PDA

View Full Version : The Glass Pratt and Whitney R-2800 is STILL here



HayateAce
11-09-2005, 10:28 AM
Oleg 1C: Why is the Pratt and Whitney R-2800 one of the most easily knocked out engines in your game, when in real life it was one of the most durable in the war?

Signed,

Puzzled in Utah


http://www.shanaberger.com/engines/R-2800.jpg

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Pratt/Aero10G2.jpg

HayateAce
11-09-2005, 10:28 AM
Oleg 1C: Why is the Pratt and Whitney R-2800 one of the most easily knocked out engines in your game, when in real life it was one of the most durable in the war?

Signed,

Puzzled in Utah


http://www.shanaberger.com/engines/R-2800.jpg

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Pratt/Aero10G2.jpg

faustnik
11-09-2005, 10:30 AM
Good question.

Hetzer_II
11-09-2005, 10:39 AM
wohoo.. First time i see Hayate posting a good question..

So why??

crazyivan1970
11-09-2005, 10:48 AM
Read "I flew for Fuhrer" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Size doesn`t matter...no armor, no glory http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HayateAce
11-09-2005, 11:31 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Size doesn't always matter, but redundancy does. Yes Hetzer, I have taken the blue pill today.

faustnik
11-09-2005, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Yes Hetzer, I have taken the blue pill today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We all thank you and your pharmacist. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I've been getting together ntraks and data on this issue for a while. I will be getting it to 1C soon.

Viper2005_
11-09-2005, 12:19 PM
I don't think that the R-2800 is the problem.

I think that the problem is that coolant leaks for liquid cooled engines are not simulated.

Liquid cooled engines are therefore much tougher than they should be; aircooled engines therefore look bad.

A single round will knock down a P-51 if it hits either the main radiator or the intercooler radiator; both run on the same system (against advice from RR). The engine will fail due to coolant starvation in ~ 15 minutes from a single rifle calibre round.

This simply doesn't happen in game.

I would suggest that the R-2800 isn't too weak, but that the liquid cooled engines in game are too strong.

Until cooling systems are simulated, air cooled engines will not display their historical "toughness" when compared with liquid cooled engines.

BTW that applies just as much to the Jumo and DB engines as to the Merlin and V-1710...

HayateAce
11-09-2005, 12:47 PM
Disagree 100%!

The P51s Merlin is worse than glass, something like styrofoam. The cooling system/damage/leaks is not done very well, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the 2800 can be taken out with small MG fire, and not much of it at that.

R2800's lost entire cylinders and still went on home.

chris455
11-09-2005, 04:57 PM
Thank you HayateAce for asking this simple, but very compelling question about what is for me the single most vexing aspect of the game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Thank you Faustnik, for being "on it". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif I hope Oleg listens. He usually does.

Pig_Mac
11-09-2005, 05:14 PM
chris455

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd rather fly a Jug in Hell, than a Mig in heaven </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are rumors of lots of accurate small caliber fire in hell, so don't make your choice yet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

chris455
11-09-2005, 06:49 PM
I'm sure you're right, but I have it on good authority that they have their damage model down pat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FritzGryphon
11-09-2005, 07:18 PM
I did a test some time ago, in 4.01, to determine relative engine durability.

The conditions were: Ground, firing with M2 from 20m range, at the side of the engine. I targeted the center of the cylinder banks (or where I imagined them to be) in all cases.

I fired until the engine stopped, or until it burned. 10 trials each. The number of hits to stop (or fire) was a varying number, but always within a certain range. In multiples of 2, because I was using a twin tailgun.


P-51D: 2-4
Bf-109K: 2-6
P-39: 2-4
LaGG-3: 4-8
La5FN: 4-8
P-47: 8-12

Note that, due to the complexity of the engine damage model, the results may be different from other angles. I know, for example, shooting the propellor hub on the P-47 would usually cause the engine to stop. The same is true for some other planes.

That said, it was clear that the P-47 had one of the more durable engines in the game. Noticably more than the La-5FN.

The FW-190 was an anomoly, the engine doesn't stop until 50+ hits. However, by flying it through low caliber flak, it's clear it does, in fact, stop making power after a few hits like the others, though the graphic doesn't reflect it.

If I had to guess why the R-2800 stops so often, it's probably because it's so big. It has 3x the frontal area or more of an inline; and consequently 3x as likely to be hit. Practically, it'd be more likely to be damaged, or stop, than any other plane, even though it can survive more hits.

Viper2005_
11-09-2005, 08:28 PM
Hub damage to the R-2800 probably takes out the mags in game given their situation just above the reduction gear...

VW-IceFire
11-09-2005, 08:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
I did a test some time ago, in 4.01, to determine relative engine durability.

The conditions were: Ground, firing with M2 from 20m range, at the side of the engine. I targeted the center of the cylinder banks (or where I imagined them to be) in all cases.

I fired until the engine stopped, or until it burned. 10 trials each. The number of hits to stop (or fire) was a varying number, but always within a certain range. In multiples of 2, because I was using a twin tailgun.


P-51D: 2-4
Bf-109K: 2-6
P-39: 2-4
LaGG-3: 4-8
La5FN: 4-8
P-47: 8-12

Note that, due to the complexity of the engine damage model, the results may be different from other angles. I know, for example, shooting the propellor hub on the P-47 would usually cause the engine to stop. The same is true for some other planes.

That said, it was clear that the P-47 had one of the more durable engines in the game. Noticably more than the La-5FN.

The FW-190 was an anomoly, the engine doesn't stop until 50+ hits. However, by flying it through low caliber flak, it's clear it does, in fact, stop making power after a few hits like the others, though the graphic doesn't reflect it.

If I had to guess why the R-2800 stops so often, it's probably because it's so big. It has 3x the frontal area or more of an inline; and consequently 3x as likely to be hit. Practically, it'd be more likely to be damaged, or stop, than any other plane, even though it can survive more hits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A very long time ago (a year or two) we established a specific location where you could reliably stop the R-2800 engines every single time with a .30/.303/MG-17/ShKAS/small machine gun thingy.

It wouldn't just die...it would stop dead.

Now I haven't had that so much recently...but the R-2800 was known to come back with bricks in the engine, cylinders torn out, and other rediculous amounts of damage done to it and it still ran. Not that its undamagable as an engine because thats also not true...just that its a bit weak in some places and you feel it if you fly a R-2800 aircraft and you get hit in the "special spot".

p1ngu666
11-09-2005, 09:17 PM
few 50cals in the engine will stop it, the 190A series is now fixed, maybe twice as much toughness as 2800.

but there not much tougher than inlines, and there bigger

Tater-SW-
11-09-2005, 09:27 PM
Real PW engines flew home hundreds of miles with whole cylinder heads blown clear off. As if that would happen in PF.

tater

Gibbage1
11-09-2005, 09:29 PM
Ya. The P-47 engine should be at LEAST as strong, if not stronger then the BMW's in the 190A series. In 4.01 I did a test and took out 3 P-47's in a row with 2-5 hits from M2 before the engine stopped. The same test vs FW-190 A's took 80-100 hits before the engine stopped.

Its simple. 190 will take good damage and bring you home. P-47 takes very little damage and becomes an instant lawn dart (Togeather with its balsawood tail). P-47 is, and has always been nurfed in IL2, and I am guessing always will be since no ammount of proof has yet to convince Oleg otherwise.

p1ngu666
11-09-2005, 09:50 PM
gib, run that test again if u have time, it seems they fixed the 190 engine.

190 engine did have a armoured fan, and a armoured cowl too.

190 engine is better protected, but the engine could well be weaker.

it would overheat if the fan got jammed/damaged tho..

faustnik
11-09-2005, 10:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
P-47 takes very little damage and becomes an instant lawn dart (Togeather with its balsawood tail). P-47 is, and has always been nurfed in IL2, and I am guessing always will be since no ammount of proof has yet to convince Oleg otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be more patient, I haven't sent my P-47 DM issues pack yet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gibbage1
11-10-2005, 12:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
gib, run that test again if u have time, it seems they fixed the 190 engine.

190 engine did have a armoured fan, and a armoured cowl too.

190 engine is better protected, but the engine could well be weaker.

it would overheat if the fan got jammed/damaged tho.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the Germans fondness for tight tollerances and vast complexity, those two traits dont make for a forviging engine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif On the other hand the R-2800 was a pure iron/steel beats of an engine.

I have not read of many FW-190's comming home with pistons shot off, but then again I dont read much on the Fw-190.

Tipo_Man
11-10-2005, 01:18 AM
Well , its hard for me to say it..
but yes, HayateAce is right..

but I think it's a much more bigger issue than a sinlge engine.

Take Lagg-3 and La-5 for example. The same airframe with different engine. Tha latter had radial one and was praised by pilots for being "tougher". And look how they are modelled in the game. LaGG-3 can take dozens of hit in the nose without any damaga, while a single scratch in the nose of the La-5 will damage the engine.
If I had to choose a plane for bomber interception I will take 1 LaGG instead of 3 La's

Now compare the two engines...

MP-105
A French descendant and should be much more fragile since that single fact. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
http://www.airforce.ru/aircraft/engines/vk105pf/vk105pf_1.jpg


M-82FN
American parents here, no doubt should be much more durable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
http://www.airforce.ru/aircraft/engines/ash82fn/ash-82fn_2.jpg

faustnik
11-10-2005, 01:21 AM
Gibbage you are outdoing yourself with that last post. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Gibbage1
11-10-2005, 01:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Gibbage you are outdoing yourself with that last post. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im lost on this one. Say what?

lbhskier37
11-10-2005, 01:46 AM
Sorry, you guys that say the 190 takes 50-100 hits to disable havent actually flown the aircraft. It takes about the same amount of shots as any other radial before it loses power, but the graphic just doesnt have it stop the prop like the R-2800. I agree that the liquid cooled engines are far tougher than they should be, but the radials are probably about close. I know you hear about R 2800s coming home with cylinders missing, but I am sure that same thing happened to the Germans with the BMW and the Russians with thier La5 engine (sorry I dont know the name) and even other countries with radials, but it was still the exception, not the rule. In a P47, P51, P38, 109, 190, spit, etc, if you were hit with a good burst from anything bigger than a .303 you were probably dead. The execption got home and they made stories about them, but the majority that died just crashed into europe and got a headstone. I'm sure on average the P47 was pretty tough just by looking at the structure of the thing, but on the whole aircraft guns should shred any other fighter in a short burst unless someone has a horseshoe up their a55, which is what let guys get home with cylinder and wing chunks shot off.

OldMan____
11-10-2005, 04:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
gib, run that test again if u have time, it seems they fixed the 190 engine.

190 engine did have a armoured fan, and a armoured cowl too.

190 engine is better protected, but the engine could well be weaker.

it would overheat if the fan got jammed/damaged tho.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the Germans fondness for tight tollerances and vast complexity, those two traits dont make for a forviging engine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif On the other hand the R-2800 was a pure iron/steel beats of an engine.

I have not read of many FW-190's comming home with pistons shot off, but then again I dont read much on the Fw-190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe because its sturdiness was based on anaother principle. Its resistance was sude to NOT GET easily damaged from front (I already posted lots of data showing thata a .50 can be deflected by that armor in any angle &gt; 30-40 degrees from normal plane). Also It had a very well hidden oil tank.


The idea is that there is not only a single way to make an engine tougher.

csThor
11-10-2005, 05:21 AM
Oh there were instances (more than one) ... For example in summer 1942 Ofw. Josef Heinzeller of 3./JG 2 was on a sunset-patrol near the british coast when he and his leader Olt. Julius Meimberg were jumped by Spits. Heinzeller returned on 13 cylinders (one was shot off by a 20mm grenade, two damaged) with a broken piston rod, a massive oil leak and a few other things ...

KIMURA
11-10-2005, 05:21 AM
Gibbage, do U know Rammj¤ger and Walter Dahl, do you??
Think about which a/c was used for that kind of air warfare and why, before start bashing German engineers or question durabilty of the BMW801.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WOLFMondo
11-10-2005, 05:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:

R2800's lost entire cylinders and still went on home. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mates reliant Fox (most Brits will know what a 'Reliant' is) has been running on 3 out of its four cylinders for the last 7 years and still does 33mpg and good for 60mph. Want a medal?

WOLFMondo
11-10-2005, 05:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Ya. The P-47 engine should be at LEAST as strong, if not stronger then the BMW's in the 190A series. In 4.01 I did a test and took out 3 P-47's in a row with 2-5 hits from M2 before the engine stopped. The same test vs FW-190 A's took 80-100 hits before the engine stopped.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like..whatever:P How often do you fly 190's? There pretty much as tough as each other in this sim.
There are actual factual reasons why the 190's engine is tough, mainly because its heavily armoured from all angles but the front whereas the P47's has no armour.

I'm not saying the P47 shouldn't be tough, it should be but the main problem is with its tail coming off too easy.

KG26_Alpha
11-10-2005, 06:11 AM
Srry OT for this thread but......

Someone mentioned about FW's engines.
Engine was very durable .......be sure ! ! !
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/FWdamageengine.jpg

Buzzsaw-
11-10-2005, 09:23 AM
Salute

The Pratt and Whitney R-2800 had a better reputation for durability than the BMW-801 for several reasons:

1) It was a more 'mature' engine, having been designed earlier, and having gone through its growing pains before the war. The BMW was thrown into service during the war, and had quite a number of maintenance problems which had to be sorted out.

2) It was a larger engine, had more cylinders, (18 versus 14 for the BMW) and therefore had more built in redundancy in the case of mechanical problems or damage from combat.

