PDA

View Full Version : P-38 prop pitch



AllorNothing117
11-12-2008, 03:01 PM
I've been flying the P-38 for some time now and have understood the basics of prop pitch for some time now too. However a breif experiment into the efects of prop pitch on the P-38 led me to believe that 100% all the time seemed to work best. I realise now that probably isn't true. As I get better at flying and push the P-38 more and more I'm getting more overheats and I know prop pitch can help to stop that from, happening. But I'm unsure about how to use the prop pitch on the 38 it seems to slow me down allot, unless I'm in a dive. It'd be great if some P-38 piolets could shed some light on the subject for me. Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mortoma
11-12-2008, 06:32 PM
You are correct since the effects of PP are not modeled very well in this sim. Overall most planes are able to go their fastest speed at any altitude at full PP. But there's one time when it helps to lower the PP on the P-38.

If you are slow and want to get faster, let's say you are at 300Kphh and want to get up to 500Kph. If you lower it to around 60 to 70%, then back up fairly quickly to 100% you'll see a surge of acceleration that can't duplicated if you leave it at 100%. Then when it gets up to about 400Kph, go down to about 80% and back up to 100% after a few seconds and you'll see another surge of acceleration.

Try this and you'll see it works. Try going from 300 to 500Kph leaving the PP up at 100%, then repeat it using my method. You'll see that it does in fact accelerate faster using my method.

Of course you'll also pick up in a dive faster this way too.

Choctaw111
11-12-2008, 06:48 PM
Thanks for the info mortoma. I have been flying this for a long time and never knew that. I was just in the Lightning for some practice. I will have to try this out.

julian265
11-13-2008, 02:27 AM
So it's not just the tempest that has this cheat then?!

Jex_TE
11-13-2008, 03:13 AM
Is this an exploit or is it modelled? If an exploit then it is cheating. Can the real P38 get this acceleration boost by using this method?

WOLFMondo
11-13-2008, 04:43 AM
Its an exploit!!

R_Target
11-13-2008, 08:24 AM
Sounds just like the Tempest exploit.

Daiichidoku
11-13-2008, 08:44 AM
i know a mustang pilot (who posts here) who drops PP in his P 51D and manages to outrun Fw-190Doras and La7s on the deck in tail chases http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

AFAIK no 51D should ever outrun doras and lavochkins at SL

same as the cheaters who used to use PP "exploit" on K4s to gain ahistorical climb values, some must "game the game" and gain an ahistorical performance or advantage

unless he wishes to tell us how IRL 51 jocks dropped their PP manually at any time outside of combat, and prove it........... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

AllorNothing117
11-13-2008, 08:58 AM
Hmmmmmmmmmm.... As tempting as it is, if it's exploiting/cheating/uneralistic I don't think I'll bother.

Erkki_M
11-13-2008, 09:09 AM
Hmmmmmmmmmm.... As tempting as it is, if it's exploiting/cheating/uneralistic I don't think I'll bother.

No, its not cheating. Only if you use it the way those few use it(doesnt work in all aircraft). You will probably never find out how that "how" is, so dont worry about adjusting PP being cheating.

Kocur_
11-13-2008, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
i know a mustang pilot (who posts here) who drops PP in his P 51D and manages to outrun Fw-190Doras and La7s on the deck in tail chases http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

AFAIK no 51D should ever outrun doras and lavochkins at SL


I belive you refer to me.
P-51D actually should be about as fast as Fw 190D or La-7 and... it is in game. Both German and Soviet fighter should be good for 612 km/h without bomb racks.
P-51D with racks and equivalent of in-game "100%" fuel could go as fast as 375 mph/603,4 km/h, according to this (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=prply&x_popup=Y&f=23110283&m=6621026407&qm=1211028407). And that (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51-tactical-chart.jpg) mentiones racks stealing 4 mph/6,4 km/h (must be some mean figure as no alt is mentioned). In-game P-51D without racks will go like 608-609 km/h at 100 % fuel and 100 % PP - as it should (375 + 4 mph/603,4 + 6,4 km/h = 379 mph/609,8 km/h). I belive P-51D lighter by like 400 kg of lacking 75 % fuel - as I take 25% - should have additional two or three kilometer per hour, don't you?


Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
unless he wishes to tell us how IRL 51 jocks dropped their PP manually at any time outside of combat, and prove it........... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I recall Bearcat99 mentioning conversation with a 332nd Fighter Group veteran and if my memory serves me right, he said something about acceleration from lowering pitch pressing his back against the seat.
If my memory fails me in that respect and Bearcat99 would correct it, that is, it would turn out that Mustangs pilots could't get some more speed by lowering PP, you can achieve peace by just joining me in imagining that I'm flying 8th AF P-51D or Mustang Mk IV, that is one running on 150 octane fuel. And tell me I can't imagine that and use PP. Especially that it is quite commonly used by experienced virtual pilots to get a little more speed or acceleration, especially in dives or just to get historical performance that the game will not them have at auto setting.

While speaking of exploits or cheats: how would you categorise shooting .50s at like 1 km distance using zoom view? I mean: it is unhistorical for sure AND the game lets you do that.

Aaron_GT
11-13-2008, 11:46 AM
To be fair on a 17 inch monitor at normal viewing distances the zoomed in view objects subtend roughly the same angle as objects would in real life. I.e. the zoomed in view is accurate and the issue is that really that the field of view is narrow. Plus in real life you could fire at 1km too - and miss http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's probably too easy to hit in the game at 1km as dispersion doesn't (AFAIK) model wind and other chaotic effects at long distances, just a fixed angle. I am sure neglecting those effects simplifies code and reduces processing requirements.

julian265
11-13-2008, 03:03 PM
This 'exploit' is not remotely historical.

If any gain was to be had by lowering pitch in a dive, it was lowered ONCE and left at the same RPM setting.

Max level speed in any AC with a proper pitch governor should be had at 100% pitch.

I have tested the P-38 in a few level speed trials at various pitch settings, and it does indeed reach it's max speed at 100%.

TS_Sancho
11-13-2008, 09:37 PM
Thanks for the tip Mortoma, I knew about setting BF109/FW190 to manual to get a quicker bump but was unaware of this one as well. I tried dumping pitch to 60 and bringing it back to 100 over a couple of seconds on Tempest, Mustang III and Dora (on manuel).The acceleration gain is substantial.
As far as being a cheat, the complex engine management we have isnt remotley close to reality so the point is lost to me.I'll take every legitimate advantage I can any time I can.

Skoshi Tiger
11-13-2008, 10:25 PM
Do any of the aircraft mentioned (P-51, P38, Tempest) actually have a propellor pitch control?

The in-game "propellor pitch" control for these planes actually sets the RPM speed for the govenors of their constant speed propellors. (It is miss-labeled in the game but documented in the readme files)

So at a given speed and throttle setting, you reduce the RPM, the pitch becomes coarser to absorb the power. Increase the RPM and the pitch becomes finer to allow it to spin faster. (Well thats my understaning of the CSP unit)

So maybe if your running your motor at 3500RPM at 100%(A lot over the red line) and pull back on the RMP (Lets say to 2500RPM at 70%) the propellor pitch will go to full coarse to shed the kinetic energy stored in the rotation of the motor and throw back a lot more air resulting in the extra acceleration for a brief time, then as the RPM drop the blades will go to a finer pitch to sit at the 2500RPM

In real life without reducing the throttle first, I think, you'd probably get detonation and throw a piston out the side of your engine, but hey this is a Sim. (Anyone with CSP experience please cut in and correct me! )

LEBillfish
11-14-2008, 12:19 AM
Actually PP does & doesn't work how one might think.

