PDA

View Full Version : P-40 = "Glass engine", as modelled in game??



mandrill7
11-29-2005, 09:03 AM
I ran a series of "trials" in the QMB for a 1942 Russian fighter/ German bomber scenario and "auditioned" the Mig3, LaGG3, P-40, Hurri field mod and Yak-7B. After an initial head-on pass, I inevitably re-attacked in the 8 through 4 quadrant on the bombers. Russian-style, I got in real close and was prepared to take some hits for a sure kill on the Heinkies.

I had assumed that the damage to my fighters' engines would be randomized and depending on luck, I could emerge unscathed, smoking or flaming in any kite I chose. But I found something quite different.

The fighters all reacted to engine hits quite differently. The LaGG3 always emerged unscathed. The Mig3 always smoked up and was flyable for several minutes after the firefight, allowing for crashlanding or easy bail-out. The Yak-7 always just sputtered to a non-flame dead stop and the unlucky P-40 always flamed up right away!

The predictability and lack of balance in this is a little disappointing. All these fighters are inline engined and none of them should be reacting differently to the others. Or should they?

BaldieJr
11-29-2005, 09:09 AM
Your evidence is amazing. Buy yourself a plaque or something really nice.

ploughman
11-29-2005, 09:14 AM
The P-40's fuel tank was in the propeller hub. Seems an obvious mistake now but hindsight is 20-20 and those guys were having to learn fast.

Hydra444
11-29-2005, 09:23 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif I haven't ever noticed that.But then again,I don't sit right behind bombers and let them take pot shots at me either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Chuck_Older
11-29-2005, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by mandrill7:
All these fighters are inline engined and none of them should be reacting differently to the others. Or should they?

You can answer that yourself after thinking about this question:

Did they all have the same engine, with the same fuel delivery system, with the same cooling systems, with the same placement of hydraulic accumulators, pumps, etc, etc, etc, or were each of these planes different in design and manufacture?

The answer is, of course, that each had a unique design, so why do you expect them to act the same? There is no formula that says "Inline engines must all behave the following way"

Best tip: don't get shot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

msalama
11-29-2005, 10:53 AM
Well, what Chuck said.

Kocur_
11-29-2005, 03:10 PM
Did they all have the same engine, with the same fuel delivery system, with the same cooling systems, with the same placement of hydraulic accumulators, pumps, etc, etc, etc,

LaGG-3 and Yak-7B - YES http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Btw: I flew a lot in Mustangs lately. Almost everytime I was hit in the fuselage engine was damaged seriously and 'insta-stop' was the most common 'damage'. Question to Spitfires pilots: does that happen to RR Merlins too?

VW-IceFire
11-29-2005, 03:21 PM
Couple of things.

1) LaGG-3 uses a simplified damage model...its rediculously resistant to all but critical damage and then it suddenly falls apart (explodes or dewings or whatever)

2) I could be wrong but I think the P-40 has a fuel tank up there in the front and thats what gets lit on fire. Could be wrong.

3) The MiG-3 was well known for being fairly thin skinned and unable to resist battle damage in any serious quantity.

4) The Yak's were fairly sturdily built and the Klimov engine was not a great performer but it was fairly tought as inline engines go. How tough or sturdy or resistant is another thing altogether.

5) Spitfire's Merlins VS Mustang's Merlin's go like this. The Spitfire, when hit in the engine, will loose its prop pitch control wherein the prop starts spinning faster and faster and the engine dies or you bring it under control and limp back with an engine that may die at any moment. OR it will smoke and then light on fire. The Mustang seems to not have the first instance and rarely the second...but it will just stop.

mandrill7
11-29-2005, 03:52 PM
Thanks to IceFire and Ploughman for taking the time to answer my query. I understand how and why the planes reacted differently now, especially the LaGG and P-40.

I'm still working on not getting shot up. I tried the same stuff last nite with the Yak-9T and P-39/N. With a 37, the Heinkies go down so fast, you just walk away smiling.

Kocur_
11-29-2005, 04:13 PM
4) The Yak's were fairly sturdily built and the Klimov engine was not a great performer but it was fairly tought as inline engines go. How tough or sturdy or resistant is another thing altogether.
Im sorry but that impression can be made by this game only. IRL all Yaks were light planes built using low weight-efficiency technology, so were definately not sturdy at all, not even "fairly". For "fairly sturdily built" planes of WW2 era were able to dive safely faster than 700kmh - that was not Yaks case (not until all-metal Yak-9P of 1947).
As much as AM engines series by Mikulin were independent soviet design, and so could be thought of as sturdier than western constructions, M-105 was nothing more but improved French Hispano-Suiza 12Ybrs. And that improving was mostly increacing compression, with technology as before. Result was that all versions of M-105s were overheating and leaking oil almost constantly.

Stigler_9_JG52
11-29-2005, 04:14 PM
Add to the list:

An inline engine is far less resistant to battle damage than a radial engine, across the board. All it takes is one hit on a hose (especially a COOLANT hose) to set the stage for a quick sieze up. Meanwhile, radials were known to bring pilots home with a couple of cylinders shot away.

If you're in a plane with an inline engine, you should consider yourself as having a glass jaw.

Chuck_Older
11-29-2005, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Did they all have the same engine, with the same fuel delivery system, with the same cooling systems, with the same placement of hydraulic accumulators, pumps, etc, etc, etc,

LaGG-3 and Yak-7B - YES http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Btw: I flew a lot in Mustangs lately. Almost everytime I was hit in the fuselage engine was damaged seriously and 'insta-stop' was the most common 'damage'. Question to Spitfires pilots: does that happen to RR Merlins too? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two points:

1) When I use the word "all", it means "all", not just a few. "Few" means "few", "some" means "some". "All" means all the planes he is talking about. Also, even the planes with the same engine...do you think all their ancilliary systems are set up exactly the same way?