There is no way the R-2800 should be failing as a result of being hit by one Light Machine gun round, something which seems to happen with great frequency on the boards. As mentioned, it is worse to take a P-47 in a bomber intercept versus He-111's and their 7.92mm gunners, than it is to take an aircraft with an inline water cooled engine. This is complete nonsense.

People have mentioned the reduction gear hub as being vulnerable. If they actually looked at this item on the engine, they'd realize a single LMG round is not going to do significant damage.

First of all, a reminder of the size of the aircraft and engine:

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/56/un-w-landry-and-crew.jpg

Some photos of R-2800 and prop hub:

http://www.arkairmuseum.org/media/dblwasp2.jpg

http://www.americanairpowermuseum.com/images2/P-47%20f.jpg

http://www.shanaberger.com/engines/R-2800.jpg

http://www.davidpride.com/Aviation/images/Chino_068.jpg

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng34.jpg

http://www.web-birds.com/9th/362/gramp.jpg

Daiichidoku
11-10-2005, 09:52 AM
there can be no question, IRL, there must have been some R-2800s that actually insta-stop(tm)-ed from an incredibly golden bb...maybe one that somehow hit obliquely, hittiing both magnetos, or somesuch

there can be no question, FB, there must have been some R-2800s that actually avoided insta-stop(tm)-ing from a deluge ofcarefully-aimed, concentrated mk 108s hits

fact is, as ANY regular Jug driver in FB can and will tell you, that it is FAR TOO OFTEN the R2800 insta-stop(tm)-s, and this far too often from slight, glacing hits at long range, by very few of the lightest calibre rounds

meanwhile, he will see the "war-winners" in 51s and spits merrliy chugging away with smoking merlins til the cows come home
or doras taking tons o lead in the 605, np

IMO, the BMW 801s are NOT super tuff, they do fail with, IMO reasonable frequency...and while i would have said, some patches ago, that La7s' engine absorb 37mm fire like a sponge, im (very) pleased to note that indeed, they are quite stoppable now


sonce 402 ive reaquired a love for flying the 38, but still fly what i flew the most, 47s and 190s (and a6m3s or jets when available)...the R 2800 suffers from glass-jawitis, i only wish the Jug could have the engine toughness the 190 has, which IMO is NOT indestructible...merely tuff

but the liquid cooled FB engines seem to have as much, or even more resilience than a given radial in FB... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

HayateAce
11-10-2005, 10:30 AM
Agree 95%!

However, P51 Merlin is NOT the same as Spitfire Merlin. Maybe the Spit can chugg along with a damaged Merlin, but the P51 cannot. It also has InstaStop technology. But, this thread is NOT about P51s or 190s. It is about the frail nature of Forgotten Battles R2800, which brings us to an addendum question:

Are the engines in FB designed as modules? I think not, because the R2800 in the F4U exhibits different behavior and damage results than the P47:

1) Brown smoke which leads to total fuel loss in seconds (F4U yes, P47 no)

2) Constant overheat (F4U yes, P47 no)

Please Oleg 1C, give us a REASONABLY strong R2800 (use the DM strength level for the 190 engine--it seems realistic now), and then place it in the F4U as well.

http://www.events.favg.org/Tojo%20&%20Corsair%20Duel.jpg

badatflyski
11-10-2005, 10:36 AM
héhéhé buzzsaw...what a ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

buzzsaw:1) "It was a more 'mature' engine, having been designed earlier, and having gone through its growing pains before the war. The BMW was thrown into service during the war, and had quite a number of maintenance problems which had to be sorted out"
??? yes, it was an mature engine, so mature that it could even go to a oldpeople home!
By the way, the BMW was already build lang before the war! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif and yes there were problems,that's why bmw made the D version! and suddenly no problems!
It's like comparing an 2.0L GM engine with an 2.0L Honda engine, GM uses old technologie, most of the engines develop about 150HP and brakes after 200.000km...the honda engine develop 250 HP, use constantely new technoligies and brake after 250.00km....so what's better? the old school engine or the innovative engine?

Buzzsaw:"2) It was a larger engine, had more cylinders, (18 versus 14 for the BMW) and therefore had more built in redundancy in the case of mechanical problems or damage from combat."

More cylinders, more moving parts, more risk having problems with one of those!

Buzzsaw:"There is no way the R-2800 should be failing as a result of being hit by one Light Machine gun round, something which seems to happen with great frequency on the boards. As mentioned, it is worse to take a P-47 in a bomber intercept versus He-111's and their 7.92mm gunners, than it is to take an aircraft with an inline water cooled engine. This is complete nonsense."

Look at the front picture of the p47 and find one like that of a FW190, u will see something behind the propeller that not exists in the p47...a kind of ventilator! so, if a bullet pass through the propeller path, it entries direct in the engine, in the 190 the same bullet must also pass through the ventilator!
(but hat not excuse the fact that a simple7mm bullet can destroy an entire engine....)
(

HayateAce
11-10-2005, 12:07 PM
"More cylinders, more moving parts, more risk having problems with one of those! "

Complete bunko.

R2800 returned home with 2 and 3 cylinders knocked out and sometimes completely missing. One cylinder failure did not stop the entire engine, so your more moving parts theory means zilch.

http://www.btinternet.com/~lee_mail/P47-2.jpg

kubanloewe
11-10-2005, 12:17 PM
for a Fighterbomber the fat Jug with it´s great enginediameter including turbopipes it was a much bigger target for the flak than the elegant 190F fighterbomber with additional armored ring (Panzerring) in front of the engine and its oilradiator.

luftluuver
11-10-2005, 12:21 PM
The R-2800 was increased in displacement from 2180 when Wright came out with their 2600. This was in March 1937 and the R-2800 was ready for production in 1940. In 1941, 1733 were produced.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By the way, the BMW was already build lang before the war! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Design work stated on the new engine (801) in Oct 1938. The first 801<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">A</span>'s ran in April 1939. I guess 4 months before WW2 started is a long time?

p1ngu666
11-10-2005, 12:54 PM
hayateace, the fuel leak is from fuel tank being hit, not engine..

inlines are more fragil, but there isnt a big difference, and ofcourse a inline is smaller...

stathem
11-10-2005, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Agree 95%!

However, P51 Merlin is NOT the same as Spitfire Merlin. Maybe the Spit can chugg along with a damaged Merlin, but the P51 cannot. It also has InstaStop technology. But, this thread is NOT about P51s or 190s. It is about the frail nature of Forgotten Battles R2800, which brings us to an addendum question:

Are the engines in FB designed as modules? I think not, because the R2800 in the F4U exhibits different behavior and damage results than the P47:

1) Brown smoke which leads to total fuel loss in seconds (F4U yes, P47 no)

2) Constant overheat (F4U yes, P47 no)

Please Oleg 1C, give us a REASONABLY strong R2800 (use the DM strength level for the 190 engine--it seems realistic now), and then place it in the F4U as well.

http://www.events.favg.org/Tojo%20&%20Corsair%20Duel.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HayateAce is absolutley correct, the F4U has exactly the same problem as the Fw190, with regard to the false fuel leak.

Tater-SW-
11-10-2005, 02:48 PM
You'll notice the USN and IJN used ONLY air cooled engines on their carrier aircraft. Why? Because they could sustain engine damage and limp home over open ocean. The only liquid cooled type that was really loved int he pacific was the P-38. The P-38 got around the problem of a single bullet forcing you to swim with sharks by bringing along a spare engine.

The R2800 (and maybe other radials, I have no idea) gets golden BBed in the engine way way too often. The weakness of the engine is on par with the bizarre tendancy forGrumman aircraft to lose aileron control if looked at funny.

tater

Vipez-
11-10-2005, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:


Take Lagg-3 and La-5 for example. The same airframe with different engine. Tha latter had radial one and was praised by pilots for being "tougher". And look how they are modelled in the game. LaGG-3 can take dozens of hit in the nose without any damaga, while a single scratch in the nose of the La-5 will damage the engine.
If I had to choose a plane for bomber interception I will take 1 LaGG instead of 3 La's

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is simply because all Lagg3s still hold the old damage modelling since first IL-2 Sturmovik.. LA-5 on the other hand received complex damage modelling (in FB-terms) with Forgotten Battles.. and no, Lagg3 will probably never get updated.. have asked for this a thousand times http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HayateAce
11-10-2005, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
hayateace, the fuel leak is from fuel tank being hit, not engine..

inlines are more fragil, but there isnt a big difference, and ofcourse a inline is smaller... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

U sure ping?

I see the brown smoke coming from my F4U cowling and I may as well go overboard within 20 seconds. Fw190 has this problem too I understand?

PS: Thanks for sig material.

VW-IceFire
11-10-2005, 09:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
hayateace, the fuel leak is from fuel tank being hit, not engine..

inlines are more fragil, but there isnt a big difference, and ofcourse a inline is smaller... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

U sure ping?

I see the brown smoke coming from my F4U cowling and I may as well go overboard within 20 seconds. Fw190 has this problem too I understand?

PS: Thanks for sig material. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its the fuel tank...its behind the engine (or seemingly so in the F4U).

You can also flame the F4U quite easily at the moment by hammering the tank with a round or two. The FW190 has a similar issue. A hit can gaurantee a complete tank being empty in a matter of 4 minutes or less. Ironically, the F4U had far more range and more fuel tankage (to my knowledge) than the typical FW190 and yet it still drains in roughly the same period of time.

The FW190 fuel tank problem is less of an issue than in 3.04 where it happened all the time...now its just weak rather than rediculous.

As for the glass R-2800...if there are any tests I can do to facilitate help...then I can try.

faustnik
11-10-2005, 10:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
k
As for the glass R-2800...if there are any tests I can do to facilitate help...then I can try. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah IceFire, check CWOS PMs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

lbhskier37
11-10-2005, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
You'll notice the USN and IJN used ONLY air cooled engines on their carrier aircraft. Why? Because they could sustain engine damage and limp home over open ocean. The only liquid cooled type that was really loved int he pacific was the P-38. The P-38 got around the problem of a single bullet forcing you to swim with sharks by bringing along a spare engine.

The R2800 (and maybe other radials, I have no idea) gets golden BBed in the engine way way too often. The weakness of the engine is on par with the bizarre tendancy forGrumman aircraft to lose aileron control if looked at funny.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually USN and IJN used aircooled planes on carriers mainly because on a carrier you have limited space in which to carry stuff, and liquid cooled aircraft needed a lot of coolant, which was one more thing to take up space on the carrier. The added durability of the air cooled engines was just and added bonus.

stathem
11-11-2005, 02:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
hayateace, the fuel leak is from fuel tank being hit, not engine..

inlines are more fragil, but there isnt a big difference, and ofcourse a inline is smaller... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

U sure ping?

I see the brown smoke coming from my F4U cowling and I may as well go overboard within 20 seconds. Fw190 has this problem too I understand?

PS: Thanks for sig material. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its the fuel tank...its behind the engine (or seemingly so in the F4U).

You can also flame the F4U quite easily at the moment by hammering the tank with a round or two. The FW190 has a similar issue. A hit can gaurantee a complete tank being empty in a matter of 4 minutes or less. Ironically, the F4U had far more range and more fuel tankage (to my knowledge) than the typical FW190 and yet it still drains in roughly the same period of time.

The FW190 fuel tank problem is less of an issue than in 3.04 where it happened all the time...now its just weak rather than rediculous.

As for the glass R-2800...if there are any tests I can do to facilitate help...then I can try. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Ice, chaps, whoever, look, you have to look at that. You can get that false €˜fuel€ leak in an F4U (and FW190, possibly others, Vbrac mentioned the IAR, anyone else?) without hitting the tanks. I have a screenshot of the F4U 1-D doing it but it€s difficult to be 100% conclusive in one pic. I€ll post it when I get home. I know how far forward the tank extended in an F4U, although not how far the hit box goes in the model. I'm pretty sure it's not being hit there though.

Also, ask yourself, why would a fuel leak be upwards? And why would it be pulsed? That graphical effect, the grey €˜killer€ one, in SloMo, goes puff..puff..puff€¦€¦from the top of the cowl. That would indicate that, whatever it is, it€s downstream of a reciprocating pump..pump..pump. Oil pump or fuel pump? Broken engine? Bug or feature?

Even if it is a feature, you€d need a very high capacity pump to drain the tanks of those aircraft in that length of time.

p1ngu666
11-11-2005, 09:15 AM
the smoke puffs are how the game (and many others do it) they overlap to form a stream. wingtip smoke is different. and yes its annoying and makes my eyes go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

radials often have less problems with overheating on the flightdeck, which was the main reason. there also lighter and more powerful, BUT more draggy. but for carrier ops lowspeed handling, power etc are important.

the slipstream of a aircraft may also produce powerful sucktion, but then again irl nearly every plane had multiple fueltanks. the bad leak that emputies the plane is bogus for most planes. 109 had only 1 tank, but does that get bad fuel leaks? all i ever see is white fuel leaks.

hayateace, dm is often dodgy, but the fuel tank is hit, possibly from "splash" shrapnel

stathem
11-12-2005, 10:50 AM
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/f4u1.jpg

VW-IceFire
11-12-2005, 11:59 AM
That looks like the fuel tank leak...

Oil on these things seems to come from the bottom.

But I don't know if thats right either. Just what it is in-game...

You can very easily light up a Corsair if you hit it there.

p1ngu666
11-12-2005, 01:42 PM
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/portland/971/images/drawings/f4u_cutaway_01.jpg

p1ngu666
11-12-2005, 01:44 PM
ffs

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/portland/971/Reviews/usaaf/f4u-1d.htm

at the bottom, seems like its engine, supercharger/fuel tanks? then big tank and then cockpit

stathem
11-12-2005, 01:57 PM
Another run.

