1.98ata in game. (Where it says 1.98, that just for an engine set up to use 1.98 ata maximum, but actually running at 1.8 ata)

More power will of course make it climb better, but it's not going to change the shape of the graph, and the K4 will still climb best at very low altitude, and will still climb a lot more slowly at 5000m.

EnGaurde
07-06-2005, 08:24 AM
christ im tired of these ridiculous flights of fancy and conjecture with god knows how altered apparently "authentic" data sheets.

the saddest part is, the same old thing remains: noone actually knows for sure how anything really flew.

Or, how any plane is only as good as the pilots that flew it at that particular time.

everyone gets so deep into graphs and statistics, its a game of brinkmanship: my data shows 0.003% more than yours, therefore you SUCK!!

i always think, when these pissing contests about some claimed performance advantage is entered into, that if every time a plane that was better than any other plane met, it would always win?

we all know its just not the case.

what about the state of tune the plane may have been in at the time.

or the water level in the fuel.

or the quality of the plugs.

temperature of the radiator.

attentiveness of the service crew.

cracks in the fuel lines sucking air.

how much the pilot drank last night despite regulations.

or any number of relevant aspects affecting flight.

irrespective of the perfectionist bull**** so many people embark upon in the pointless arguments involving red and blue, these fighters planes were never an exact science.

if the planes in this sim dont fly at precise thousands of a measurement decimal value that matches everyones googled data, the writeoffs are simply staggering to behold. Apparently nameless nobodies whove never produced anything like a flight sim, but know everything about every aircraft ever fown in combat, can ruthlessly point out exactly what the producer did wrong.

why the fck do you bickering idiots treat them like they hysterically MUST BE digitally perfect every flight eh? What have paper figures ever meant to real world situations every time remembering the countless number of environmental circumstances both enhancing and reducing almost every facet of best possible performance?

why dont you number geeks ever rely on average combat level performance (or even worst reported) instead of bleeding edge testing data? Because you wouldnt be able to "win" the argument?

ffs.

JG52Karaya-X
07-06-2005, 12:30 PM
Sorry hop but that graph you're posting has some restrictions...

DB605DC/ASC o. (OHNE = WITHOUT!!!!!!!) MW50...


and btw... you've been posting this graph so often it gets a bit old.

p1ngu666
07-06-2005, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Sorry hop but that graph you're posting has some restrictions...

DB605DC/ASC o. (OHNE = WITHOUT!!!!!!!) MW50...


and btw... you've been posting this graph so often it gets a bit old.

the point of the graph is to show the climb rate decreasing with altitude.
basicaly, the only way the k4 would climb like it does ingame is for it to produce ALOT more power (ie be utterly, utterly useless for no reason down low, and be stupendous up high,again for no reason), or shed weight as it climbs up.

if u look at p38 or p47 or any turbocharged engined plane, u will see its rate of climb decrease with altitude, DESPITE it constantly giving the same hp.

thinner air = slower rate of climb.

hop2002
07-06-2005, 02:15 PM
Sorry hop but that graph you're posting has some restrictions...

DB605DC/ASC o. (OHNE = WITHOUT!!!!!!!) MW50...

I pointed out, twice, that it wasn't maximum power, just 1.8 ata.

But isn't the K4 in game supposed to be running at 1.8 ata? And compare the climb rate of the real K4 with the in game one, which increases it's climb rate to 5,000m, instead of dropping like it should.

hop2002
07-06-2005, 02:23 PM
if u look at p38 or p47 or any turbocharged engined plane, u will see its rate of climb decrease with altitude, DESPITE it constantly giving the same hp.

thinner air = slower rate of climb.



Exactly. And the DB605 didn't even produce the same power as altitude increased, because the supercharger consumed more power as altitude increases:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1120681273_db605.jpg

So at 5,000m the K4 suffers not just from thinner air, but less power as well.

p1ngu666
07-06-2005, 02:38 PM
the db engines could run at 1.8 on c3 alone i think, and add mw50 for 1.98

when they first started to use mw50, some just used c3 instead to get the same ata

the k4 may have the dials set at 1.80, but possibly it has 1.98 performance...