Think of it like gearing on a car. Here however it somewhat confused. If your PP is 100% it's like first gear.....40% like 4th. A better example might be a screw (which it really is)....At 100% it might take 100 revolutions to go 10', yet at 40% it might take 40 revolutions to go the same 10'.

So 40% is better right?......Well not always. A lot of it has to do with running the engine at a peak rpm. If you try to get a car going starting in 4th gear (40%pp), the engine must struggle quite a while before getting there......Yet in kind have it in 1st (100%pp) gear at 70mph means the engine must be screaming at 8,000rpm.

When the engine has high rpm's you should be able to run at a lower pp and gain more speed. Higher pp to take the load off the engine allowing it to wind up to peak rpm's and therefor torque.

Try it, under the right conditions you can run 50%throttle and 50%PP and get the same speed as 100%/100%.......However, the problem comes in where in the sim, maximum speeds are met via too high of a PP....

Exact numbers I can't say as to what is right and so on, it also having to do with manifold pressure.

Versions previous, run too high of a PP and wham, engine burns up....Somewhere that got lost. You still can, yet not to the degree it once was (as 109s when you went to manual were at roughly 40%...yet if you didn't preset it to there before switching it would over rev to something like 85% blowing the engine).

So yes, it does get exploited sadly.....I myself like challenging myself to fly as real as possible, so my throttle and PP stay very close and based upon speed/rpm/mp and what I'm about to do.

In either case it now is how it is and won't be changing.

K2

M_Gunz
11-14-2008, 06:06 AM
RPM and forward speed combine to create the path of the prop blades. The blades being wings,
they make lift through AOA and speed with the latter maintained by engine power. The most
efficient use of prop will have it at near-stall AOA, best climb rate sort of thing. You
want high induced drag on the prop and you pay more and more to parasitic drag as you fly
faster and turn the prop faster, the speed increase only makes more lift at least until you
get compression setting in at which point less RPM's lets the engine spend less energy on
prop drag and more on thrust.
So they build a plane with design targets in mind and maybe it has prop matched to the plane
for speed in which case 100% RPM for rated power or maybe the prop is matched for climb in
which case the same plane won't go so fast anyway.

RPM, speed and power all go together. You screw one up then your results will vary from tests
made by those who did not. Most of these planes were by design made for max revs at sustainable
high power settings at high speeds, also max revs for climb at some alts (check test data, for
instance P-47's did lower climb RPM above some altitude) though again the PROP used makes a
difference and we do have planes with different props than were used to make some charts that
have been shown here -- if I take climb chart of a plane made with a for-climb prop and combine
that with speed chart of the same basic plane but with for-speed prop then I end up with unreal
expectations labeled as "that plane" which has been done here more than two or three times.

Prop management isn't a simple matter of jam it to the limit just as engine management isn't
a simple matter of jam full throttle. You won't get the best results except where those
settings are indicated and you'll probably overheat and overstress the rig before then anyway.

If your plane has monster power and you are not anywhere near full speed then what will a CSP
prop do when you give it full go? The blades will coarsen. Coarsen them enough and they will
stall just to soak off power and then you can go cry about lousy acceleration.

If the prop is matched to engine power to run 100% RPM at full level speed then what happens
in a dive at more than that? The engine will at some point lack the power to turn the prop
at such RPM +and+ make best thrust at the same time. Faster the plane goes, more is prop drag,
you need to slow the prop to get best efficiency of such a design.

* We have a sim where you can make a difference using proper management of engine and prop.
* It's not perfect but it's a long way ahead of most of what came before at least in combat sims for PCs.
* We have a majority of players who don't know squat about such management and can't be bothered
knowing anything they can't learn in under 2 minutes outside of playing at combat and yet let
them latch onto some idea that "something's wrong" and they howl for the moon.

If it's truly an exploit then guess at the chances of IL2 being changed over it?
My guess is zero chance. Good news for those who live to b1tch, huh?