Note the 0.50 cal round going slap throu' the tank
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/f4u3.jpg http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/f4u2.jpg http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/f4u4.jpg

stathem
11-12-2005, 02:00 PM
I'm not saying i'm right, just that someone else trys it...my time's a bit limited.

It's just that, you can hit the tank (on 190 too) and you get a leak that seals. (and looks like a fuel leak)

And you can hit the engine, and it drains in 3 mins regardless of the fuel level.

anarchy52
11-12-2005, 05:32 PM
If P&W are glass it must be some kind of delta-glass:

4:15 into the track, zoom in on Jug with rockets and set playback speed to 1/4. Remember that jug does not have armoured cowling.

Head-on, FW-190A8 vs P-47 (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/CoT_P47_head-on.ntrk)

he gets the oil leak. Now imagine those were four hispanos...

TooCool_12f
11-13-2005, 09:42 AM
"M-82FN
American parents here, no doubt should be much more durable"


don't think that any radial engine has "american parents".. the M-82FN was developped from the BMW801 engine, not american... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kocur_
11-13-2005, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TooCool_12f:
"M-82FN
American parents here, no doubt should be much more durable"


don't think that any radial engine has "american parents".. the M-82FN was developped from the BMW801 engine, not american... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. M-82 was based on licence built Wright engines, in fact its strangely similar to R-2600. BMW801 part is fuel injection system in M (or rather ASh)-82FN. It was copied from captured BMW801s.

stathem
11-13-2005, 11:32 AM
Sorry Ice, Pingu, you're right.

Did some more testing - there are 3.

Hit hard in the engine it leaks, with the leak spawning directly over the engine, does not run out of fuel but engine dies eventually of shortage of breath.

Hit in the compartent betwixt the engine and fuel tank it leaks the brown smoke upwards, which spawns over the top of the tank but otherwise looks the same as 1. And the Corsair runs out of fuel qucikly etc.

And then the normal one as above, leaking fuel from below, which seals.

Sorry, haven't got time to sort the pics out tonight.

Apologies for making a fuss, carry on.

horseback
11-13-2005, 11:46 AM
According to Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazonov's Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War, Vol. 1, Single-Engined Fighters, Shvetsov's M-82 engine has its roots in the 9 cylinder Wright R-1820 Cyclone, which had been sold in some numbers and then licensed to the Soviets prewar.

The German influence on the La 5/7 series came from studying the installation of the BMW engine in the FW 190A, just as the Japanese installation of the radial Ha-112 in the Ki 100(nee Ki 61) was in late 1944...

cheers

horseback

FritzGryphon
11-13-2005, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> A very long time ago (a year or two) we established a specific location where you could reliably stop the R-2800 engines every single time with a .30/.303/MG-17/ShKAS/small machine gun thingy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you describe where? I am having trouble replicating this.

I am using the DA machine guns on TB-3.

VW-IceFire
11-13-2005, 04:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Sorry Ice, Pingu, you're right.

Did some more testing - there are 3.

Hit hard in the engine it leaks, with the leak spawning directly over the engine, does not run out of fuel but engine dies eventually of shortage of breath.

Hit in the compartent betwixt the engine and fuel tank it leaks the brown smoke upwards, which spawns over the top of the tank but otherwise looks the same as 1. And the Corsair runs out of fuel qucikly etc.

And then the normal one as above, leaking fuel from below, which seals.

Sorry, haven't got time to sort the pics out tonight.

Apologies for making a fuss, carry on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No problem...

I was starting to doubt myself but I'm glad you discovered this as well. I like the F4U in the arcade dogfight servers as its agile enough to make a go of it with the more aerobatic planes but its also a good BNZ'er so I have alot of experience at being hit with all sorts of guns.

The R-2800 I so far have not yet been able to kill in a one hit insta kill sort of way. Today I flew Hellcats and Corsairs mostly in my tests (including online). I sustained 20mm flak damage from a German 20mm flak battery and flew 40km back to my home carrier. This happened in a Corsair. With the Hellcat I was hit repeatedly with MG fire from a formation of player controled He-111's. I was also hit with MG151/20 rounds and other assorted guns...

The engine did not give up.

They were sounding very bad...but you'd expect that. RPM's were maintained all the way back to base and then some in both cases. I think the R-2800 seems to be fixed...testing continues but I have not been able to replicate the problem! Encouraging!

anarchy52
11-13-2005, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> A very long time ago (a year or two) we established a specific location where you could reliably stop the R-2800 engines every single time with a .30/.303/MG-17/ShKAS/small machine gun thingy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you describe where? I am having trouble replicating this.

I am using the DA machine guns on TB-3. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How 'bout 4 x 20mm? (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/head-on.avi)

That's at least 3 x 20mm direct hits not counting shrapnel effect

Gibbage1
11-13-2005, 05:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:


How 'bout 4 x 20mm? (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/head-on.avi)

That's at least 3 x 20mm direct hits not counting shrapnel effect </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was this online? Its possible that what you see is not what happened. Also, there have been some limited cases of P-47's taking quite a few hits, but the problem is these events are rare. I have tracks of 3 P-47's in a row having dead engines from 3-5 .50 cal hits. I also have in the same set of tracks 3 FW-190's taking 80-100 hits from the same .50 cal before the engine stops. Thats the problem.

You can view them for yourself.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/tracks.zip

First 3 is P-47. Last 3 is FW-190 A to compair. Watch these 6 tracks, all recorded in a row, and tell me there is not a problem with the P-47's engine dm. I dare you.

faustnik
11-13-2005, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I also have in the same set of tracks 3 FW-190's taking 80-100 hits from the same .50 cal before the engine stops. Thats the problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Why do you continue to state this as if it is current information (actually that is a rhetorical question, I know why)? Show me a track of the BMW801D in 4.02 taking 100 hits and still producing power, I DARE YOU! That claim is complete garbage. Wait, it's just more <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">anti-LW garbage from Gibbage</span>, that's kind of catchy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VW-IceFire
11-13-2005, 09:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:


How 'bout 4 x 20mm? (http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/head-on.avi)

That's at least 3 x 20mm direct hits not counting shrapnel effect </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was this online? Its possible that what you see is not what happened. Also, there have been some limited cases of P-47's taking quite a few hits, but the problem is these events are rare. I have tracks of 3 P-47's in a row having dead engines from 3-5 .50 cal hits. I also have in the same set of tracks 3 FW-190's taking 80-100 hits from the same .50 cal before the engine stops. Thats the problem.

You can view them for yourself.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/tracks.zip

First 3 is P-47. Last 3 is FW-190 A to compair. Watch these 6 tracks, all recorded in a row, and tell me there is not a problem with the P-47's engine dm. I dare you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd have to test Gibbage but I don't think thats the case anymore. The BMW radial is now more even with the other radials from what I've seen so far.

I need to place myself into more danger to properly test that.

So far the R-2800's seem to be improved in 4.02. Are your tracks from 4.02 or earlier? I'm going to keep testing but so far I have not got a single insta kill hit and in the cases I've already outlined I was able to fly 30 or 40km back to base and land on an aircraft carrier.

Gibbage1
11-13-2005, 11:16 PM
The tracks are from from 4.01, and sorry I was not clear about it.

Faust, calm the he11 down dude! I did not say the FW-190 was wrong, I said the P-47 was wrong. Your so quick to wave the anti-whatever flag now a days.

Im loading up my 2nd computer to do the same test in 4.02. BBL.

Gibbage1
11-13-2005, 11:48 PM
Prepair to eat crow Faust.

4.02, same thing. P-47 is instant stop just after 3-5 hits with a single .50 cal. FW-190 A series takes 80-100 hits. I did it all in 1 run and picked differant area's of the engine to try and show its not just one spot that is tough, but the entire engine. The P-47's upper part of the engine can take a little more damage, but the bottom half is instant death. I did not do this "online" but on a local lan with two computers sitting sibe by side.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/fw190vsp47.zip

Im going to go test the F4U and F6F in the same manner, but I doubt I will find anything differant.

P.S. I think the P-47 should be AS TOUGH if not TOUGHER then the FW-190. Im not trying to take your titanium engine Faust, so stop the anti-Luftwaffe BS. Im just trying to get the US aircraft a fair deal in this "sim". You must admit this Dm is not fair in the least bit.

faustnik
11-14-2005, 12:03 AM
Where is the track of the Fw190 taking 100 hits to the engine and still producing power?

faustnik
11-14-2005, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your so quick to wave the anti-whatever flag now a days. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I'm sick of reading biased garbage over the last few years.

Gibbage1
11-14-2005, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Where is the track of the Fw190 taking 100 hits to the engine and still producing power? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I posted it nimrod. If you notice, I did a little test just for you. After 50 or so hits into the engine, I hit 100% power and rolled off. Its still producing power. Not enough to take off I admit, but its still producing 100% more then the P-47.

These are real test's. Calling biest is not going to get you out of this one. Admit it, the P-47 engine DM pails in comparison to the Fw-190. F6F and F4U are the same way. I proved proof, now your calling biest.

I find it funny how you call finding bugs in US aircraft "biest" and "whining" and finding bugs in Luftwaffe aircraft is not. Talk about biest. Hows that new MG151/20 workin for ya?

faustnik
11-14-2005, 12:37 AM
Ha! You calling anyone a "nimrod" is just too funny. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif That last post is a Gibbage classic!

The link from 4.02 you posted only has a track of the P-47. Please check the zip file again and put the 4.02 "100 and still maintaining power BMW801D" track in it.

I have been commenting on the need to toughen up the R-2800 DM for a very long time now. I can comment on it without having to resort to poor attempts to trash the LW planes.

faustnik
11-14-2005, 12:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I find it funny how you call finding bugs in US aircraft "biest" and "whining" and finding bugs in Luftwaffe aircraft is not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please show where I have ever said any of this.

Professor_06
11-14-2005, 12:53 AM
Should check out the P47 thunderbolts pilots assn. Some real good stories. Here is one cut and paste from the site. He picked up a round in the engine and didnt find out till he landed.
110s are fairly flame proof in the sim too.

http://www.p47pilots.com/cfm_ThereIWas.cfm?pageMode=VIEW&storyid=23 (http://www.p47pilots.com/cfm_ThereIWas.cfm?pageMode=VIEW&amp;storyid=23)

LTC Glenn E. Duncan - I was leading the Group flying with Pipeful Squadron on Area Support for heavy bombers near Ans, Germany. We had been patrolling our designated area with the lead Squadron at 22,000 ft., the second Squadron, Roughman as high cover at 33,000 and the third Squadron, Wakeford at 25,000 acting as a bouncing Squadron. At 1215 Recall was given and I began a slow descent in order to fly under a layer of cirrus. AT about 1235 hours the lead Squadron was at 15,000ft in good combat formation and under a thick layer of cirrus. Wakeford Squadron was to my right at about 16,000-ft. Roughman Squadron was above the cloud at about 26,000-ft.

I was just getting the R.A. at having flown another milk run mission when I saw two airplanes off to my left and low. They were easily recognized as twin engines and as we closed were definitely identified as ME 110s. By this time I was down under a lower layer of scattered cumulus at about 7,000 ft. and could then see four ME 110s flying a swept-back line-abreast formation. They were flying at about 5,000 ft on a heading of approximately 230 degrees. I had pulled my handful of throttle, turbo, and prop levers all back in order to slow down, but I was still closing too fast. I made a sharp left return then swung around so as to come in behind the last ME 110. Still I was closing too fast so I threw in a few good hearted skids and then at the last moment as I would have overshot and messed up a good shot I barrel-rolled and came in position on the Hun''s tail. I closed up to about 250 yards, centered the needle and ball, put the pip on the top of the cockpit, then squeezed in a nice long burst. The ME 110 immediately began losing excess parts and flamed up. (They burn nicely) I must have killed the rear gunner in the first few rounds because he was not shooting. This ME 110 veered off to the left and down, then crashed.

During this time the other ME 110s had made a sweeping turn to the right and was now in line astern formation. Incidentally, three were black and one was all white.

I pulled over the ME 110 that I had just shot down and came in behind the No. 3 or next in line. This rear gunner was really excited and shooting like mad. They must be very poor gunners because I held my fire until I pulled up to about 250 or 300 yards then gave him a goo long squeeze. (I found later that I picked up one .303 slug in the right side of my engine from this gunner.) He immediately burst into flames and pieces flew everywhere. THOSE EIGHT FIFTIES SURE PACK A WALLOP!

and another

An VIII Fighter Command Ace- I was leading Northgrove Squadron. During the trip over to R/V with the bombers our squadron was flying on the right side of the Group. As we approached the big friends from astern and slightly to the right, we sighted many condensation trails coming from a southerly direction at 90 degrees to the bombers. Upon investigation they turned out to be 9/10 ME 109s and about 15 FW 190s.

At this time the e/a were slightly above us, but they attempted to get up-sun on us. Naturally, since all of our aircraft and all the e/a were pulling very dense condensation trails, there was no element of surprise on either side. The minute we saw them try to get up-sun, we started to climb. The e/a were flying in a group of Vee''s with a tail end man weaving behind the unit. When we began our climb we rapidly climbed above them, and by the time we got into position to bounce we were all about 1,000 feet above them. One of our flights was acting as top cover, approximately 2,000 feet above the whole show at all times. By this time the e/a were in a turn to the left. We bounced and they began to split up. I fired several large deflection shots which were no good. Finally, one e/a straightened out and headed down for the clouds about 500 feet below us. This enabled me to work in a shot from dead astern. I hit this ME 109 in the cockpit. There were the usual flashes, coupled with a fairly large flash and a dense cloud of black smoke. The ship fell off, belching smoke, and headed for the cloud in an extremely erratic manner.