2) The Mustangs we have in this sim use Rolls Royce Merlins. They were license built by Packard. The answer to your question is "You already saw it happen to a Rolls Royce Merlin in the P-51"

VW-IceFire
11-29-2005, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">4) The Yak's were fairly sturdily built and the Klimov engine was not a great performer but it was fairly tought as inline engines go. How tough or sturdy or resistant is another thing altogether.
Im sorry but that impression can be made by this game only. IRL all Yaks were light planes built using low weight-efficiency technology, so were definately not sturdy at all, not even "fairly". For "fairly sturdily built" planes of WW2 era were able to dive safely faster than 700kmh - that was not Yaks case (not until all-metal Yak-9P of 1947).
As much as AM engines series by Mikulin were independent soviet design, and so could be thought of as sturdier than western constructions, M-105 was nothing more but improved French Hispano-Suiza 12Ybrs. And that improving was mostly increacing compression, with technology as before. Result was that all versions of M-105s were overheating and leaking oil almost constantly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've read the same thing but I've also read that Yak's were, when put together properly, a fairly sturdy plane. No their critical dive speed was not great and their resistance to battle damage varried greatly across individual aircraft but they weren't all that bad. Certainly not like a Zero was...they were tougher than that.

I had read, but I cannot remember where, that the Klimov was a fairly sturdy engine. I know it was a variation on the French Hispano Suiza design and I can only assume that the same sturdyness applies to that engine as well.

Not that it should be all that different in how it behaves when hit by bullets than a Allison or a Merlin really...

Yak's are not bad in-game but they succumb with only a few hits most of the time. On odd occasion they seem to be able to soak up quite a few hits...what that is about I don't know.

The LaGG-3's are the ones that tick me right off...it should burn but they are solid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mortoma
11-29-2005, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mandrill7:
All these fighters are inline engined and none of them should be reacting differently to the others. Or should they?

You can answer that yourself after thinking about this question:

Did they all have the same engine, with the same fuel delivery system, with the same cooling systems, with the same placement of hydraulic accumulators, pumps, etc, etc, etc, or were each of these planes different in design and manufacture?

The answer is, of course, that each had a unique design, so why do you expect them to act the same? There is no formula that says "Inline engines must all behave the following way"

Best tip: don't get shot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course they weren't exactly alike. That doesn't mean that the DM of all the engines was done correctly for this sim. As a matter of fact, the Allison engine that the P-40 had in it was well known to be durable and take a lot of damage.
One it's only good features beside good low altitude performance. But yet the engine in the P-40 requires only one hit and it stops cold practically every time, as does the Merlin on the P-51. I don't know about the Merlin but I'd say there is something seriously wrong with the DM of the P-40s Allison. You can't use a P-40 to intercept an enemy plane with defensive guns. If you do you'll be toast. The answer is not to be more careful when flying the P-40 over other fighters, when attacking bombers. We shouldn't have to do that. They should fix the DM of the Allison to be more historically accurate in the first place. I should not have to be more careful attacking bombers in the P-40 than any other fighter period.

SkyChimp
11-29-2005, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
The P-40's fuel tank was in the propeller hub. Seems an obvious mistake now but hindsight is 20-20 and those guys were having to learn fast.

Instead of a drop tank, the pilot wore a suit that could be inflated with extra fuel.

VW-IceFire
11-29-2005, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mandrill7:
All these fighters are inline engined and none of them should be reacting differently to the others. Or should they?

You can answer that yourself after thinking about this question:

Did they all have the same engine, with the same fuel delivery system, with the same cooling systems, with the same placement of hydraulic accumulators, pumps, etc, etc, etc, or were each of these planes different in design and manufacture?

The answer is, of course, that each had a unique design, so why do you expect them to act the same? There is no formula that says "Inline engines must all behave the following way"

Best tip: don't get shot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course they weren't exactly alike. That doesn't mean that the DM of all the engines was done correctly for this sim. As a matter of fact, the Allison engine that the P-40 had in it was well known to be durable and take a lot of damage.
One it's only good features beside good low altitude performance. But yet the engine in the P-40 requires only one hit and it stops cold practically every time, as does the Merlin on the P-51. I don't know about the Merlin but I'd say there is something seriously wrong with the DM of the P-40s Allison. You can't use a P-40 to intercept an enemy plane with defensive guns. If you do you'll be toast. The answer is not to be more careful when flying the P-40 over other fighters, when attacking bombers. We shouldn't have to do that. They should fix the DM of the Allison to be more historically accurate in the first place. I should not have to be more careful attacking bombers in the P-40 than any other fighter period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I built an entire campaign around intercepting aircraft with defensive guns in a P-40N...this little engine hit thing never stopped me cold. The key is not being hit or at least not in the engine.

Da_Godfatha
11-30-2005, 11:36 AM
The fuel tank on the P-40 was behind the pilot. Oil tank and coolant tank were up front. Engine hits from the front usually hit the oil tank which in turn caused the oil to spray on the hot engine and produced alot of smoke.

That is in real life of course, not in Oleg's World !

jugent
12-01-2005, 03:58 AM
Test the zero or Me, there is the glass engine. All russian fighters are more resistant to enemy fire, and got more damage-effect to its own.
It got its origin in the secret sources that Maddox got acess to when they made this game, like Delta-wood and secret wind-thunnel tests.