TS_Sancho
11-14-2008, 12:07 PM
Good posts Billfish(practical example) and M_Gunz(well explained theory).

M_Gunz
11-14-2008, 12:30 PM
You can back up the theory with simple practice just in high speed dives and seeing how
you can squeeze the most speed out of reduced power settings which is where I _started_
long ago. It's just a way to back up what I used to post since after all prop blades
being wings is not something I made up nor is lift and drag and how they work. I did the
things before I found the explanations.

Try running at 70% power and 100% RPM at level till the speed tops out and then cut RPM 10%
and see if the nose don't raise (assuming you are trimmed or holding steady stick) before
you get it back to level same alt and going faster. Keep cutting RPM till it doesn't help.
That's the best that 70% power can do even though it can run 100% RPM easily enough.

Oh hell, try it at 90% power.

If you can't get better speed in a power dive at reduced RPM then you're doing something wrong.

PanzerAce2.0
11-14-2008, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:

In real life without reducing the throttle first, I think, you'd probably get detonation and throw a piston out the side of your engine, but hey this is a Sim. (Anyone with CSP experience please cut in and correct me! )

How about someone with any experience with an ICE period? If I'm running at WOT and then slam on the brakes, the engine might not like it, but it isn't going to window the block unless something else is seriously wrong.

M_Gunz
11-14-2008, 01:36 PM
What is ICE and ICE period? What is WOT?
Something to do with piston engine wheeled vehicle (of some kind) racing, I guess that much!

In the case of these planes it should depend on how fast you're going when you cut the RPMs.
I could jump gears on my old 4-speeds without lugging the engine under certain conditions,
I'd have more fear about dropping a gear at too high a speed than shifting up (lower RPMs)
at too low a speed even though neither was much good for the engine. Running down a steep
hill it's no trouble shifting up early while running up that same hill I want higher RPMs.

Conditions! Always Conditions!

Hookecho
11-14-2008, 03:07 PM
Not sure about all planes but I have tested (and used in game) the Hg numbers and RPM numbers for things like max cruise etc that I get from the specific engine charts (that i have) for planes like the F4u-1a and the P51. From what i have experenced, they fly and preform pretty damn close to those numbers. Not sure if any of that is on or off topic or not.

Last night I was flying the Y29 missions someone here posted about a long time ago...anyway I'm chasing dootlebugs (buzz bombs) with a P51d-20NA (I forget, its the one with the K-14 sight) and I found that if I put the RPM in the green (about 70-74% RPM or pitch as the game displays it) I was able to maintain my speed better to catch the fast little bastards than if my RPMs had the needle buried at 100%....not sure if that meets any testing standards but it seemed to work for me last night...I got 4 of them....well the 4th actually got me back when it blew up and riddled my 'Stang like a 12 gage and damn near knocked me out of the air.

Skoshi Tiger
11-14-2008, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by PanzerAce2.0:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:

In real life without reducing the throttle first, I think, you'd probably get detonation and throw a piston out the side of your engine, but hey this is a Sim. (Anyone with CSP experience please cut in and correct me! )


How about someone with any experience with an ICE period? If I'm running at WOT and then slam on the brakes, the engine might not like it, but it isn't going to window the block unless something else is seriously wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure about ICE and WOT myself?

The following page is from a pdf I found somewhere which is a training manual for a P40

http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/marina.grayden/csup40.jpg

After reading this we can see that reducing the RPM without adjusting the throttle, increases the Manifold pressure (Dangerously in some cases). Manifold pressure is our measure of power in an Aero engine. The CSU will make the blades go coarse to deliver that power and keep the engine at the selected RPM.

From what I remember from my general aviation reading the procedures and information is relevent to all CSU propellers. (Cases like the later mark Spitfires whave a mechanical linkages between the throttle and RPM leavers to make sure they operate in the correct order.)

Maybe I should have used a shattered head as an example instead of throwing a piston?

You can't really compare 27+ liter aero engine with something in a car. As stated before in other threads, Car engines are designed to allow changes in RPM happen quickly, aero engines aren't. Aeroengines "like" constant RPM's

M_Gunz
11-14-2008, 10:14 PM
You could use engine knock as an example when rpm is not reduced greatly but still first.

If 110% power goes with 100% rpm then is it possible that 100% power works better with less than
100% rpm?

It seems to with P-47's. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html)

The first one shown, climb at Military Power for 5 min (aka WEP) at 2700 RPM (aka full for that
plane at end of 1942, check the max speeds all at Military Power and 2700 RPM) and drop to 2400
RPM at Rated Power (non-WEP, bhp drops from 2000 to 1625) from 12,600 ft to ceiling.

I have no doubt that in level flight at or under critical alt that full RPM should be maintained
but what I try to point out is that many IL2 players tend to run at 100% RPM regardless of
power setting since you can't run at full WEP all the time at every altitude though some
planes can in certain alts/conditions as has been debated here before -- Viper2000 had some
things to say about P-47s at high alt IIRC.

You get players running at RPMs higher than engine power would indicate -- tell me what would
happen if they were to lower RPMs to what would be correct and fine for operation at the less
than WEP power setting? Would you get engine knock, pistons escaping, kablooie or would you
get a faster airplane?
Because THAT's where I'm coming from, when the engine settings aren't proper in the first place
then the rules regarding changing proper settings might not fully apply. Is different, no?

What RPM is correct at 100% power when max RPM is correct at 110% power? Can't I command less
RPM than more than I should without blowing the engine up? I would think so.

Skoshi Tiger
11-15-2008, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You could use engine knock as an example when rpm is not reduced greatly but still first.

If 110% power goes with 100% rpm then is it possible that 100% power works better with less than
100% rpm?

It seems to with P-47's. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html)

The first one shown, climb at Military Power for 5 min (aka WEP) at 2700 RPM (aka full for that
plane at end of 1942, check the max speeds all at Military Power and 2700 RPM) and drop to 2400
RPM at Rated Power (non-WEP, bhp drops from 2000 to 1625) from 12,600 ft to ceiling.
.....

What RPM is correct at 100% power when max RPM is correct at 110% power? Can't I command less
RPM than more than I should without blowing the engine up? I would think so.

Very interesting read Gunz. (also the read more link) It goes to highlight there is a lot more to consider and many factors to take into account of than many may realise.

ALT TAS RPM HG Turb BHP Climb Time
12,600 204 2700 50.4 11,750 2000 2410 5.00
12,600 195 2550 39.6 9,400 1625 1800
15,000 200 2550 39.4 10,650 1625 1725 6.7

I think its significant point at 12,600 feet which was 5 minutes into the flight where it reached the limit Military power. The RPM was reduced to 2550RPM and the Manifold pressure (HG) was also dropped down to 39.6 inches

These settings are all related. and I doubt many of us sim pilots (Talking about myself here) would get through the basic flying training flying like we do in the sim.

Sims arwe too forgiving.

M_Gunz
11-15-2008, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
ALT TAS RPM HG Turb BHP Climb Time
12,600 204 2700 50.4 11,750 2000 2410 5.00
12,600 195 2550 39.6 9,400 1625 1800
15,000 200 2550 39.4 10,650 1625 1725 6.7

I think its significant point at 12,600 feet which was 5 minutes into the flight where it reached the limit Military power. The RPM was reduced to 2550RPM and the Manifold pressure (HG) was also dropped down to 39.6 inches

I believe this was done due to engine heat. My main reason is because of the 5 min limit.
Had they been able to maintain WEP then I believe they would have held the same RPM.

I do some thinking though and I see from this that speed isn't so critical a factor, or at
least climb speed is fast enough to allow the same RPM as max level speed which is much
greater. That still doesn't say that lessening RPMs in highspeed dive isn't an okay thing.


These settings are all related. and I doubt many of us sim pilots (Talking about myself here) would get through the basic flying training flying like we do in the sim.

Sims arwe too forgiving.

In less than 10 years they've gotten a lot less forgiving, thanks to IL2!

What happened to fighter pilots that didn't make the cut? I knew one who flew bombers!
That's not to say that bomber pilots are any less, just that they are good at other things
as shown by post-war many fighter pilots being found unsuited to flying airline operations
where the bomber pilots fit in very well at least on the averages. The disciplines differ
in some fundamental ways, it's not just a matter of temperament either.

AllorNothing117
11-17-2008, 08:59 AM
O.k. u lost me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

julian265
11-17-2008, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Hookecho:
... I found that if I put the RPM in the green (about 70-74% RPM or pitch as the game displays it) I was able to maintain my speed better to catch the fast little bastards than if my RPMs had the needle buried at 100%....

That doesn't make sense to me, unless you were diving.

Certainly the merlin makes less power at 2500 rpm than at 3000 rpm, and in reality you couldn't run the allowed 3000rpm manifold pressure at lower revs.

Every plane that I've tested achieves maximum level speed at 100% pitch in IL2.

M_Gunz
11-17-2008, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by julian265:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hookecho:
... I found that if I put the RPM in the green (about 70-74% RPM or pitch as the game displays it) I was able to maintain my speed better to catch the fast little bastards than if my RPMs had the needle buried at 100%....

That doesn't make sense to me, unless you were diving.

Certainly the merlin makes less power at 2500 rpm than at 3000 rpm, and in reality you couldn't run the allowed 3000rpm manifold pressure at lower revs.

Every plane that I've tested achieves maximum level speed at 100% pitch in IL2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At what power settings?

How much power the engine makes doesn't equate to thrust. Run at 70% power and 100% rpm, will
you go no faster at lower rpm? The CSP prop will fine out if the engine is not making enough
power to run it at the desired rpm and hold the highest thrust-producing AOA at the same time.

I expect the matched engine and prop combination to perform best at what it is designed for.
Not every combination was matched for best top level speed either, some were for climb.

julian265
11-17-2008, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
At what power settings?


Full throttle, trying various pitch settings, maintaining the same level height, and waiting around a minute for stabilisation.


How much power the engine makes doesn't equate to thrust.
I disagree, having subtracted the usual efficiency drops, where does it go?


Run at 70% power and 100% rpm, will you go no faster at lower rpm? The CSP prop will fine out if the engine is not making enough power to run it at the desired rpm and hold the highest thrust-producing AOA at the same time. I don't think the governor cares what pitch it has chosen, only that it gives the set RPM.


I expect the matched engine and prop combination to perform best at what it is designed for.
Not every combination was matched for best top level speed either, some were for climb.

For sure. However I have never read about a pilot reducing their RPM lever to gain more speed, in a emergency chase/run. I'd be interested to read about it if anyone else has!

M_Gunz
11-17-2008, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by julian265:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Run at 70% power and 100% rpm, will you go no faster at lower rpm? The CSP prop will fine out if the engine is not making enough power to run it at the desired rpm and hold the highest thrust-producing AOA at the same time.
I don't think the governor cares what pitch it has chosen, only that it gives the set RPM. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the point. The governor changes the pitch until the load on the blades is high or low
enough for the engine to turn them at the desired rpm. If the engine has not the power to turn
the blades at full revs while producing maximum thrust then the blades lower pitch and produce
less thrust while making the chosen revs.

Mostly the prop and engine seem matched so it makes the highest speed at the highest revs when
run at the highest power. If the same prop was put on a less powerful engine it would be like
the former engine run at lower power, no? So you can run at 70% power and see how the model
works out, for me it works out logically.

Next step is figure out what happens when you exceed the max level speed in a dive. In game
I go faster when I drop the revs.

Since the max revs is a limit it might be good per plane to find out what engine power is the
least that gives best level speed at 100% rpm. It's unreal to run around at full power all
the time even though it is possible at least until time to land.

Coming in to land I find that full rpms with low power gives me speed control. At 25% power
in level flight the plane will slow down if it's going too fast and speed up if too slow.
At least it does in planes that can maintain level flight at those settings! My prop becomes
a brake which IRL is a BAD thing IIUC though possible up to some point not pushing too much.

IL2 engine model does not go into that realm at all, drop power in a diving plane to idle
while keeping revs full and you only get more drag and not prop cone disintegrating on you.
Still there are planes that had engine quit and prop spun the whole works and stayed together.
It's a funny old world.

JtD
11-17-2008, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
... In game I go faster when I drop the revs...


Can you please post test specifics and results?

M_Gunz
11-18-2008, 06:56 AM
From 2-3 years ago when I ran UDPSpeed? I lost that PC to lightning back in May, running on
a backup PC till I upgrade for either ROF or SOW whichever comes first. I had posted numbers
before and some people did catch on though.

JtD
11-18-2008, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
...I lost that PC to lightning back in May...

Those P-38's are really nasty...

So far I have found only minor differences between 100% and less than 100% pitch at high speeds.

GH_Klingstroem
11-18-2008, 09:22 AM
Guys! Ure missing a BIG point!!
I will agree that max speed will be achieved at 100% power and 100%PP IF you start at a low speed an accelerate up to maximum speed.
However, if you start at a higher speed and want to maintain E, then reducing the PP is and great idea (IN GAME). At least for the P51s!
If this is done, the max speed of the P51D20 will stay around 620-610km/h for a looooong time. (assuming proper trim of course...)

julian265
11-18-2008, 03:17 PM
Oh, well that's interesting!

JtD
11-18-2008, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Guys! Ure missing a BIG point!!

No, we're not missing this point, it's actually the one M_Gunz and myself are talking about.

WTE_Galway
11-18-2008, 03:53 PM
I think ICE and WOT are street race acronyms for Wide Open Throttle and Internal Combustion Engine

triad773
11-19-2008, 04:35 PM
I am not alone with wanting to be able to control twin engine craft independently but it is not modelled in the sim.

Engine control, prop pitch AND mixture would be nice features, that as I understand it is deep in the guts of the game and thus not very doable, no matter who is doing it.

Aside from having trim on a slider or toggle switch, I find prop pitch most useful in landing approach as things are IMHO.

M_Gunz
11-19-2008, 09:12 PM
You can assign and run two throttles if you got em.
You can macro a hat to make the engines run differently in 5% steps even, no slider needed.
It's far from impossible, dunno where you get that idea.

DC-218
11-20-2008, 10:38 AM
Wow, alot of different opinions about Prop Pitch.

With my own "studies" of prop pitch, I have found that I DO get better performance with my prop pitch set at 100% for take off, then as I climb and reduce throttle to 85% or 90%, I also set my Pitch to 80% to 75%. My engine has to work alot less to achieve the same effect at 100% Prop. (Of course, this was done in the Corsairs, F6Fs, and even the P-38. A-20 and B-25 showed a marked improvement as well.)

Now, that is just at THOSE particular settings. When I would go into an attack posture (Boom and Zoom) I would "increase" the pitch again in steps back up to 100% until I was commited on the target, then I'd throttle back "glide" to target and stike. On my roll out, I would power back up, and "decrease" prop pitchback to my normal settings.

Now, perhaps that is not the correct setup, however I found it worked for me in many other aspects, not just getting into an "Attack Posture."

Does this help? I don't know. Just something I have found.

Thanks,
DC

M_Gunz
11-20-2008, 03:31 PM
Also the faster the prop turns the more torque you get when you are for example correcting aim.