By this time the other two flights were in the scrap. I looked over the left side of my ship in time to see Lt. Reed shoot down an ME 109 which exploded. We were all in the same turning circle, but we found that we could easily out-turn and out-run the Jerry. In fact, the whole enemy force was definitely panicky and not aggressive. After a short while the e/a all disappeared into the clouds and we again set course to pick up the bombers. We spotted another ME 109, but were only able to make an ineffective pass at it because it rolled into the layer of clouds.

Shortly after the last engagement, we were given a recall sign by the Group CO. We turned and in the turn, my engine quit. I was forced to drop down. My wingman, Lt. Westfall, started down with me. By the time we reached 16,000 feet, I spotted a flight of six ME 109s above me and off to my left. They came from the rear, passed over in front of me, and then started a turn to the left. I called to Lt. Westfall to climb back into the clouds, but before he could get there, the e/a had passed over me again, and had started to attack him. Northgrove Red flight then came into play. This flight, led by Lt. Egan, bounced the e/a and, after a short turning engagement, forced the e/a to break off and hit the deck. At the conclusion of these engagements we all started out.

I found myself at 12,00 feet. However, I managed to pick up another P-47 from a different group. My return trip was uneventful insofar as enemy aircraft were concerned.

I would again like to stress the fact that, even though 50% of the squadron was having supercharger regulator trouble, we were still able to out-perform all the enemy aircraft which we encountered. """

I wonder if its the bad German aviation Fuel?



I

Gibbage1
11-14-2005, 12:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Please show where I have ever said any of this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your calling me biest for finding and posting proof of a DM bug. Did I call you biest when you posted proof that the MG151/20 was nurfed? No. I helped. We got the MG151/20 fixed, but the R-2800 is still made of glass.

Gibbage1
11-14-2005, 01:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Ha! You calling anyone a "nimrod" is just too funny. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif That last post is a Gibbage classic!

The link from 4.02 you posted only has a track of the P-47. Please check the zip file again and put the 4.02 "100 and still maintaining power BMW801D" track in it.

I have been commenting on the need to toughen up the R-2800 DM for a very long time now. I can comment on it without having to resort to poor attempts to trash the LW planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Download the file I just posted above labled fw190vsp47.zip and play it.

I just checked the track. There is an error in the recording. The track is not recording the exact positioning of the gunner. The gunner, when playing back, is to the right of the target. All shots were fired into the engine between the coweling and the prop/spinner, but the tracks show it firing off the right side. I can prove this. Even though the track shows me missing the FW-190, the engine still eventually stops dead. If I was in fact missing the FW-190's, why would the engine stop?

I shot 4 or 5 P-47's, and they all died within 3-5 hits. I shot 4 or more (I dont have an exact count) and they all kept turning well after 50+ hits. 1 FW I put about 40 rounds into the engine, and then throttled up to PROVE it is still producing power.

Did you watch that track Faust, or did you start claiming biest before reading all the threads and looking at the proof?

faustnik
11-14-2005, 01:22 AM
Gibbage,

The zip file you posted from 4.02 has one ntrack labeled quick0023.ntrk in it. I did watch it and it only contained a P-47 being shot at. Please check the file.

Here are two ntracks, made in 4.02, that show the Fw190 DM is appropraitely modeled with regard to engine DM. After a few hits the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">propeller continues to spin but, the engine produces no forward thrust.</span>

4.02 Fw190 Engine DM (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/Fw190EngineDM.zip)

*****************

I call you biased not because you ask for manu US aircraft issues to be fixed, but, because you continuously attempt to put down LW aircraft with absolutely no basis for your claims. Anyway, what do you care, you have proudly proclaimed "I biased, I admit it" in the past?

Gibbage1
11-14-2005, 02:09 AM
Your only watching HALF the track. Once the 4 P-47's are shot, I went to the other computer and changed to the FW-190. There is a pause at the end and I am guessing you think thats the end. Wait after the last P-47, and the test will contenue into the FW-190.

I just checked and double checked the file. 4 P-47's get shot up. Small pause (as I change aircraft) and then 4 FW-190 A8's get shot up. The 1st FW I shot up with a VERY long birst, I throttle to 100% and taxi to prove that they STILL have power after a lot of damage. Not enough to take off with, but a 100% more power then the P-47 with a stopped prop.

Gibbage1
11-14-2005, 02:27 AM
Faust. I did the same test you did. fly behind an enemy AI bomber and let it hit you. I found that the damage done was VERY VERY random. In some cases, it was the golden BB with instant stop engine. In others, the aircraft took what looked like 20-30 hits into the engine before stopping. Very very random, yet my test's were repeatable. But, I was still able to get the P-47 engine to stop with as little as 2-3 hits from the B-17.

I think the method of testing I did was more scientific, in that it was a more controlled environment with known variables. I tried all sorts of locations on the engine and specific points, were the AI just generally hit you a lot.

I hope you view the 2nd half of my track and report back soon.

GR142-Pipper
11-14-2005, 04:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
....I think the P-47 should be AS TOUGH if not TOUGHER then the FW-190. Im not trying to take your titanium engine Faust, so stop the anti-Luftwaffe BS. Im just trying to get the US aircraft a fair deal in this "sim". You must admit this Dm is not fair in the least bit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You're right. The P-47, P-51, F4U and F6F have weak damage models as well as weak flight models. Both these topic areas have been thoroughly discussed and still these aircraft remain modeled as underachievers (quite contrary to real life). IMO it's unlikely that anything will change much as far as this game is concerned. I wish it were different but that seems to be the case.

GR142-Pipper

ImpStarDuece
11-14-2005, 05:09 AM
Pipper, you rock! I just love blanket statements, particularly ones with no factual or reasonable basis. They make me want to just curl up under a blanket and think of all the nice, flamey ways I can reply to them. But, I think to myself, I shouldn't do this all by myself. Why spoil the fun of others to reply to such patent and laughable nonsense? So, I hereby (sincerly and most jocularly) invite everyone to rally against Pippers patently undermodelled whinning abilities, with our help he could easily improve his ratio of basless claims to whines. Won't somebody think of the childern?

When post like this appear I stop, shake my head, and really wonder why some people take personal agendas with them when they play a video game.

Now, I'm off to level up my Dwarf for the Gnomeregeran Knee Stabbers. DEATH THE HORDE, and their filty inbred orcs! Bah, my Paladin has a weak damage per second and is an underachiever.

p1ngu666
11-14-2005, 06:29 AM
u simply need a test runway, and two ppl todo tests.

first chap spawns in a bomber, hops to gunner station, then procedes to shoot other chap in the face. (or wingtip, errornoss gunfire)

and pipper, ill haveto remmber that next time i fly japanease http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WOLFMondo
11-14-2005, 06:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

Now, I'm off to level up my Dwarf for the Gnomeregeran Knee Stabbers. DEATH THE HORDE, and their filty inbred orcs! Bah, my Paladin has a weak damage per second and is an underachiever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't do it! That game is like crack! I barely managed to uninstall it and live to tell the tale!

chris455
11-14-2005, 07:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> A very long time ago (a year or two) we established a specific location where you could reliably stop the R-2800 engines every single time with a .30/.303/MG-17/ShKAS/small machine gun thingy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you describe where? I am having trouble replicating this.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It occured when a rifle caliber round entered the SC ducting below the engine and hypothetically travelled all the way back behind the pilot to the turbo. It was pointed out that even if the SC were destroyed in this manner,( a well-nigh impossible event) it would not cause the engine to quit, or even affect the normally aspirated aspects of the engine at all, yet it was stopping the engine cold every time.
I am beginning to wonder if this is occuring again in 4.02. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Professor_06
11-14-2005, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Pipper, you rock! I just love blanket statements, particularly ones with no factual or reasonable basis. They make me want to just curl up under a blanket and think of all the nice, flamey ways I can reply to them. But, I think to myself, I shouldn't do this all by myself. Why spoil the fun of others to reply to such patent and laughable nonsense? So, I hereby (sincerly and most jocularly) invite everyone to rally against Pippers patently undermodelled whinning abilities, with our help he could easily improve his ratio of basless claims to whines. Won't somebody think of the childern?

When post like this appear I stop, shake my head, and really wonder why some people take personal agendas with them when they play a video game.

Now, I'm off to level up my Dwarf for the Gnomeregeran Knee Stabbers. DEATH THE HORDE, and their filty inbred orcs! Bah, my Paladin has a weak damage per second and is an underachiever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A little too much coffee? Remember what we learned in kindergarten. Be nice.

Pipper just going down memory lane about all the threads, ad nauseum, about the US planes DM and armament.

Remember the many threads about the Insta-stop P51 engine.

Many threads about the P-47 breaking in half with 2-3 cannon shots.

P-38 boom comming off with a couple of LMG hit to the Stab.

Lets not forget the years of threads about the 50s dispersion. The insta-stop P47 engine is not a new discovery.

Climb rates and low top speed were a favorite. People dont complain much about LW planes here for a reason. This is an english speaking forum. Go to the German forum for LW DM banter.

I think 1C nows about this. After all they write the code for the DM.

WOLFMondo
11-14-2005, 10:22 AM
They did complain about Luftwaffe planes a hell of a lot a while back. You missed all the MG151 posts, the 190 fuel leak post, concrete K4 elevator posts, simplified 190 DM posts...the list is huge and no bigger or smaller than the current US whines about undermodelled planes.

PF brought allot of new US guys to this sim, there going to voice there opinion right or wrong, factual or just blanket statements, but mainly about US planes.

There are issues with some US planes but I think 10% of it is bugs, 90% of it is bad piloting, myself included.

Viper2005_
11-14-2005, 10:37 AM
It may be glass, but it also seems to never overheat at altitude.

I just took a P-47D up for a sprint run on the crimea map.

I ran 110% power with water injection for a top speed of 680 km/h(422 mph) @7500 m with the radiator closed (carrying extra ammunition) and 100% fuel (less that consumed in a climb from sea level).

I maintained this power setting and speed until the water ran out. I then left the power at 110% and kept the radiator closed just to see what would happen. I noticed no significant performance reduction after losing water injection (though by this point I was at 10 km/660 km/h TAS).

Eventually I got bored. The engine never overheated.

Try a side by side test with a Ta-152.

The Ta is theoretically faster, but because the P-47D can be run at 110% power with a closed radiator all day, whilst the Ta most certainly can't, the gap is actually very small.

So whilst the R-2800 may be made of glass, I'll swap it for a Jumo 213 all day long...

Professor_06
11-14-2005, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
They did complain about Luftwaffe planes a hell of a lot a while back. You missed all the MG151 posts, the 190 fuel leak post, concrete K4 elevator posts, simplified 190 DM posts...the list is huge and no bigger or smaller than the current US whines about undermodelled planes.

PF brought allot of new US guys to this sim, there going to voice there opinion right or wrong, factual or just blanket statements, but mainly about US planes.

There are issues with some US planes but I think 10% of it is bugs, 90% of it is bad piloting, myself included. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no I didnt miss them but you are right. We also many new "Glass Jaw 190" stuff here. I think what i was trying to better state is that it is harder to get sympathy or followers for buggy LW planes in an "allied" forum. Surprisingly their are plenty of folks with LW planes in their sig.
I wonder if you find Jug sigs in the German forum.

for instance: Ya yu is ein dumpkopf. Yu liederhosen es full of poo yu sweinhud. Da P47 is da uber plane.

sorry for the spelling. half year of German in 10th grade didnt teach me much.

Gibbage1
11-14-2005, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
u simply need a test runway, and two ppl todo tests.

first chap spawns in a bomber, hops to gunner station, then procedes to shoot other chap in the face. (or wingtip, errornoss gunfire)

and pipper, ill haveto remmber that next time i fly japanease http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was my test.

faustnik
11-14-2005, 01:11 PM
Yes, P1ng did the same test and did not find the BMW to be made of bullet proof titanium. The BMW damage model is good with appropriate toughness. The R-2800 model should be made similar (damage resulting in incremental power loss) to the BMW.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
few 50cals in the engine will stop it, the 190A series is now fixed, maybe twice as much toughness as 2800.

but there not much tougher than inlines, and there bigger </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vrabac
11-14-2005, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Professor_06:
for instance: Ya yu is ein dumpkopf. Yu liederhosen es full of poo yu sweinhud. Da P47 is da uber plane.

sorry for the spelling. half year of German in 10th grade didnt teach me much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be more accurate, it didn't teach you anything, only made you waste 6 months of your life. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

What language would you suggest for an international forum? Esperanto?

VW-IceFire
11-14-2005, 04:14 PM
Right...downloading the track and having a look Gibbage. I'll go and try and replicate something myself as well.

Pingu and I might be able to setup a good test scenario ourselves and shoot some engines and see what happens. I have no LAN to test it on unfortunately...

So far I've been more pleased in 4.02 than previously but we'll have a look.

In the meantime, lets keep nationalistic bias and that sort of stuff out of here. We're talking engines and durability...doesn't matter if its a BMW, a P&W, or a Bristol.

Which reminds me, perhaps we should test a few other radials to see how they operate in the game. We may be barking up the wrong tree if most of the radial engines behave the same way...we may be dealing with global DM modeling and not anything specific to a P-47 or a FW190.

ElAurens
11-14-2005, 04:40 PM
Might be interesting to test the Ki 100 and the G4M1, as they both are powered by a Mitsubishi radial, which was regarded as very reliable by the IJN and IJAFC. And maybe use the 7.7 waist gun of the Betty for your tests, cannot get much more wimpy...

Professor_06
11-14-2005, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vrabac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Professor_06:
for instance: Ya yu is ein dumpkopf. Yu liederhosen es full of poo yu sweinhud. Da P47 is da uber plane.

sorry for the spelling. half year of German in 10th grade didnt teach me much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be more accurate, it didn't teach you anything, only made you waste 6 months of your life. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

What language would you suggest for an international forum? Esperanto? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually only wasted 4.5 months of my life.. I can still count to 10 and ask for a beer in German. That is enough.

Well, sorry, I thouht this was an English speaking (er typing) forum. So you think combining the forums to an all esperanto wouldn't be a bad idea. Hmm, might liven things up.

Grey_Mouser67
11-14-2005, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

Now, I'm off to level up my Dwarf for the Gnomeregeran Knee Stabbers. DEATH THE HORDE, and their filty inbred orcs! Bah, my Paladin has a weak damage per second and is an underachiever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't do it! That game is like crack! I barely managed to uninstall it and live to tell the tale! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What game are you talking about...I'm looking for something new these days and I always liked reading science fiction books and playing Dungeons and Dragons in my youth.

Hoarmurath
11-14-2005, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
What game are you talking about...I'm looking for something new these days and I always liked reading science fiction books and playing Dungeons and Dragons in my youth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't start to speak about mmorpg here, it is not only completely off topic, but a very bad idea if you don't want Oleg to learn about them and drop FB to play them. The fact that some of us play games like http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/ or http://www.lineage2.com is of no interest in a thread about P&W R2800 engine reliability

Gibbage1
11-14-2005, 07:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Don't start to speak about mmorpg here, it is not only completely off topic, but a very bad idea if you don't want Oleg to learn about them and drop FB to play them. The fact that some of us play games like http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/ or http://www.lineage2.com is of no interest in a thread about P&W R2800 engine reliability </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For once I agree with Hoar

Gibbage1
11-14-2005, 07:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Which reminds me, perhaps we should test a few other radials to see how they operate in the game. We may be barking up the wrong tree if most of the radial engines behave the same way...we may be dealing with global DM modeling and not anything specific to a P-47 or a FW190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tested the F4U and F6F, both show the same glass insta-stop engine of the P-47. I can test others like the B-25, LA5/7, F4F and others at home since I have 2 computers on a lan and that eliminates lag as a reason.

VW-IceFire
11-14-2005, 07:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Which reminds me, perhaps we should test a few other radials to see how they operate in the game. We may be barking up the wrong tree if most of the radial engines behave the same way...we may be dealing with global DM modeling and not anything specific to a P-47 or a FW190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tested the F4U and F6F, both show the same glass insta-stop engine of the P-47. I can test others like the B-25, LA5/7, F4F and others at home since I have 2 computers on a lan and that eliminates lag as a reason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
For sure for sure.

I watched the complete track. Its definately interesting with the FW190 taking quite a few hits and still operating (although you would be hard pressed to actually continue a long fight in that as I know from experience) while the 47's just stops.

If you wouldn't mind testing the La-7 and the Ki-100 as well...just for kicks to see how they hold up as well. Insta stops or using the FW190 method. We can eliminate aircraft and see how many have the one method and how many have the other.

How about the Wildcat...thats not a R-2800 as far as I remember...how do the F4F and FM2 hold up?

Posing the question.

Gibbage1
11-14-2005, 09:03 PM
I just did a few quick test's.

LA7. Not very tough. Our of 3 kills, it averaged only 10-15 hits before stopping. All 3 aircraft's engines burned when they stopped.

Ki-100. Very weak. Only 5-10 hits per kill. Again, engine burned every time when it stopped.

F4F-4. Rather tough!! Averaged 20-30 hits! As above, the engine ALWAYS burned when it finally stopped.

Note that all 3 targets engines burned when they stopped or soon before. On both the P-47 and FW-190, they never burned! Smoked, yes. But not once in any of my tracks doing this same very test did they burn.

I dont have much time tonight so I will try and look into the burning engine thing and see if the FW-190/P-47 is an acception to the rule, the Ki/La/F4F is, or if there is no general rule with burning dead engines.

P.S. It was the ENGINES burning, NOT the fuel tanks. I only hit the engine.

Grey_Mouser67
11-14-2005, 09:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
What game are you talking about...I'm looking for something new these days and I always liked reading science fiction books and playing Dungeons and Dragons in my youth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't start to speak about mmorpg here, it is not only completely off topic, but a very bad idea if you don't want Oleg to learn about them and drop FB to play them. The fact that some of us play games like http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/ or http://www.lineage2.com is of no interest in a thread about P&W R2800 engine reliability </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yeah...did I mention that the P&W engines were infamous in their real life for taking battle damage...cylinder shot off etc and kept on running? Did I mention that ingame, they slowly grind to a halt with a single shot? and the radiators don't work either!

Thanks for the link and thanks for reminding me to post something about the P&W engine...it is fubar in this game actually. I find it a little tough to understand why Hellcats, Corsairs, Jugs and even some bombers are so damage prone on a fairly subjective trait when so much has been written about the toughness and durability of the aircraft....I would conjecture that the Jug and the Hellcat might just have been the toughest single engined aircraft built during the war! Tougher than the Sturmovik even...the sturmovik had an inline engine that required armor to protect...US designers considered the R2800 to be armor...now that is an intersting concept.

Gibbage1
11-14-2005, 09:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
US designers considered the R2800 to be armor...now that is an intersting concept. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

German engineers considerd a fuel tank to be armor. Thats a very interesting concept! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I would hate for an API or tracer to hit THAT armor.

VW-IceFire
11-14-2005, 09:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Other P-47's in our squadron encountered similar attacks, and one pilot brought home "souvenirs" after flying through a farmhouse chimney. His Jug was completely covered with oil - the windscreen opaque. When he landed back on British soil, he found six bricks embedded in his cowl, and one cylinder head was completely detached; this proved, once again, the rugged attributes that made the P-47 ideal for ground support.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
From an interview with Col. William B. Bailey USAAC (Ret) in Flying Legends Magazine (April 2004). Excellent magazine series by the way.

Anyways that little quote, amongst all of the others I've read, really suggest how sturdy the engine was. He flew through a chimney! And flew back to base in England. Presumably meaning he at least had to cross the channel and probably had to fly much further than that. Probably without too much oil in the actual engine either...

faustnik
11-14-2005, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
US designers considered the R2800 to be armor...now that is an intersting concept. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it was more the pilots than the engineers. Big engine up front, armor plating behind the seat, all safe and comfy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Gibbage1
11-14-2005, 09:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
US designers considered the R2800 to be armor...now that is an intersting concept. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it was more the pilots than the engineers. Big engine up front, armor plating behind the seat, all safe and comfy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont know what it is, but if you look at armor charts in pilots manuals, it shows the engine as being part of the armor and listed as armor. I also remember a note in the F4U manual that says something like "There is no armor plate behind the instrament panel as the engine offers more then adiquate protection". I think it was the F4U, or the F4F. I cant remember, but its one of those things that struck a note in my mind.

faustnik
11-14-2005, 09:51 PM
That was what I attempted to explain to you before. "Protection" for fighters, like the R-2800 in a Jug or the fuel cell in a Fw190 was just something to stop the bullet from hitting the pilot. I really don't think fighters were intended to absorb damage and remain in combat. Better a 20mm shell taking out your fuel cell or engine than your head.

Gibbage1
11-14-2005, 10:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
That was what I attempted to explain to you before. "Protection" for fighters, like the R-2800 in a Jug or the fuel cell in a Fw190 was just something to stop the bullet from hitting the pilot. I really don't think fighters were intended to absorb damage and remain in combat. Better a 20mm shell taking out your fuel cell or engine than your head. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would rather it take my engine or head then burn alive in a crate falling back to earth. Bullets in the fuel tank is NOT good, especially with the generous use of API, Tracers, and HE rounds used in WWII.

lbhskier37
11-14-2005, 11:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
That was what I attempted to explain to you before. "Protection" for fighters, like the R-2800 in a Jug or the fuel cell in a Fw190 was just something to stop the bullet from hitting the pilot. I really don't think fighters were intended to absorb damage and remain in combat. Better a 20mm shell taking out your fuel cell or engine than your head. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would rather it take my engine or head then burn alive in a crate falling back to earth. Bullets in the fuel tank is NOT good, especially with the generous use of API, Tracers, and HE rounds used in WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

API rounds won't do **** to a full fuel tank. The only way an API round will light a fuel tank is if they hit above the fuel level where there is fuel vapor, or they might also ignite a leaking fuel stream (again fuel vapor). AV fuel is very flamable in the right conditions, but a big full tank of it isn't the right condition. They didn't consider the fuel tank as armor just because, they did that because they knew a full tank of fuel would protect the pilot just as a big chunck of grey cast iron (the engine)would protect them from the front.

Now I know their methods aren't always the greatest, but if you've seen the Mythbusters on TLC, they have a show on how hard it is for tracer and api rounds to ignite a fuel tank. They only get it to work under some very specific conditions. I would actually be more worried about API rounds going through ammo boxes and around dirty oily engine components than through a tank of fuel.

Gibbage1
11-14-2005, 11:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Now I know their methods aren't always the greatest, but if you've seen the Mythbusters on TLC, they have a show on how hard it is for tracer and api rounds to ignite a fuel tank. They only get it to work under some very specific conditions. I would actually be more worried about API rounds going through ammo boxes and around dirty oily engine components than through a tank of fuel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw that episode. They figured out they were firing too close to the target for the phosperous to ignight, and so they backed up a little. The tank ignighted in the 2nd or 3rd shot after that. That was a small round fired at a steel fuel tank. Not a big round fired at an aluminum fuel tank. The differance in the ammount of incendary content is insane.

But this is getting off topic.

faustnik
11-14-2005, 11:54 PM
Gibbage,

This is really silly. If you actually read the report by the RAF on the Fw190 vulnerability, you will see that they considered a 20mm API round to have only a 5% chance of igniting the tank. I don't know what to say, believe what you want. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Gibbage1
11-15-2005, 12:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Gibbage,

This is really silly. If you actually read the report by the RAF on the Fw190 vulnerability, you will see that they considered a 20mm API round to have only a 5% chance of igniting the tank. I don't know what to say, believe what you want. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A little off topic. Dont you already have a FW DM thread?

faustnik
11-15-2005, 01:33 AM
Right, everybody agrees the R-2800 was a tough engine. Are all R-2800's in the sim modeled the same?

Chadburn
11-15-2005, 12:00 PM
Gib, I've downloaded your track twice now, but it's corrupted. Unfortunately, in both the p47 and 190, you're aiming off to the right so I can't see what part of the engine you are actually hitting.

Gibbage1
11-15-2005, 01:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:
Gib, I've downloaded your track twice now, but it's corrupted. Unfortunately, in both the p47 and 190, you're aiming off to the right so I can't see what part of the engine you are actually hitting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I noticed this bug and posted it in the error report. I was hitting into the engine between the prop hub and cowel. As the track progressed further, the aim got further to the right. I tried other test's and I always got the same problem with tracks from the turret gunner.

I will try something differant tonight to see if I can fix the problem by NOT moving the B-25, but pulling the target up to it. But as you can see, the engine does stop so I am hitting it.

Gib

Gibbage1
11-15-2005, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Right, everybody agrees the R-2800 was a tough engine. Are all R-2800's in the sim modeled the same? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

F4U and F6F are the same way. 1 birst = stopped engine. R-1820 of the F4F-3 and -4 are modeled rather tough compaired to other radials, but still not as tough as the FW BMW. But I think thats how it shoud be, before you call me biest again.

Ki-100 was rather weak, but still took more then the R-2800's.

p1ngu666
11-15-2005, 01:15 PM
its a error in il2, been there awhile..

Chadburn
11-15-2005, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:

I will try something differant tonight to see if I can fix the problem by NOT moving the B-25, but pulling the target up to it. But as you can see, the engine does stop so I am hitting it.

Gib </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks.

Gibbage1
11-15-2005, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
its a error in il2, been there awhile.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

4.01 seems to work just fine. Even files in 4.01 plas fine from the turret in 4.02.

p1ngu666
11-16-2005, 08:11 AM
hmm, think its some other random on the network, then u dont see the tracer correctly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Aaron_GT
11-19-2005, 03:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">before you call me biest again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The word is biased not biest.

Aaron_GT
11-21-2005, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And biased is what I call a software studio that refuses to fix obvious errors in the main engine and armament (see .50 cal tracer thread) of a certain group of aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which group? There are errors and omissions all over the place, e.g. FW-190 fuel and cockpit bugs, the Tempest being 100kph too slow, Spitfires being too fast. I can't see any cohesive bias and since Oleg is in it to make money as well as for a love of aviation I can't see why he would hamper one nation's aircraft for the hell of it, especially given all the other bugs. I think there is just too much to attend to given that development is on BoB not IL2/PF.

Vrabac
11-22-2005, 04:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Which group? There are errors and omissions all over the place, e.g. FW-190 fuel and cockpit bugs, the Tempest being 100kph too slow, Spitfires being too fast. I can't see any cohesive bias and since Oleg is in it to make money as well as for a love of aviation I can't see why he would hamper one nation's aircraft for the hell of it, especially given all the other bugs. I think there is just too much to attend to given that development is on BoB not IL2/PF. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO there are way too many planes. People think that more planes are better, but it just creates problems. Now it seems it's impossible to have them all perform as they should in relation to one another, and something is always wrong. But hey, now they can say "more than googol of flyable planes" and people buy it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Buzzsaw-
11-22-2005, 08:25 AM
Salute

Another shot, showing the size of this engine, and why pilots felt so comfortable sitting behind it:

http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p47registry/images/p47-4549385-4.jpg

p1ngu666
11-22-2005, 10:13 AM
u wouldnt feel comfortable sittin under it tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

II_JG1Schpam
11-22-2005, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Another shot, showing the size of this engine, and why pilots felt so comfortable sitting behind it:

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A little side track...