Abbuzze
07-07-2005, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">if u look at p38 or p47 or any turbocharged engined plane, u will see its rate of climb decrease with altitude, DESPITE it constantly giving the same hp.

thinner air = slower rate of climb.



Exactly. And the DB605 didn't even produce the same power as altitude increased, because the supercharger consumed more power as altitude increases:

So at 5,000m the K4 suffers not just from thinner air, but less power as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting chart hop, apart from they mix up gross-HP of the Griffon vs DIN-PS for DB605.
Why has the Griffon such a strange powerdevelopment? With WEP it has the weakest point at 3,5km while without WEP the highest peak is at 4,2km?

Anyone with an idea for this?

ImpStarDuece
07-07-2005, 05:06 AM
Hop'02;

Unusual chart, what boost level is that for? 2050 hp @ 2200 m for a Griffon 65 seems unusually low alt for best power unless its at +25lbs boost and then the output seems too low.

The Roll Royce hosepower charts for the Griffons 61-90 have the Griffon topping out around 2000hp at 3750 m on +18lbs boost, 2200hp @ 3000m on +21 lbs boost and 2450hp @ 2200m for +25lbs boost.

Abbuzze
07-07-2005, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Hop'02;

Unusual chart, what boost level is that for? 2050 hp @ 2200 m for a Griffon 65 seems unusually low alt for best power unless its at +25lbs boost and then the output seems too low.

The Roll Royce hosepower charts for the Griffons 61-90 have the Griffon topping out around 2000hp at 3750 m on +18lbs boost, 2200hp @ 3000m on +21 lbs boost and 2450hp @ 2200m for +25lbs boost.

Impstar!
Thats an explanation for this! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It´s an russian chart, so maybe they used DIN-PS, like they used metres for altitude.

So I assume it is a +25lbs boost griffon, but with corrected figures for the HP-PS conversion!
So at least the numeric difference is correct.

Edit: but the "loss" of HP to PS seems to be a bit to much 5-15% would be realistic, maximum 20%. Strange.

ImpStarDuece
07-07-2005, 05:24 AM
Could indeed be a swich to DIN-PS, all the blower heights look correct for 25lbs but the power output is wrong.

Maybe the tests didn't get the most out of the Griffon? To run it at +25lbs you need 100/150 octane fuel, they could of been running slightly lower power settings or attempting to run full boost with lesser qualtiy aviation spirit.

hop2002
07-07-2005, 06:39 AM
1 PS = 0.986 hp, so it's certainly not 25 lbs boost Griffon (I suspect the chart simply shows PS AND HP, many don't know there is a difference, and the difference is slight, so often not bothered with)

It's not a 25 lbs Griffon, that would be 2250 hp, iirc. Edit: 2250 would be about right for 21 lbs, 25 lbs is over 2400 hp

The critical altitude in low gear is low, but not incredibly so. According to Mike William's pages, in a comparison test from 1946, the Spit XIV had a critical low lalt of 9,000 ft at climb speed, which includes some ram. So about 7,000ft with no ram is lower, but not hugely so.

It's also possile it's an early Griffon 65. If you look at the prototype XIV, it had a critical alt in low gear of only 1,700 ft at climb speed. They changed the gear ratio for the low speed blower after that, but it's possible the Russians got an experimental one, not the final production model.


Why has the Griffon such a strange powerdevelopment? With WEP it has the weakest point at 3,5km while without WEP the highest peak is at 4,2km?

Anyone with an idea for this?

Because of the boost pressure.

The Griffon had only a small rpm increase, a large boost increase, when wep was applied. The supercharger can only deliver the required pressure to a certain altitude.

The WEP figures are for 2750 rpm, 18 lbs boost. I don't know for certain what the non wep figures show, but max continuous figure for the Griffon 65 was 9 lbs boost, 2600 rpm.

The 150 rpm increase would increase the critical altitude slightly, but the 9 lbs boost pressure increase would reduce the critical altitude dramatically, simply because the supercharger can deliver +9lbs at a much higher altitude than it can deliver +18lbs.


The Roll Royce hosepower charts for the Griffons 61-90 have the Griffon topping out around 2000hp at 3750 m on +18lbs boost, 2200hp @ 3000m on +21 lbs boost and 2450hp @ 2200m for +25lbs boost.

I'm pretty sure that's a rammed figure.


Edit: but the "loss" of HP to PS seems to be a bit to much 5-15% would be realistic, maximum 20%. Strange.

There should be a gain going from hp to ps, for example 1000hp would be about 1014 ps. The difference is only slight, though, and many people use the two figures interchangably.

But it's certainly not at 25 lbs. That would give over 2400 hp, even more unrammed, and 2400hp would be over 2400 ps.

Abbuzze
07-07-2005, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
1 PS = 0.986 hp, so it's certainly not 25 lbs boost Griffon (I suspect the chart simply shows PS AND HP, many don't know there is a difference, and the difference is slight, so often not bothered with)
[...]


Thanks for the explanation hop! That makes sense.

For the difference between HP and PS, this 1 PS = 0,986 HP is correct, but only for figures after 1972!
In this year the SAE swaped over from "Gross HP" to "net HP". Every value after this year could be recalculated in the way you described.
But in WWII "gross-HP" were used to estimate the power of engines, and this make it impossibe to recalculate it to PS, there is a margin from 5-20 pct you have to lower the HP values to get the PS number.

The Problem of gross HP is the fact, that it was in the Hand of the engeneer to select the experiment set-up. For example, it was ok to let the supercharger been driven by a 2nd engine! With this setup you will gain a lot of "virtuell" HP (up to 20%). Virtuell, cause in real flight the supercharger is driven by the own engine and needs some of the power he produced by itself to run.

Take a look at this page, it´s better, cause my english is insufficent to explain it real good:

http://www.hardtail.com/techtips/hpexplained.html

So the chart could be from a +25lbs boosted Griffon!

But there are a lot of questions! First the "performanceloss" is 16.32pct. That´s a possible figure.

The real Problem is, how was this value estimated, were there real tests with a better(-comparable) procedure? Or used the russians values they estimated with gross-HP Spit V and IX they got? And they were rerated by them to get them more comparable with their engines and planes?

So maybe they just took this number and recalculated the known figures of the Griffons.
I don´t know - but if the altitudes fits better to a +25lbs Griffon than to an early Griffon I would say it´s the later one, even if the values may differ.
An early Griffon would be even worse if it would be rated with real PS.




Quote for the link abouve:

From the Horse's...
Manufacturers cause most of the problems in that there are several standards by which they rate their cars when new. Without knowing exactly how much difference there is from one standard to another, it's easy to get into the mentality that "horsepower is horsepower" (mathematically, it is always the same, after all) without taking into consideration the circumstances under which it was measured.

SAE Net Horspower In 1972, American manufacturers phased in SAE net horsepower. This is the standard on which current American ratings are based. This rating is measured at the flywheel, on an engine dyno, but the engine is tested with all accessories installed, including a full exhaust system, all pumps, the alternator, the starter, and emissions controls. Both SAE net and SAE gross horsepower test procedures are documented in Society of Automotive Engineers standard J1349. Because SAE net is so common, this is the standard we will use to compare all others.

SAE Gross Horsepower This is the old process that American manufacturers used as a guide for rating their cars. It was in place until 1971. SAE gross also measures horsepower at the flywheel, but with no accessories to bog it down. This is the bare engine with nothing but the absolute essentials attached to it; little more than a carb, fuel pump, oil pump, and water pump. Because the test equipment on the engine is not the same as in SAE net, it is impossible to provide a mathematical calculation between SAE net and SAE gross. As a general rule, however, SAE net tends to be approximately 80% of the value of SAE gross. SAE J245 and J1995 define this measurement.

DIN Horsepower This is a standard, DIN 70020, for measuring horsepower that very closely matches SAE net. The conditions of the test vary slightly, but the required equipment on the engine and the point of measurement (flywheel) remains the same. Because the test conditions are so similar, it is safe to divide DIN horsepower by 1.0139 to arrive at SAE net. This value is so close to equal that for all but the most technical purposes DIN and SAE net are interchangeable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example:
Vapor Horsepower?
For people in the habit of thinking about SAE net horsepower, or old musclecar enthusiasts accustomed to SAE gross numbers, looking at real-world rear-wheel horsepower can be quite a wake-up call. A 1970 Charger makes an excellent example. Its 318 was factory rated in 1970 at 230 horsepower (SAE gross). But on the dyno it came just short of 150 horsepower (corrected rear-wheel). Where did that 80 horsepower go?