And yet the view out of the P-47 sim cockppit behind this monster of an engine is so much better than the view out of a 190. And I see cries of bias (not from you, Buzz) earlier in this thread. Whatever.

chris455
11-22-2005, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Another shot, showing the size of this engine, and why pilots felt so comfortable sitting behind it: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to mention that there was a 3/8" armor steel plate ABOVE the engine and BELOW the armor glass on a P-47. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

horseback
11-22-2005, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by II_JG1Schpam:
And yet the view out of the P-47 sim cockppit behind this monster of an engine is so much better than the view out of a 190. And I see cries of bias (not from you, Buzz) earlier in this thread. Whatever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Both aircraft have a poorly modelled field of view, contrary to every pilot memoir and expert's evaluation of them by all sides.

Neither view is what a purist would call realistic. Part of this is due to Oleg's insistance on having the pilot's Point of View as being in the same plane as the crosshairs on the gunsight, when in most cases (and especially for these two aircraft) he would have to lean down and forward to look through the gunsights.

The fact that the FW's angle of attack in level flight is actually more 'nose down' than the game models it is also a contributor, offsetting the fact that the P-47 pilot sat somewhat higher above the cockpit sills (and the P-47 cockpit is in the Top Ten ugliest in the game, giving him all the more reason not to look down at his panel).

We're all getting screwed here on that count, Schpam.

cheers

horseback

VW-IceFire
11-22-2005, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by II_JG1Schpam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Another shot, showing the size of this engine, and why pilots felt so comfortable sitting behind it:

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A little side track...

And yet the view out of the P-47 sim cockppit behind this monster of an engine is so much better than the view out of a 190. And I see cries of bias (not from you, Buzz) earlier in this thread. Whatever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ever flown a D-10 or D-22...I'm not sure how you can make that comment a'tall if you have.

We're all getting screwed for one reason or another...its not nationalistic bias. I roared with ironic laughter when I heard about the complaints on the Russian forums...how Oleg sold out to the Americans or the Germans or whatever...

Its just the same thing mirrored on all sides really. I think, from what you've wrote, that you realize this and that there are legitimate complaints on all "sides" and problems and issues for all types of aircraft regardless of the color of star, cross, or circle painted on the side (not excluding triangles and other shapes either).

II_JG1Schpam
11-22-2005, 04:18 PM
I don't want to take this thread off topic as the glass R2800 needs to be addressed and fixed. But hop into the sim 190 and the sim P-47 and ask yourself how can you virtually see around that big R2800 radial better than the BMW801, which I think is smaller and at worst just as big.

And no I haven't flewn either in RL and that's not the point. I'm talking in the sim not real life. And it was in reference to people claiming one side is biased against. There are long running issues on both sides.

horseback
11-22-2005, 08:59 PM
Okay, go back to your many books about WWII fighters and take a look at the pictures of pilots in their cockpits...the guys in the FW sat quite a bit lower in the 'pit than the guys in the Thunderbolts, and the instrument panel was mounted quite a bit lower in relation to the pilot besides.

The pilot of the P-47 isn't looking around the R-2800, he's looking over it. It's fairly obvious, if you've built a few models of each type (and I've built at least ten each of the FW 190A and the P-47 over the last 40+ years).

cheers

horseback

Gibbage1
11-23-2005, 12:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Okay, go back to your many books about WWII fighters and take a look at the pictures of pilots in their cockpits...the guys in the FW sat quite a bit lower in the 'pit than the guys in the Thunderbolts, and the instrument panel was mounted quite a bit lower in relation to the pilot besides.

The pilot of the P-47 isn't looking around the R-2800, he's looking over it. It's fairly obvious, if you've built a few models of each type (and I've built at least ten each of the FW 190A and the P-47 over the last 40+ years).

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. The pilot sits higher in the P-47, and the panel is lower. Not only that, the P-47 is not flat over the nose, but round. The pilot can look down the nose. Just look at some profiles!

http://www.japanconsulting.it/aviationgraphic.com/images/P47.jpg

http://storage2.mfa.free.fr/profile/fw190_640.jpg

p1ngu666
11-23-2005, 12:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by II_JG1Schpam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Another shot, showing the size of this engine, and why pilots felt so comfortable sitting behind it:

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A little side track...

And yet the view out of the P-47 sim cockppit behind this monster of an engine is so much better than the view out of a 190. And I see cries of bias (not from you, Buzz) earlier in this thread. Whatever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ever flown a D-10 or D-22...I'm not sure how you can make that comment a'tall if you have.

We're all getting screwed for one reason or another...its not nationalistic bias. I roared with ironic laughter when I heard about the complaints on the Russian forums...how Oleg sold out to the Americans or the Germans or whatever...

Its just the same thing mirrored on all sides really. I think, from what you've wrote, that you realize this and that there are legitimate complaints on all "sides" and problems and issues for all types of aircraft regardless of the color of star, cross, or circle painted on the side (not excluding triangles and other shapes either). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, russian aircraft perform much worse now than in say FB or AEP. the "mainstream" ones that is. the la7, i185, yak3 are still uber (yak not so much imo)

the view in a p47 D10 and D22 is worse than a 190s, uve got similer view over nose, but that bar verticaly as a bonus.

i prefer the 190A6 and earlier canopy, i can see more with that one to the rear

Buzzsaw-
11-23-2005, 08:30 AM
Salute

Both the FW190 and P-47D Razorbacks have gunsight views which are not accurate.

The Razorback P-47 has the worst gunsight view of ANY aircraft in the game.

Here are some shots of real Razorbacks, and the gunsights. You can see the gunsight is placed too low in IL-2.

I mentioned this to Oleg, he said it couldnt be changed, his team did not do the cockpit, it was a third party, not his fault, so no point in belabouring it. But it is wrong.

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/56/landry.jpg

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/56/63rd/wiggs-05.jpg

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/4/01%20coen.jpg

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/78/78th-02.jpg

http://www.web-birds.com/9th/48/bulls_p47.jpg

http://www.web-birds.com/9th/404/halbw3.jpg

http://www.web-birds.com/9th/404/p-47_cockpit.jpg

Grey_Mouser67
11-23-2005, 08:50 AM
"it couldn't be changed"

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard a programmer say it couldn't be done and a dollar for every time that it was then done...I'd be RICH!

It won't be changed...perhaps. I wonder, if a third party modeller took on the challenge of building a new cockpit for the P-47D10/22 and Fw-190...would Oleg introduce them at a later date?

I saw some flying film of a P-47Bubble canopy and it had the gunsight in view and I was amazed at how high off the dash that the sight was...now this wasnt a razorback, but the point was made....there is no doubt that real life pilots could pull better deflection shots than we can in game due to the placement of the point of veiw forward and gunsight views....and why the heck isn't the point of view moved left or right when looking backwards? I can't bleive that it would be that hard to program? This might give aircraft like the corsair, with blown canopies, a better advantage than those without them like the P-51B and Bf109.

Back to engines...the R2800 is very poorly modelled. This, along with structural integrity of several of the American aircraft and stability from yaw oscillations needs to be addressed.

II_JG1Schpam
11-23-2005, 09:20 AM
Again I did not intend to pull this into a view argument only point out that there are long running issues on both sides, and those who cry of intentional bias need to recall the history of this sim series.

And I still don't buy the argument that the view out of the real 190 was as bad as it is in this sim. Not after an RAF assessment of the 190 vs Spit said in their own words was "better" than the Spit. If you want to debate this then I am willing to open mindedly, but I recommend we don't do it in this thread since again the damage model of the R2800 is IMO not right. I have personally suffered from R2800 issue in squad practices and in on-line DF servers.

GR142-Pipper
11-24-2005, 03:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Pipper, you rock! I just love blanket statements, particularly ones with no factual or reasonable basis. They make me want to just curl up under a blanket and think of all the nice, flamey ways I can reply to them. But, I think to myself, I shouldn't do this all by myself. Why spoil the fun of others to reply to such patent and laughable nonsense? So, I hereby (sincerly and most jocularly) invite everyone to rally against Pippers patently undermodelled whinning abilities, with our help he could easily improve his ratio of basless claims to whines. Won't somebody think of the childern? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Poor little Impstar****** is having a bad hair day. (snicker)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When post like this appear I stop, shake my head, and really wonder why some people take personal agendas with them when they play a video game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sure many things are a complete wonder to you, grasshopper.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now, I'm off to level up my Dwarf for the Gnomeregeran Knee Stabbers. DEATH THE HORDE, and their filty inbred orcs! Bah, my Paladin has a weak damage per second and is an underachiever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, you go "level your Dwarf", sonny. Put the Playboy back in the rack when your done. LOL

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
11-24-2005, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
The pilot of the P-47 isn't looking around the R-2800, he's looking over it. It's fairly obvious, if you've built a few models of each type (and I've built at least ten each of the FW 190A and the P-47 over the last 40+ years).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>You're right. As an aside, have you noticed how oversized the headrests are depicted in the P-51 and P-47D-27? Lateral aft visibility is really obscured which wasn't the case in real life.

GR142-Pipper

ImpStarDuece
11-24-2005, 03:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Poor little Impstar****** is having a bad hair day. (snicker) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, just tired of your jingoism. Love for ones country is all well and good, but why does love have to stop at the border?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm sure many things are a complete wonder to you, grasshopper. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You bet there are. Life would be kind of sad with out things to wonder about. Religion, quantum mechanics, the poetry of Keats and Coleridge, Aristotlean philisophy, why Bruce Lee wasn't the star of "Kung-Fu", and how some people manage to breathe and type at the same time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yeah, you go "level your Dwarf", sonny. Put the Playboy back in the rack when your done. LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oooooh. A masturbation reference. How droll, how mature. You must off been a popular man in the school debating club, to be able to deliver such an inventive, cutting and well aimed barb such as that. I surrender sir, you jibe has undone me.

Diablo310th
11-24-2005, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
The pilot of the P-47 isn't looking around the R-2800, he's looking over it. It's fairly obvious, if you've built a few models of each type (and I've built at least ten each of the FW 190A and the P-47 over the last 40+ years).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>You're right. As an aside, have you noticed how oversized the headrests are depicted in the P-51 and P-47D-27? Lateral aft visibility is really obscured which wasn't the case in real life.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pipper.....that really gives the Jug a poor rear view compaired to other ac with bubble top canpies. Look at teh rear view in a Ki 84 or Zeke. Kinda takes away the advantage of having a bubble top. Especially when your looking over your shoulder as much as I do.

crazyivan1970
11-24-2005, 10:39 AM
Pipper, warning... Duece, enough.

Carry on

VW-IceFire
11-24-2005, 09:09 PM
Finally had it happen to me...single 20mm round completely killed the engine. I was stupidly doing a headon with a FW190 (although I was surrounded and then he was just there) but only one round hit me. Dead engine.

Nothing else was damaged the aircraft was otherwise in pristine shape.

No track unfortunately as it was online and I wasn't recording at the time. *shame*

Badsight.
11-24-2005, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Duece, enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>he does it with class ivan . . . .

not with ******ed kiddie cr4p like whats been directed back at him

chris455
11-24-2005, 09:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Finally had it happen to me...single 20mm round completely killed the engine. I was stupidly doing a headon with a FW190 (although I was surrounded and then he was just there) but only one round hit me. Dead engine.

Nothing else was damaged the aircraft was otherwise in pristine shape.

No track unfortunately as it was online and I wasn't recording at the time. *shame* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Ice, I could totally live with a sick or dead powerplant that ate a MG151 round- what really frosts me is when 1 or 2 rounds from a type 92 7,7 mg does the same thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

VW-IceFire
11-24-2005, 09:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Finally had it happen to me...single 20mm round completely killed the engine. I was stupidly doing a headon with a FW190 (although I was surrounded and then he was just there) but only one round hit me. Dead engine.

Nothing else was damaged the aircraft was otherwise in pristine shape.

No track unfortunately as it was online and I wasn't recording at the time. *shame* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Ice, I could totally live with a sick or dead powerplant that ate a MG151 round- what really frosts me is when 1 or 2 rounds from a type 92 7,7 mg does the same thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well they do fire MG17's those FW190A-5's anyways....SO maybe thats what got me. I only heard one hit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I just assumed it was a 20mm...

Still...if you can lodge a brick in there I'd think a single 20mm wouldn't kill the engine completely. Maybe make it run badly and then die...but instant powerloss here.

D-10 model I should point out.

GR142-Pipper
11-24-2005, 11:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Poor little Impstar****** is having a bad hair day. (snicker) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, just tired of your jingoism. Love for ones country is all well and good, but why does love have to stop at the border? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So you extrapolate my comments regarding American aircraft and arrive at jingoism. Amazing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From Pipper: I'm sure many things are a complete wonder to you, grasshopper. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You bet there are. Life would be kind of sad with out things to wonder about. Religion, quantum mechanics, the poetry of Keats and Coleridge, Aristotlean philisophy, why Bruce Lee wasn't the star of "Kung-Fu", and how some people manage to breathe and type at the same time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Good grief. You're trying too hard to be someone you're not. It shows.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From Pipper: Yeah, you go "level your Dwarf", sonny. Put the Playboy back in the rack when your done. LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oooooh. A masturbation reference. How droll, how mature. You must off been a popular man in the school debating club, to be able to deliver such an inventive, cutting and well aimed barb such as that. I surrender sir, you jibe has undone me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your surrender is graciously accepted. Friendly advice my little Dwarf one: the next time someone makes a remark about an aircraft (ANY aircraft from ANY country) entertain the high probability that they're really trying to discuss just that...aircraft. So with that our conversation concludes.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
11-25-2005, 12:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
The pilot of the P-47 isn't looking around the R-2800, he's looking over it. It's fairly obvious, if you've built a few models of each type (and I've built at least ten each of the FW 190A and the P-47 over the last 40+ years).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>You're right. As an aside, have you noticed how oversized the headrests are depicted in the P-51 and P-47D-27? Lateral aft visibility is really obscured which wasn't the case in real life.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pipper.....that really gives the Jug a poor rear view compaired to other ac with bubble top canpies. Look at teh rear view in a Ki 84 or Zeke. Kinda takes away the advantage of having a bubble top. Especially when your looking over your shoulder as much as I do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you. Poor aft lateral visibility is to be expected in the "Razorback" versions of the P-47 but not those with bubble canopies. It's just a matter of programming.

GR142-Pipper

Viper2005_
11-25-2005, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's just a matter of programming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not a sterling billionaire. It's just a matter of economics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

What's that email address for bug reporting again? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Getting "sort of" on topic, I think that it's worthwhile pointing out that this, like a lot of threads in these forums, represents a fundamental problem with simulation - the harder you look the more bugs you'll see.

The R-2800 has quite a lot of interesting problems.

Have you ever seen the turbocharger control in the Thunderbolt move from the "off" position?

There is no Turbocharger management involved in flying the Thunderbolt in game, which always struck me as being strange, especially at high altitude.

Part of the problem here is that when you assemble a group of knowledgable people into a forum like this there is a tendency to raise expectations, because you can get a collection of specialists to contribute to the debate such that the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

I came into this with a reasonable knowledge of the Merlin, Griffon and Spitfire, and I now know all sorts of things about the Fw-190, MG151/20, MK108, Bf-109 etc.

Unfortunately we are in the minority of users. I suspect that an above average percentage of us fly IRL or are otherwise involved with the Aviation Industry.

Meanwhile the silent majority treat this like a clever version of space invaders. They neither know nor care that the Thunderbolt's gunsight is in the wrong place, or that the game doesn't really "do" Mach number effects in a very convincing manner, which has a considerable impact upon the performance of the Lightning, especially as air temperature is changed (winter maps vs summer maps).

I would very much like to see a true WWII flightsimulator.

Unfortunately the amount of effort required to attain accuracy is vast.

You could spend a man year or so just getting the Merlin right.

And when you've done that relatively few players will thank you for it because now they've got a lot more factors to worry about.

It's actually rather hard work to get a Spitfire off the ground on a hot day before the coolant boils. You've got 5 minutes. And of course if you're working in an accurate simulation, that means getting through the various checklists required.

Heck 90% of people would probably never even get off the ground because they'd forget to prime the engine, then wonder why it wouldn't start.

And of course, starting procedures vary considerably from engine to engine, and indeed from installation to installation.

Computer games are like movies. They can be expected to provide the degree of accuracy demanded by the audience. Take a Western for example - the vast majority of viewers don't count the rounds, and don't care that Clint just shot 47 rounds from his 6 shooter.

I think that all things considered IL2 is a very good game. It's not a flight simulator though - you couldn't ever expect to use it for training purposes. I could go through a very long and boring list of things which are "wrong". But there wouldn't be much point.

There is a limit to the amount of work we can expect Oleg to carry out in the quest for accuracy when the current level of fidelity is already way above that provided by the competition (or indeed required by most users - look at all the scalability in there).

<span class="ev_code_RED">However:</span>

Getting 100% on topic - if we're going to do this, let's do it properly.

IMO we need to assemble a large dataset on the R-2800. This should ideally comprise photographs of battle damage linked to combat reports and pilot descriptions of performance attained (ie manifold pressure and rpm).

We also need to carry out some research into the aerodynamic performance of a few R-2800 powered aircraft, specifically with regard to minimum power requirement [(L/D)^3/2]max.

This would allow a minimum bound to be placed upon the "get home" performance provided by a damaged engine, which would be useful for the "missing cylinder" type case when manifold pressure and rpm cannot be expected to provide a realistic measure of the actual bhp supplied.

It is worth noting that mass is clearly going to be an important factor in this analysis, and in each case it is therefore important that a convincing attempt is made to estimate the landing weight of the aircraft since this has a disproportionate effect upon bhp requirement.

[holding L/D^3/2 constant it may be seen that if flying at minimum power speed (which happens to be the airspeed for maximum endurance):

L = 0.5*roh*V^2*Cl*S

Assuming flight at constant altitude, since V is the only term which can be modified (as we're holding Cl constant to maximise L/D^3/2), it follows that:

V = kM^0.5

In otherwords, if I quadrouple the weight of the aircraft, I double the speed at which I have to fly in order to sustain flight.

Power = Thrust*Velocity

Thus at constant drag, if I double my speed I double my power requirement.

However, we are operating at constant drag coefficient. Therefore if I double my speed a quadrouple my drag, and as as power varies directly with velocity I therefore end up needing eight times as much power. Thus power required varies as V^3.

Putting it all together:

Let's say I double the weight of my aircraft.

My lift requirement goes up by a factor of 2.

Therefore I need to fly faster by a factor of 2^0.5 (or 1.41).

As I'm holding L/D constant to maximise (L/D)^3/2, it therefore follows that my drag has gone up by a factor of 2.

My power requirement has therefore gone up by a factor of 2*1.41 ~ 2.82...

And of course it's worth noting that the roh term really starts to punish you for flying high since at constant Q your TAS is significantly higher at altitude.

Therefore, if you're power limited you'll end up on the deck.

NB - the colder it is outside, the better you'll do... that roh term can work in your favour!

Er... well you will if your engine is naturally aspirated. If not then things are somewhat more complicated! I'm not going there because it's 23:31 on a friday night and I want to go out.

Hope I didn't bore you all too much!]

*edit* This analysis assumes that airscrew efficency is held constant, which is generally reasonable (assume ~80% efficiency) unless you're asking the poor thing to operate well off design, by virtue of either Mach number effects or disk loading (lack of usable mass flow reducing propulsive efficiency)...

GR142-Pipper
11-26-2005, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I think that all things considered IL2 is a very good game. It's not a flight simulator though - you couldn't ever expect to use it for training purposes. I could go through a very long and boring list of things which are "wrong". But there wouldn't be much point.

There is a limit to the amount of work we can expect Oleg to carry out in the quest for accuracy when the current level of fidelity is already way above that provided by the competition (or indeed required by most users - look at all the scalability in there) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Very true. A very big issue of difficulty in this game seems to be obtaining data for Ps curves as little seems readily available. Ps (specific excess power) directly affects aircraft acceleration capabilities/characteristics which are critical in an engagement. While decent approximations can be made of the aerodynamic aspects, fuel burn rates, etc., Ps data has to be entered (if it doesn't exist) on what seems to be a trial and error basis. If others know more about how the mechanics of Ps are handled in this game it would be worth knowing.

GR142-Pipper

Aaron_GT
11-26-2005, 02:54 PM
For US aircraft there seem to be decent figures for acceleration rates, so I suppose Ps can be deduced from those, and then HP curves for altitude can be used which should give the right figures. Even with all the RAF performance testing I've seen I've never seen a level acceleration figure. Plenty of ROCs, etc., and AFDU relative tests, but no absolute figures.

Viper2005_
11-26-2005, 05:36 PM
Rate of climb is directly proportional to specific excess power.

gravitational potential energy = m*g*h.

Rate of change of gravitational potential energy can be expressed quite neatly in terms of watts per kilogram, which is specific excess power.

Note that this is thrust specific excess power rather than brake specific excess power - therefore airscrew efficiency has an effect.

As for some numbers, let's take a Merlin 66 engined Spitfire IX @ +18 psi:

Rate of climb at sea level = 4620 fpm. That's 23.47 m/s.

Multiply this by g (9.81 m/s^2) and Ps = 230 W/kg.

The aircraft weighed 7485 lb, which is 3395 kg.

Therefore the excess power was 780850 Watts, which equates to 1047 horsepower.

If we assume an airscrew efficiency of 80% that gives a brake excess power of 1309 bhp.

Now at sea level the Merlin 66 produces ~ 1590 bhp @3000 rpm/+ 18 psi.

Therefore the brake power required to sustain flight is 1590-1309 = 281 bhp.

As the climb was executed at 176.5 mph TAS it's possible to calculate its drag (and thus its L/D).

1 hp = 1 lbf @ 375 mph.

Therefore at 176.5 mph, 1 hp will give ~ 2.12 lbf assuming 100% airscrew efficiency.

If we plug in an airscrew efficiency factor of 0.8, and multiply by the brake power required for flight, we get a drag figure of 477.62 lbf.

As the aircraft weighs 7485 lbm this gives an L/D of 15.67.

This seems reasonable, if a little high.

However it is worth pointing out that this L/D would not be obtained in a power off test because the method of calculation I've used obviously doesn't account for the drag of the airscrew. Also, somewhat different figures would result from the selection of a a different airscrew efficiency factor. 80% efficiency is generally a pretty reasonable figure, but could easily be in error by 10%.

Anyway, it is then possible to examine the effect of airscrew efficiency upon the performance of the aircraft at different ratings (+25 psi being the easiest to obtain data for).

A different aircraft weighing in at 7400 lb showed a 950 fpm increase in rate of climb when run at +25 instead of +18 psi boost. At sea level the Merlin 66 gives about 1990 bhp @ +25 psi.

Brake power has increased by 298279.949 watts.
The aircraft weighs 3356.58354 kg.

Therefore specific power has increased by about 88.86 watts per kilogram. This should yeild in increase in climb rate of 9.05 m/s or 1783 fpm.

The difference between the expected increase in climb rate and the actual increase in climb rate must be due to a reduction in airscrew efficiency, since the aerodynamics of the aircraft haven't changed.

From this it is possible to begin an analysis of the airscrew...

It's also possible to obtain L/D data over a small IAS range by examining different portions of the climb.

Next you could look at the top speed in level flight, as in that condition Ps=0. You can then start to draw drag polars and all that fun stuff.

Thus from this sort of data one can start to build up a picture of the general performance of an aeroplane. I've used the Spitfire in this example simply because I could lay my hands on the required data easily; the process is the same whatever aeroplane you choose to examine.

It is worth pointing out however, that one must be careful in setting assumed performance values such as airscrew efficiency if realistic performance estimates are to be obtained.

Sources:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bs543.html
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin66hpchart.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html

Kocur_
11-27-2005, 03:34 AM
Ok, but what about fact that all planes in the game have their ROCs increaced compared to RL? And more: what about that horizontal speeds are OTOH close to RL ones?

Hoarmurath
11-27-2005, 03:49 AM
Pics of battle damaged planes that returned to base give you an indication of the maximum damage that can be sustained by the engine without completely knocking it off. But it is not an indication of the minimal damage that can knock it off. For this you would need a study of downed planes.

II_JG1Schpam
11-27-2005, 03:06 PM
Ps is in units of ft/s, which is the same as climb rate. They are in essense the same thing. If you know the climb rate possible at a give speed/alt/weight/power then you know Ps. Ps is the ability to change your energy state either by climb, speeding up, or a combination of both.

VW-IceFire
11-27-2005, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Pics of battle damaged planes that returned to base give you an indication of the maximum damage that can be sustained by the engine without completely knocking it off. But it is not an indication of the minimal damage that can knock it off. For this you would need a study of downed planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats a fair point I would say.

But I still contend that one radial engine should not die instantly from a single bullet while the others go on running, albiet with reduced capacity. It seems particularly suspect when one of the few engines known for its rugged reliability is the one in requestion. Wouldn't you say?

Still you are right in that such a study would be necessary, however, if such facts are available is another matter.

Grey_Mouser67
11-27-2005, 04:51 PM
I disagree that a study is necessary.

I say that because there is subjectivity in every aircraft and objectively studying and fixing one might yield less than desirable results....like one aircraft modelled in compressibility and the others not or one aircraft modelled with a little door that opens upon certain dive speeds causing the wing to fall of and the rest of them not....

DM's are more art than science at this stage in the sim evolution...someday, I hope it is other than that.

The R-2800 is probably the toughest and most durable WWII engine...if it is not, then it is right up there....just model it so. There are numerous...not just incidental...reports of engines with damage that made it home. The Jug had the best loss ratio of any US fighter aircraft and it was relagated to ground pounding at the end of the war!

The sim is full of errors and rework for Oleg. I don't think that showing the engine is wrong is the issue...but rather how bad it is wrong and then how to motivate Oleg to model it more accurately.

I view this as a relative thing...like ranking toughest to least tough....just make it so and you'd find the Jug and Hellcat at the top of the list and the Ki-43, Zeke at the bottom of the list and Yaks, Spits and 109's somewhere in the middle.

GR142-Pipper
11-27-2005, 09:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I disagree that a study is necessary.

I say that because there is subjectivity in every aircraft and objectively studying and fixing one might yield less than desirable results....like one aircraft modelled in compressibility and the others not or one aircraft modelled with a little door that opens upon certain dive speeds causing the wing to fall of and the rest of them not....

DM's are more art than science at this stage in the sim evolution...someday, I hope it is other than that.

The R-2800 is probably the toughest and most durable WWII engine...if it is not, then it is right up there....just model it so. There are numerous...not just incidental...reports of engines with damage that made it home. The Jug had the best loss ratio of any US fighter aircraft and it was relagated to ground pounding at the end of the war!

The sim is full of errors and rework for Oleg. I don't think that showing the engine is wrong is the issue...but rather how bad it is wrong and then how to motivate Oleg to model it more accurately.

I view this as a relative thing...like ranking toughest to least tough....just make it so and you'd find the Jug and Hellcat at the top of the list and the Ki-43, Zeke at the bottom of the list and Yaks, Spits and 109's somewhere in the middle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you and very well said. It's interesting how the R2800 could have been modeled in the manner it was, go through the beta process, and then still emerge as it did. Go figure.

GR142-Pipper

Viper2005_
11-27-2005, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by II_JG1Schpam:
Ps is in units of ft/s, which is the same as climb rate. They are in essense the same thing. If you know the climb rate possible at a give speed/alt/weight/power then you know Ps. Ps is the ability to change your energy state either by climb, speeding up, or a combination of both. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ps = Specific Excess Power. Therefore it is naturally measured in terms of power per unit mass:

In SI this is obviously W/kg.

As potential energy is m*g*h you can equate Ps to rate of climb.

But you must take care to set g correctly.

However, things are rather more complicated when level acceleration is under consideration. The kinetic energy equation is:

E=*m*v²

From this it should be obvious that at constant Ps the rate of acceleration will not remain constant as v is changed. Even with a whole slew of ideal assumptions you can't jump directly from Ps to acceleration performance (unless Ps=0 of course!).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I disagree that a study is necessary.

I say that because there is subjectivity in every aircraft and objectively studying and fixing one might yield less than desirable results </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may be the case, but surely that is no reason to abandon the scientific method.

Having fixed one, why not fix the next?

Surely we should aspire to attain accurate performance for all aeroplanes eventually - otherwise we descend into a "my 'plane is better than yours because I say so" type debate which is clearly of no practical value to anyone except the whiners.

Aaron_GT
11-28-2005, 01:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Jug had the best loss ratio of any US fighter aircraft and it was relagated to ground pounding at the end of the war! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't assume that this is because of the engine, though. If you do then the Merlin must be tougher than radials since the Mosquito had a very low loss rate on bombing missions, lower than other light bombers with radials. So you need to put more information in other than just loss ratios.

WWMaxGunz
11-28-2005, 12:23 PM
Viper? S!

Question: doesn't prop efficiency go down with increased power applied, at least after
some point around high cruise?

I've read that the wide props were intro'd to allow more power to be used at lower efficiency
but still more total thrust in the trend of pushing for increased max performace.

I also agree with Grey Mouser about there's definite signs that a lot of work needs to be
done on the details of DM's... which in this product is the 3D models themselves I think.
Using different modellers perhaps the, what word here, standards/scale/sameness of method
are not closely enough aligned despite well known (at least by me and I'm sure the modellers
know much better) standards/etc required by Oleg and 1C before any model was accepted.

When I saw some of the screenies before on P-47 engine damage in a Gibbage thread, it did
open for me definite that whole parts of the 3D models can be missing or just wrong.
Perhaps that's just mistakes made in assembling the sim/game as a product?

Viper2005_
11-28-2005, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Viper? S!

Question: doesn't prop efficiency go down with increased power applied, at least after
some point around high cruise?

I've read that the wide props were intro'd to allow more power to be used at lower efficiency
but still more total thrust in the trend of pushing for increased max performace.

I also agree with Grey Mouser about there's definite signs that a lot of work needs to be
done on the details of DM's... which in this product is the 3D models themselves I think.
Using different modellers perhaps the, what word here, standards/scale/sameness of method
are not closely enough aligned despite well known (at least by me and I'm sure the modellers
know much better) standards/etc required by Oleg and 1C before any model was accepted.

When I saw some of the screenies before on P-47 engine damage in a Gibbage thread, it did
open for me definite that whole parts of the 3D models can be missing or just wrong.
Perhaps that's just mistakes made in assembling the sim/game as a product? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, prop efficiency does start to decline considerably as you ask any given airscrew to absorb more power. I allude to this in one of my earlier posts on this page.

The effect is most pronounced at lower airspeeds, although you'll also see an impact in the "top right hand corner" of the flight envelope as you'll run into tip mach effects sooner if you're working the prop harder. Essentially it's a law of diminishing returns - you'll get better performance as you add power, but the rate of improvement will decrease unless you change the airscrew design to absorb the extra power - generally speaking you end up adding blades because ground clearance (which generally cannot be easily increased) is the limiting factor.

You can optimise your airscrew for high speed work, or low speed work. With GA aircraft that means buying a climb prop or a cruise prop (or not). You get the same sort of thing with a constant speed prop - but the variable blade angle thing tends to make for a flatter optimisation (that's what it's there for).

However there is still an optimisation/trade off there. As a very rough rule of thumb, the more blade area you're lugging about with you, the more emphasis you're placing upon low Q performance (slow flight, climb and high altitude flight). The down side is that more blade area means more weight and (if diameter is constant) reduces the maximum efficiency available.

If you're only after speed you can get away without a lot of airscrew (look at the Supermarine S6B as an example - it's dumping over 2000 bhp into a 2 blade, fixed pitch airscrew - but then it's optimised for high speed at sea level and thus high Q).

As for the DM thing (or indeed performance modelling in general) there are quite a lot of issues floating around IL2. It's a great game, and seems to give a very good impression of WWII combat (in that historical tactics appear to work).

However it isn't a flight simulator in the sense that although I have several hundred hours of Fw-190 time in IL2 I doubt that this experience would really serve to prepare me for flight in the real aeroplane, as there are performance issues (the stall being the most obvious) and systems issues (IL2 just doesn't "do" systems in any depth, so I suspect that I'd have some difficulty in even starting the engine!).

That said, we might just as well aspire to perfection - even if we never get there, at least we can say that we tried.

As I understand it the sim is composed of various sub-simulations - the graphics are separate from the flight models for example.

However I think that there is some feedback between the sub simulations. Thus if you start a fire in the graphics engine it damages the aircraft's flight model.

This would mean that if for some reason the graphical effects are disabled, the rest of the feedback chain will also be disabled. If you can't set an aeroplane on fire it can't burn. Logical enough.

I think that this is what Oleg meant when he said that the Fw-190 DM wasn't changed in 4.01 and that the visual effects had simply been disabled.

WWMaxGunz
11-28-2005, 09:38 PM
I don't think so about that graphics affecting DM, Viper.

There's a 3D model per plane/vehicle that contains the state of every part.
If there's a fire, it's a state of part or parts of the model and associated storage.
And ~then~ the graphics are triggered from that.
So if the visual effect is disabled then the plane can be burning and you just won't see.
Consider the graphics as generated after-effects of the presense of the model continually
updated to show the state of the model, ie provide visual feedback.
It makes no sense to code reactions from graphic events, a 2D screen to a 3D world.

Viper2005_
11-29-2005, 01:14 PM
Well in that case I don't know how to interpret Oleg's comments regarding the Fw-190's DM in 4.01.

WWMaxGunz
11-29-2005, 08:58 PM
What can I say? I've worked 19-odd years in the field and have tried to keep up with
Olegs' posts. It's hard to try and figure the implications of what he writes. BTW,
where's the whole text? I've been away from the net for a couple weeks and didn't
catch the post. From what you showed, it's just the graphics not being displayed.

Check this out. Bullet and shell damage have limited graphics, right? The model may
score varying amounts of damage but the holes in the wings only show in steps of damage
which to me seem "rounded up" as in it can look worse than it is in the model. A few
small holes then many small holes then the biger holes then up, then missing sections
or the plane breaks up. Damage in the model showing as graphics, extra skins or layers?

So for fire, how many levels of fire graphics are there? I've seen few 'levels' of fire
indeed, maybe two? In guncam pics I've seen fire as very small fires on wing trailing
edges that no way I've seen such small in the IL2 series. So perhaps a small fire has
always gotten a big fire graphic and that got switched off due to complaints? Perhaps
only, but perhaps. It would explain how so many times planes fly for minutes trailing
these huge fires (graphics) and sometimes never blow yet other times explode in seconds.

What we see is often not the true measure. Given all else in the product, we still see
a lot and get more than other products before. Some others have better damage to graphic
detail yet less FM and the actual gunnery is by hit boxes or bubbles. Before IL2, the
King WWII Airwar sim was arguably EAW and it is hit bubbles (Wanna see the file layout?
I wrote a program to modify those bubble sizes and the armor.) with damage ala D&D points
(but no healing potions, no powerups) and damage graphics are smoke and fire short of a
busted plane. CFS series... better graphics but lousy AI and I liked some other parts
less than EAW which does have its high points considering when it came out.

When I'm feeling bad about features, I remember the last sims.

With Oleg and the main team working on BoB, I don't expect any quantum steps from IL2/FB.

I wonder how far BoB went in design and development before the model limits to that were
set? And how many threads and posts affected it? For sure the decision to model fewer
planes better was at least partly due to complaints about detail.

Stafroty
11-30-2005, 01:22 AM
shouldnt 20mm He hit on engine cause fire in most of the cases and that way disablin the plane totally? thers lots of fuel and oil pipes running around and in the engine. AS Saburo sakai told in his book that he spent all his machinegunammo on one USAAF fighter and still plane was keepin going, he wounded the pilot etc, but plane didnt go down, armor plates protected critical items enought from his fire, but then, saburo took single shots from his zero cannons on engine of that plane and instant fire came out forcing pilot to bail out.

same what marseille did, pulled lead on spitfire, shot single shot from his 109F on spit engine, causing fire.

engines should light up much easier in this game, EVERY engine, as same with fuel tanks, we do not see often that plane is on fire when it goes down, its rare thing to happen, on some planes its not but some planes are like there are no fuel to burn. you can leak it if you want but not pop it on fire, odd, unrealistic and stupid. almost always you need CRITICAL damage to down Enemy plane, like killin pilot, engine or tearing wing or tail, but fire, thats not in question in Olegs mind, why is that, MR. Maddox?

(Dunno why i whine about this, as i havent flown this sim for some time now. latest wobble storm patch made me quit flying as you cant keep plane in air even in gruise speeds without constant input of rudder/stick) game went sh1tty IMO.)

Viper2005_
11-30-2005, 02:57 AM
Fuel tanks filled with gasoline don't burn unless they're empty because otherwise they're over the rich limit....

Gunz, I'm not sure how to go about searching on these boards given the things that are often said about the search function... The post dates from the end of the 4.01 era.

WWMaxGunz
11-30-2005, 02:30 PM
Rgr Viper. 4.01 was known for unburnable 190's, wasn't it?

But maybe they were burning and just not seen burning? In which case flying problems
would get chalked up as being to "one hit" subjective kind of other things.

Gas tanks holed will spill some fuel inside of the plane itself. How much would depend
on the tank design and the holes. Maybe not much at all. All the inert gas over the
fuel in the tank (Russians used cooled off exhaust) won't help if the wing or fuse has
collected fuel vapor and air mix the next time a tracer passes through or a spark from
clipped wiring or anything on the engine sets it off. One cup of gas has the energy of
six sticks of dynamite. How much to completely ruin some pilot's day?

The 1968 BoB movie which had an impressive list of were-there technical consultants does
show a LOT of fighters flaming and often enough exploding within seconds of being hit.
Makes me wonder how real that is and note how something like that would lead to self
sealing tanks, etc.

Stafroty -- YES. I think you hit it right. There's a US pilot who noted doing exactly
that to more than one FW as well with all the oil cooling pipes in the front and not
all behind that ring (hard to get cooling wind to completely covered pipes) that's not
exactly tank armor thick. He made the hits and saw the flame immediately. The engines
may have parts strong that can be lost and still run but there's many times also the
finer delicate lines that can't take such beatings. Some planes though had those systems
sperated into parts as well. If one section lost pressure from leak or just gone then
valves would close to that and the other(s) would carry on as best able. But what ones
had that where I don't memorize all that. Mustang perhaps and still they lost so many
to oil cooler hits... if so then hey at least they tried, maybe it did some good.

luftluuver
11-30-2005, 02:38 PM
The Fw190A had at least 8 fuel lines**, not counting the lines to the cylinders, behind the engine. It also had ~12 oil lines**.

** - a quick count

HayateAce
12-05-2005, 01:02 AM
Midway through the current patch, and the glass 2800 is still here. Anyone in Oleg land listening?

Diablo310th
12-05-2005, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Midway through the current patch, and the glass 2800 is still here. Anyone in Oleg land listening? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

geez..I was hoping to hear better news

WWMaxGunz
12-05-2005, 07:05 PM
Before FB was even out we saw many posts with the detail level of the 3D models.
I'm not sure of just when but we were shown an engine done as 20+ or was it 12+
seperate pieces. And all of them pieces are seperately damageable. Destroy one
part and if the shot has more ... well hit points? ... then the next part in line
soaks them up.

What I didn't see was a 3D utility that worked like the aircraft viewer but also
let you aim a gun at any point and angle of the plane and fire single shots.
THAT would put an end at a LOT of speculation. Still wouldn't end complaints
though but would be a great way to check and be able to communicate expectations
with and from (as in seperating expectations from) results. Because some people
have expectations perhaps a bit slanted. And some models may be missing parts or
simplified compared to others. It'd just be nice to be able to show and test for
what we are seeing and hearing claimed. It'd prolly be a nice tool if they don't
already have it... we come close with tracks depending on your aim and luck but
it takes a long time. So howabout a small utility, Maddox Games? Added value
without need to make models and I'm very sure most of the code is in routines you
already have. ;^)

VW-IceFire
12-05-2005, 09:07 PM
More P-47 flying and more insta kill engine fun...

Last few times some light 20mm flack...single hit and you see the power just drop right off. Not a single other type of engine seems to have this behavior.

At the moment, flying jabo in a P-51 may yeild better results than the P-47.

Diablo310th
12-06-2005, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
More P-47 flying and more insta kill engine fun...

Last few times some light 20mm flack...single hit and you see the power just drop right off. Not a single other type of engine seems to have this behavior.

At the moment, flying jabo in a P-51 may yeild better results than the P-47. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know Ice...it just tears my heart up to see such a weak part of the DM on the Jug. Let's jsut hope the next patch in it's final version will address this.