Since that Charger is an automatic, roughly 20% of it went to turning the drivetrain. That puts it at somewhere around 188 SAE net horsepower (or to use American manufacturers' penchant for rounding up, 190). But since the factory number uses SAE gross, there's another 20% difference. And that puts us at 235 horsepower, just about where it needs to be. It all adds up, and the same engine can have an 80 hp difference through no other fault than the means by which the power is measured.

hop2002
07-07-2005, 10:39 AM
British (and American, afaik) engine ratings were given in BHP, brake horsepower. (I usually write just hp, partly because I'm lazy, partly because the "brake" bit is archaic, now)

From the link you provided:

"Brake Horsepower Often road test magazines will list horsepower as "bhp". This is just another way to talk about SAE net horsepower."

The difficulties with horsepower come from the fact that car makers started using theoretical horsepower calculation to sell their cars, this doesn't apply to WW2 aero engines.

The definition of "brake horsepower" according to Google: The actual or useful horsepower of an engine, usually determined from the force exerted on a friction brake or dynamometer connected to the drive shaft.

It makes sense for aero engines, of course. The government customers would want a common standard, not have to guess the actual power of an engine.


The Problem of gross HP is the fact, that it was in the Hand of the engeneer to select the experiment set-up. For example, it was ok to let the supercharger been driven by a 2nd engine! With this setup you will gain a lot of "virtuell" HP (up to 20%). Virtuell, cause in real flight the supercharger is driven by the own engine and needs some of the power he produced by itself to run.

Fair enough, but the ratings for British engines mostly come from the RAE, a government agency that would stick to standards, not make up inflated figures.

Here's a British chart for the BMW 801D. Note the BHP/PS chart down the left hand side:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1120753669_bmw801d-1024.jpg

As you can see, BHP is slightly more than PS, but only slightly. (which is why many sources don't bother converting, and use them interchangably)


The real Problem is, how was this value estimated, were there real tests with a better(-comparable) procedure?

Yes, that's why the brake horsepower. BHP is a tested, not theoritical, figure.

hop2002
07-07-2005, 10:51 AM
If you look at the two critical alts on the Russian charts, they are about 7,500 ft and 20,700 ft.

The prototype Spit XIV had critical alt whilst climbing of 1,700 ft and 21,800 ft. The low speed gearing was changed after this. The high alt figure is in agreement with unrammed figures for the Russian charts, though. A 1,100ft gain in critical alt due to climb speed is about right.

The Spit tested in 1946 had critical alts at climb speed of 9,000ft and 22,000ft. The high alt figure is again pretty much spot on, the low alt figure is a bit high, but not hugely so. Variations of 1,000ft or or more in critical altitude for individual aircraft/engines was not unusual.

So, the Russian chart, if it shows unrammed figures, is pretty much spot on for a Griffon at 18 lbs at high alt, a little low at low alt, but still within natural variation.

p1ngu666
07-07-2005, 02:54 PM
iirec the supercharger changed gear and speed etc baised on barametric pressure, so what height it changed at could change

Abbuzze
07-07-2005, 02:57 PM
Interesting! Thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Nobody should say that it is impossible to learn something in a forum!

Do you know something about US-engines?
Did the US-Government use bhp too?

lrrp22
07-07-2005, 06:08 PM
Yes. U.S. aero engine HP is invarialby listed as static (un-rammed) BHP.



Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Do you know something about US-engines?
Did the US-Government use bhp too?

Badsight.
07-07-2005, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
The Germans tested it during the war, and didn't get better than 25 m/s. ok wow , i thought it was fact that the K4 climb rate peaked at 27 M/S

the K4 got 25M/S as its peak climb on 1.98 ATA then i gather ?

i ask because 1.98 ATA K4s were exceedingly rare & its hard to find any evidence that they were run that high , just that they were rated to that boost

1.90 ATA is the highest number ive seen for K4's in service during those last few months

MEGILE
07-08-2005, 01:23 PM
It should be posted in ORR room.. doubt it will get through to Oleg, seing as it has been this way for many patches.

The flame war would be most amusing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif