PDA

View Full Version : Please, when complaining about the P-39Q-1 climb rates...



XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 04:34 PM
...please make sure you are testing it properly.

I've been following a thread at SimHQ wherein the author states that the P-39Q-1 in FB climbs too fast. Maybe, but the tests need to be done properly to make an accurate determination.

A lot of people assume that in FB, especially with the P-39Q-1, that 100% throttle is MILITARY Power and that 110% Throttle is COMBAT POWER. Not necessarily so.

Let's take a look at the actual P-39Q-1 manual:

Says here...
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/manifold.jpg

...that 44.4" hg is Military Power. And that 50.5" hg is Take-off power.

So, it's natural to assume that 44.5" hg (military power) is achieved at 100% throttle, and that 50.5" hg (Take-off power) is achieved at 110% throttle.

But wait. A further perusal of the manual reveals this...
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/throttle.jpg


Says here that a wire was placed at the 50.5" hg position. Pushing thru this puts the plane into Combat Power, and a manifold presure of up to 57" hg.

The wire was placed at the 100% throttle position. If the wire was placed at the 100% throttle position, and the wire indicates 50.5" hg, then 100% throttle is Take-Off Power setting, NOT Military Power setting. Military Power is occurring at less than 100% throttle.

We have the Military Power climb rates from the manual...
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/climb.jpg


Take note that these climbs times/rates are given for a climb at a 44.5" hg manifold pressure. And remember, 44.5" hg (Military Power) is occurring at UNDER 100% throttle setting.

So, my recommendation is that when testing the P-39Q-1 in FB and comparing them to the climb rates in the manual, try climbing at a trottle setting of about 80-85%, instead of 100%.

If you are climbing at 100% in FB and getting better number than in the manual, that's the way it ought to be.

I think if you climb at 80-85%, you'll get much closer numbers, the way it ought to be.

I think you'll find that the climb rates for the P-39Q-1 in FB are a lot closer to correct than some would have you believe.

=====

What we really need in FB is working manifold pressure gauges. The one in the P-39Q-1 is completely useless.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/12/0307:38PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 04:34 PM
...please make sure you are testing it properly.

I've been following a thread at SimHQ wherein the author states that the P-39Q-1 in FB climbs too fast. Maybe, but the tests need to be done properly to make an accurate determination.

A lot of people assume that in FB, especially with the P-39Q-1, that 100% throttle is MILITARY Power and that 110% Throttle is COMBAT POWER. Not necessarily so.

Let's take a look at the actual P-39Q-1 manual:

Says here...
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/manifold.jpg

...that 44.4" hg is Military Power. And that 50.5" hg is Take-off power.

So, it's natural to assume that 44.5" hg (military power) is achieved at 100% throttle, and that 50.5" hg (Take-off power) is achieved at 110% throttle.

But wait. A further perusal of the manual reveals this...
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/throttle.jpg


Says here that a wire was placed at the 50.5" hg position. Pushing thru this puts the plane into Combat Power, and a manifold presure of up to 57" hg.

The wire was placed at the 100% throttle position. If the wire was placed at the 100% throttle position, and the wire indicates 50.5" hg, then 100% throttle is Take-Off Power setting, NOT Military Power setting. Military Power is occurring at less than 100% throttle.

We have the Military Power climb rates from the manual...
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/climb.jpg


Take note that these climbs times/rates are given for a climb at a 44.5" hg manifold pressure. And remember, 44.5" hg (Military Power) is occurring at UNDER 100% throttle setting.

So, my recommendation is that when testing the P-39Q-1 in FB and comparing them to the climb rates in the manual, try climbing at a trottle setting of about 80-85%, instead of 100%.

If you are climbing at 100% in FB and getting better number than in the manual, that's the way it ought to be.

I think if you climb at 80-85%, you'll get much closer numbers, the way it ought to be.

I think you'll find that the climb rates for the P-39Q-1 in FB are a lot closer to correct than some would have you believe.

=====

What we really need in FB is working manifold pressure gauges. The one in the P-39Q-1 is completely useless.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/12/0307:38PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 04:37 PM
Interesting & educating post, Chimp. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

S!

M0NS (authorized P39 pyrotechnician)



"Blow up the outside world"

http://www.flugwerk.de/images/01k.jpg
My garage!

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 04:40 PM
You agreed with me that we even shouldn't use the manual figures when we are talking about plane performance, and here you are then again with the same manual figures....

And I don't find your explanation very convincing either. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


-jippo



Message Edited on 10/12/0303:42PM by Jippo01

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 04:41 PM
Hear, hear, very good.

"If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd spend it on drink!"

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 04:44 PM
This is a perfect example of providing enough information to back up what one says.. Something we see so little around here. Nice work SkyChimp!

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 04:58 PM
Good job SkyChimp!!

What I don't understand is why some don't believe what you are saying. It is clear that the manual says these things.

I have it as well and can corroborate.

We all need to remember that in the game we can pay very little heed to engine life, because we get a "new" aircraft every time we re-spawn. In the real world, care had to be taken with your mount, because you had to fly it again, and again, and again. That is why the manuals and training tell you to use specific power settings.

I know that in game i typically set my P39 throttle to 98 or 99% and set the pitch to 95 or so and leave it there. Who care if I use up the engine? I'll get a new one next flight. We all fly this way.

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 04:59 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- You agreed with me that we even shouldn't use the
- manual figures when we are talking about plane
- performance, and here you are then again with the
- same manual figures....

I said test results are best. And I believe that. But this is what we have for the P-39Q-1.



- And I don't find your explanation very convincing
- either. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
-
-
--jippo

Over at SimHQ you said:

"In FB there really are only two settings for performance testing, 100% and 110%. 100% represents the engine output that can be used without timelimit. 110% represents using the best power output of the engine thta is likely to have use restrictions."

I don't know what plane you are flying, but the engine in my P-39Q-1 in FB overheats at 100% throttle. Therefore, there is a time limit at 100%.

If you want to test at 100% or 110% throttle, then its your responsibility to find results of test conducted under the exact same circumstances before jetting off on some lame "the P-39 climbs too fast" tirade. I don't think you can do it because planes weren't tested that way.


This is what you have Jippo. I suspect you don't find my argument convincing becauseu its right, and if you do it this way the climb rates will be reasonable. And you don't want that.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
10-12-2003, 05:05 PM
Nice skychimp - have you posted this over in the ready room? It's interesting - and very clear on the chart where the manifold pressure is. Barring questions about the accuracy of manuals in general it is certainly as convincing as it can be. Worth noting also is that cube's climb comparisons are based on later models vs. the D.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 05:07 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- I don't know what plane you are flying, but the
- engine in my P-39Q-1 in FB overheats at 100%
- throttle.

As due many!

- Therefore, there is a time limit at 100%.

Agreed.

- If you want to test at 100% or 110% throttle, then
- its your responsibility to find results of test
- conducted under the exact same circumstances before
- jetting off on some lame "the P-39 climbs too fast"
- tirade.

Agreed. That is the problem with most of the complaints with FB.. Folks read some summary data sheet that says "TOP SPEED OF XXXX" then they run of and expect the airplane to do that 24 7 and any altitude.. It just aint so!

- I don't think you can do it because planes weren't tested that way.

True! Which is not to say they didnt test WAR EMERGANCY settings to see what it can do, but, a typical test does not, in that they are out to test it in normal conditions. Thus it will will be hard to find test data on such. Heck it is hard to find useful test data on typical testing!




<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 05:11 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- I don't know what plane you are flying, but the
- engine in my P-39Q-1 in FB overheats at 100%
- throttle. Therefore, there is a time limit at 100%.
-

If you don't mind, open the radiators. Temperature settles to 84 degrees Celsius. Engine never overheats.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 05:15 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- If you don't mind, open the radiators. Temperature
- settles to 84 degrees Celsius. Engine never
- overheats.

Hmmm cant say I have ever sat down and tested that.. BUT I do seem to reacal that when the air flow around the aircraft is slow.. like in a steep climb or hard turn at 100% it will over heat open all the way or not.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 05:18 PM
tagert wrote:
-
- Hmmm cant say I have ever sat down and tested that..
- BUT I do seem to reacal that when the air flow
- around the aircraft is slow.. like in a steep climb
- or hard turn at 100% it will over heat open all the
- way or not.

I, on the other hand do remember testing it just few minutes ago.

But I didn't do more than 30 minutes worth of flying time. So maybe you should try to it for 2 hours so we could clear this out. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Seriously, that is the way Il-2 works.


So what would be the respective manifold pressure and rpm values for full sustained power in P-39?


-jippo

ZG77_Nagual
10-12-2003, 05:20 PM
A few quotes from the much vaunted Golodnikov interview:

"The "war emergency" regime had a lever position that we called "51 inches and 57 inches of boost". If we were flying on Soviet B-95 fuel, then "war emergency power" was set at 51 inches. If we were using American B-100 fuel, then "war emergency power" was set at 57inches. Although it was mounted in the cockpit, on the throttle quadrant, the pilot did not adjust this setting. The position of the "war emergency power" selector was controlled by a piece of wire that could be broken easily with greater forward pressure on the throttle quadrant.

One time I sensed a lack of power (I needed to get ahead of a German) and I thought, "The hell with it"! I broke the wire and selected "57". Then I experienced what "57" meant! My airplane leapt forward!"

"A. S. Nikilay Gerasimovich, could the Cobra really contend with the Bf-109G and FW-190 in aerial combat?

N. G. Yes. The Cobra, especially the Q-5, took second place to no one, and even surpassed all the German fighters.

I flew more than 100 combat sorties in the Cobra, of these 30 in reconnaissance, and fought 17 air combats. The Cobra was not inferior in speed, in acceleration, nor in vertical or horizontal maneuverability. It was a very balanced fighter."

"It seems that everything depends on what you wanted out of it. Either you flew it in such a manner as to shoot down Messers and Fokkers, or you flew it in a way that guaranteed 120 hours of engine life."

And, of course:


"The P-63 KingCobra was a "leap". " /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 05:36 PM
Jippo,

All you are doing is suggesting another area that Oleg screwed up.

The manual is clear, 100% throttle position IS NOT military power, it's take-off power. Military power IS LESS THAN 100% throttle.

Overheating is a secondary issue, one I hope Oleg fixes. But nevertheless, the plane climbs much closer to the correct values when it is tested with the throttle position in the correct position, that is 80-85%.

Now, you can try and whine your way out of that by making some assertions about overheating, but you've given us nothing concrete to suggest otherwise. Using overheating as your argument is rather lame. If you haven't noticed, the P-39Q overheats much faster than 5 minutes at 110% throttle (and yes, I've tested that). So hanging your hat on an aspect of this game that doesn't work right is not very smart.

The manual says 100% throttle is take-off power. You want to test the FB plane at 100% throttle then whine because it is climbing faster than the military power figures in the manual, then go ahead. But your test procedure is in error, just as Cube's is.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 05:47 PM
I'm not suggesting anything!

I'm just telling you how FB works in this relation. And I do know this one, there is no use arguing about that. If you do not believe me test it yourself.

You should really cut the personal crap too, I'm not Isegrim or Huckleebin and I don't enjoy your little games.


I know, and you whine. I'm stating facts while you are saying that "85% is right because I think it is." You have to get real.


- You want to test the FB plane at 100% throttle then
- whine because it is climbing faster than the
- military power figures in the manual, then go ahead.
- But your test procedure is in error, just as Cube's
- is.


I'm a beta tester for FB, I know my methods are right. 100% is the way we tested German planes. You wouldn't like us to use double standards so you could have your way and figures that would please your own eyes, would you?


I'm looking for realistic game, with realistic FM's. You are insulting in the way you post, but what is worse you are trying to drive through some unfair advantages to the planes you seem to like. You are just like Hucklebein!


I will not discuss this matter any further.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 05:53 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- A few quotes from the much vaunted Golodnikov
- interview:
-
- "The "war emergency" regime had a lever position
- that we called "51 inches and 57 inches of boost".
- If we were flying on Soviet B-95 fuel, then "war
- emergency power" was set at 51 inches. If we were
- using American B-100 fuel, then "war emergency
- power" was set at 57inches. Although it was mounted
- in the cockpit, on the throttle quadrant, the pilot
- did not adjust this setting. The position of the
- "war emergency power" selector was controlled by a
- piece of wire that could be broken easily with
- greater forward pressure on the throttle quadrant.
-
- One time I sensed a lack of power (I needed to get
- ahead of a German) and I thought, "The hell with
- it"! I broke the wire and selected "57". Then I
- experienced what "57" meant! My airplane leapt
- forward!"
-
- "A. S. Nikilay Gerasimovich, could the Cobra really
- contend with the Bf-109G and FW-190 in aerial
- combat?
-
- N. G. Yes. The Cobra, especially the Q-5, took
- second place to no one, and even surpassed all the
- German fighters.
-
- I flew more than 100 combat sorties in the Cobra, of
- these 30 in reconnaissance, and fought 17 air
- combats. The Cobra was not inferior in speed, in
- acceleration, nor in vertical or horizontal
- maneuverability. It was a very balanced fighter."
-
- "It seems that everything depends on what you wanted
- out of it. Either you flew it in such a manner as to
- shoot down Messers and Fokkers, or you flew it in a
- way that guaranteed 120 hours of engine life."
-
- And, of course:
-
-
- "The P-63 KingCobra was a "leap".

WOW! That quote is a keeper! thanks Nagual!


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Buzz_25th
10-12-2003, 05:58 PM
Jippo,

You do agree that at 110% throttle, and radiator open, that it will overheat?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/drew2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:11 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- I'm not suggesting anything!

Wether you intended to or not, you did.

- I'm just telling you how FB works in this relation.
- And I do know this one, there is no use arguing
- about that. If you do not believe me test it
- yourself.

Ok... ;(

- You should really cut the personal crap too, I'm not
- Isegrim or Huckleebin and I don't enjoy your little
- games.

Example?

- I know, and you whine. I'm stating facts while you
- are saying that "85% is right because I think it
- is." You have to get real.

NEGATIVE! What FACTS have you stated? Was it in another thread? SkyChimp simply posted info from the manual.. You have to understand that in RL they didnt normally fly around at 100%!! Let alone 110%!

- I'm a beta tester for FB, I know my methods are
- right. 100% is the way we tested German planes. You
- wouldn't like us to use double standards so you
- could have your way and figures that would please
- your own eyes, would you?

Noone is saying the *method* of 100% is bad, SkyChimp is simply pointing out that there is NO DATA to compare to. If the data you had for Lw aircraft was done at 100% than your method is good to go and should match.. And your method of testing the P39 at 100% is good to go too.. PROBLEM is there is NO DATA to compair to.. So, in a sense you either have to be willing to scale factor the data *OR* change your method and do it at less than 100%... if you want the test to match the data.

- I'm looking for realistic game, with realistic FM's.

Join the club.

- You are insulting in the way you post,

Example?

- but what is worse you are trying to drive through
- some unfair advantages to the planes you seem to
- like. You are just like Hucklebein!

Huh.. Talk about "insulting in the way you post"

- I will not discuss this matter any further.

Ok, that is your choice.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

ZG77_Nagual
10-12-2003, 06:12 PM
I agree with Jippo that the personal tone needs to go - but in this case I've seen it coming from both sides. In any case this is an interesting discussion and I'd like it if it didn't get wrecked. My suggestion: If you see something that seems personal - ignore it and get on with the conversation /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Jippo - I am gathering you think the p39 is overmodelled and more or less agree with cube?

I'm interested in this discussion - I hope it will continue.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:12 PM
Another thing, and I don't know whether this supports the argument or not, but the P-39 will always run best on 80% power. It is noticably slower, but you're less likely to overheat as well. Bring power down to 70% and you start feeling like its a brick.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:13 PM
I guess the aircraft has a constant speed propeller, and there must be some indication as to what the manifold pressure setting is somewhere in the cockpit, so setting the rounds per minute to 3000 and the pressure to 51 hg should produce the result given in the manual at the indicated speed, which (the speed) should produce the best climb as according to the manual, right?

Ofcourse, I don't know whether or not the aircraft has a manifold pressure indicator, but if it does, it should be easy to try out..

rgds

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:20 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- I'm not suggesting anything!
-
- I'm just telling you how FB works in this relation.
- And I do know this one, there is no use arguing
- about that. If you do not believe me test it
- yourself.
-
- You should really cut the personal crap too, I'm not
- Isegrim or Huckleebin and I don't enjoy your little
- games.
-
-
- I know, and you whine. I'm stating facts while you
- are saying that "85% is right because I think it
- is." You have to get real.

I am real, and you haven't provided anything to suggest otherwise. Additionally, I haven't said anything personal. So knock off that insulting crap, will you?

Read the manual Jippo. It tells you the parameters in which the plane can be flown. Or is it just convenient for you to ignore it?



- I'm a beta tester for FB, I know my methods are
- right.

Obviously not. You tested the plane at 100% throttle. What did you compare that to to decide if it's wrong or not? I'd like to see it. I've yet to see a climb test based on "take-off power" or even one that specifies 100% throttle.



- 100% is the way we tested German planes.

German planes are NOT American planes. There is a manual available for the American plane. Did you refer to it? Because I don't think you did.



- You
- wouldn't like us to use double standards so you
- could have your way and figures that would please
- your own eyes, would you?

Don't use double standards, but appropriate standards would have been appreciated.

Why do you think the way a German plane is tested is the way an American plane should be tested? The parameters of flight are listed in the manual. Now you are saying they are irrelevant.



- I'm looking for realistic game, with realistic FM's.

So ignoring the manual will get that for you?




- You are insulting in the way you post, but what is
- worse you are trying to drive through some unfair
- advantages to the planes you seem to like. You are
- just like Hucklebein!

Nonsense. You place your ENTIRE argument on your assertion that "you can fly forever on 100% throttle without overheat so that must be military power." BTW, Military power has a 15 minute time limit. NORMAL power, which is less than military power, is "MAX CONTINOUS."

So, Jippo, are you suggesting that 100% in FB is NORMAL power? Because it sure sounds that way.



- I will not discuss this matter any further.

Probably for the best, as you haven't given any convincing evidence that I or the Manual are wrong.



One last thing, you say the temperature at 100% throttle settles at 84 degrees celsius at 100% throttle. GREAT! This further suggests that I am correct in my assertions. The manual addresses this issue as well.

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/temp.jpg


War Emercency Rating (Combat Power)
Temp should be 85 - 125 degrees C.

If you are getting 84 degrees C at 100% throttle, then that further confirms that 100% throttle IS Take-off power, not Military power. Take-off power is BETWEEN Combat and military power on the P-39Q-1.

All you've possibly proven is that the "overheat" issue may be mismodelled. But you haven't shown anything to suggest I'm wrong about the power settings.

Simple fact is is that the throttle in the FB P-39Q-1 more closely correlates to the parameters set in the manual than to any other "standard." Good, that's the way it should be.


Now, if you want to discuss this rationally, I'll be happy to oblige. But your accusation that I'm making personal insults simply because I don't think you have tested appropriately is not appreciated.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/12/0309:27PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:23 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- I'm looking for realistic game, with realistic FM's.
- You are insulting in the way you post, but what is
- worse you are trying to drive through some unfair
- advantages to the planes you seem to like. You are
- just like Hucklebein!
-
-
- I will not discuss this matter any further.
-
-
--jippo


No. He just provided us all with information from a printed manual for the P-39. I don't know the topics or the posts of what you two have discussed in the past, all I know is he has provided an explanation to the climb rate of said a/c and backed it up with a flight manual of the a/c in question. He has proven his point. Thanks Sky Chimp! I S! you sir.

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:28 PM
Here is the thread at SimHQ:

http://oldsite.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004181;p=

The Author is Cube.

If anyone is interested in seeing a graphical comparision of in game climb performance superimposed over the climb graphs generated from the program IL2compare they can do so at the SimHQ link.

Cube's contribution to the Sim community is a very easy to read climb performance comparison of in game vs real climb data including source references.

It is a valuable contribution because this is the best effort yet to quantify game accuracy.

Please if you know of a comparison that is better, more comprehensive, precise, and one that includes references than link to it.

A comparison is only as good as the source information. So there is room for improvement. Abject critisizm does not further the effort to make such a comparison more accurate.

The "natural" assumtion that 100% power in the game equals less than 100% power in the historical test results can apply to other planes equally. The actual climb data speaks for itself. When this actual climb data is superimposed over the in game climb data the level of error is obvious.

SkyChimp has already posted this point of inerpretaion concerning the P-39 climb data used in Cube's comparison in the above linked thread on the SimHQ forum.

Cube has responded.

Why SkyChimp has posted this here without a link the Thread may be an oversight.

What is the purpose of this thread here?

Read Cube's post and judge for yourself.





JG14_Josf

Buzz_25th
10-12-2003, 06:31 PM
edit until I read Cubes thread.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/drew2.jpg


Message Edited on 10/12/0310:35AM by Buzz_25th

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:37 PM
My contentions apply solely to the P-39Q-1.

Cube said 100% throttle = military power. According to the manual, that is wrong. All the pretty little charts he's made on the P-39Q-1 performance won't make him right if he contends 100% throttle = military power, as he stated.

Therefore, Cube climbs at 100% power, then compares the results to the figures in the manual. In real life, 100% throttle is Take-off powewr, which is GREATER than Military power. The climb numbers are for military power.

His result and the figures SHOULDN'T match. That's the whole point. He's climbing at a higher power setting than the figures in the manual reflect. He ought to be climbing at Military power, which is less than 100% throttle.

100% throttle at s.l. produces 50.5" hg. Military power is 44.5" hg of manifold pressure. Since the manifold pressure gauge in the cockpit doesn't work right, we have to guess what that should be. I think 80-85% throttle is appropriate.

If anyone has a better argument, I'd love to hear it.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/12/0310:04PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:37 PM
Facts the last time:

1. I have not said if P-39 is correct or not, it is not the matter I'm discussing here.

2. P-39 can sustain 100% power for ever, therefore that power is the maximum sustainbable power without time limits.

3. Il-2 models throttle so that the maximum sustainable power is (or should be, bugs exist) 100%, maximum achievable power is 110 (or in some cases 110% + WEP device if the WEP device is 'seperate') All different overboost setting what ever you wnat to call them are in between 100% & 110%.

4. P-39 should thus reach the figures it reaches with max sustainable power (100%) should be the ones it reached in flight tests which maximum sustainable power. If maximum sustainable power is 80% (which it is not) as chimp seems to like to imply, then FB P-39 should not be able to sustain 100% forever, so what ever way you look it:

5. Skychimps method is wrong.

6. Skychimp and I both agree that the manual figures are either correct or then exaggarated, likelihood being that they are exaggarated.


You can draw any conclusions you like, but you cannot argue about the points above.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:40 PM
Bump.

=======================================
<font size = 1>
Athlon XP 3200+, FIC AU13 MOBO, DDR 1024M, GeForce4ti4200,
MCP-T SoundStorm, Barracuda IV 7200rpm 60G HDD,
Yes,I got TrackIR/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif , Two M$ SW Pr2(weird but good HOTAS.Bill,let sticks be made!)

=815=Squadron in South Korea
http://cafe.daum.net/il2sturmovik
</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:49 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- Facts the last time:

I thought your last post was the "last time."



- 1. I have not said if P-39 is correct or not, it is
- not the matter I'm discussing here.

But that is what is at issue. You said you want an accurate sim.



- 2. P-39 can sustain 100% power for ever, therefore
- that power is the maximum sustainbable power without
- time limits.

So you are saying that 100% throttle in FB = Normal Power. I had a feeling that's what you were trying to say.



- 3. Il-2 models throttle so that the maximum
- sustainable power is (or should be, bugs exist)
- 100%, maximum achievable power is 110 (or in some
- cases 110% + WEP device if the WEP device is
- 'seperate') All different overboost setting what
- ever you wnat to call them are in between 100% &
- 110%.

But no bugs exisit in the P-39Q-1 in this regard? The plane overheats in 2-3 mintues at 110% power. This is not right. Yet you contend the "overheating" issue is how this entire matter should be judged.



- 4. P-39 should thus reach the figures it reaches
- with max sustainable power (100%) should be the ones
- it reached in flight tests which maximum sustainable
- power. If maximum sustainable power is 80% (which it
- is not) as chimp seems to like to imply, then FB
- P-39 should not be able to sustain 100% forever, so
- what ever way you look it:

NOT according to the manual. You will see that the performance of the P-39Q-1 correlates much more closely to historical performance if you compare it to how it should be operated in the manual.



- 5. Skychimps method is wrong.

You keep saying this, but you've offer nothing to suggest otherwise, except that silly temperature argument.



- 6. Skychimp and I both agree that the manual figures
- are either correct or then exaggarated, likelihood

I didn't say the manual firgures were exaggerated. I said they were approximations, but close. No plane will produce exactly round numbers.



- You can draw any conclusions you like, but you
- cannot argue about the points above.
-
-
--jippo
-
-


Certainly you can argue about them.

You hang your entire argument on the temperature issue. You want to judge what power the P-39Q-1 is making by when it overheats. And when you do that, you come to the conclusion the plane climbs to fast.

But if you use my method, the one spelled out in the manual, you'll see that the plane performs much more reasonably.

Although the heat issue may be screwed up. Doesn't overheat enough at take-off, too much at combat power.


You accuse me of want to give the plane an "unfair advantage" becasue I like it. I say I'm trying to give it a fair shake.

Again, consider the manula and you will be a lot less disappointed in how it performs.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:53 PM
Have fun Chimp! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:56 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- Facts the last time:

Ok lets see...

- 1. I have not said if P-39 is correct or not, it is
- not the matter I'm discussing here.

Not a fact...

- 2. P-39 can sustain 100% power for ever, therefore
- that power is the maximum sustainbable power without
- time limits.

Disagree, all your have aludide to here is that the OVER HEAT might not be modeled very well, which would lead to a better climb rate at 100% because it would never over heat. But that says nothig with regards to if the P39 in FB matches the data in the P39 manual, because the manual is not at 100%

- 3. Il-2 models throttle so that the maximum
- sustainable power is (or should be, bugs exist)
- 100%,

No one said it isnt, they simply pointed out that the data is collected at less than 100%

- maximum achievable power is 110 (or in some
- cases 110% + WEP device if the WEP device is
- 'seperate') All different overboost setting what
- ever you wnat to call them are in between 100% &
- 110%.

WAR EMERGANCY POWER.

- 4. P-39 should thus reach the figures it reaches
- with max sustainable power (100%) should be the ones
- it reached in flight tests which maximum sustainable
- power.

Not a fact, an interpetation at best. One that is wrong IMHO.

- If maximum sustainable power is 80% (which it
- is not) as chimp seems to like to imply, then FB
- P-39 should not be able to sustain 100% forever, so
- what ever way you look it:

Not a fact.. agian, you may be right about the over heat problem.. but the FACT remains that the DATA was not collected at 100%

- 5. Skychimps method is wrong.

Not a fact, an assertion.

- 6. Skychimp and I both agree that the manual figures
- are either correct or then exaggarated, likelihood
- being that they are exaggarated.

Not a fact, a guess!

On that guess.. Are we to belive that the makers of the manual did it to kill pilots? By that I mean they knew that pilots would base thier operations on this manual.. Why would the lie? Not saying they wouldnt.. Just asking if that is what you want me to belive?

- You can draw any conclusions you like, but you
- cannot argue about the points above.

Oh but I can, just look above! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 07:03 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- Have fun Chimp!
-
--jippo
-
-

Quitting so soon?



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 07:05 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- ...please make sure you are testing it properly.
-
- I've been following a thread at SimHQ wherein the
- author states that the P-39Q-1 in FB climbs too
- fast. Maybe, but the tests need to be done properly
- to make an accurate determination.
-
- A lot of people assume that in FB, especially with
- the P-39Q-1, that 100% throttle is MILITARY Power
- and that 110% Throttle is COMBAT POWER. Not
- necessarily so.

Multiple people, including the author himself, have pointed out to you in that other thread that the charts were comparing 100% real life to 100% in-game, NOT MAX real life to MAX in-game as you claimed. Why you did not admit your error there, but instead started a new thread here I don't understand.


- Let's take a look at the actual P-39Q-1 manual:
-
- Says here...
-
-http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/manifold.jpg

-
- ...that 44.4" hg is Military Power. And that 50.5"
- hg is Take-off power.
-
- So, it's natural to assume that 44.5" hg (military
- power) is achieved at 100% throttle, and that 50.5"
- hg (Take-off power) is achieved at 110% throttle.
-
- But wait. A further perusal of the manual reveals
- this...
-
-http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/throttle.jpg

-
-
- Says here that a wire was placed at the 50.5" hg
- position. Pushing thru this puts the plane into
- Combat Power, and a manifold presure of up to 57"
- hg.
-
- The wire was placed at the 100% throttle position.
- If the wire was placed at the 100% throttle
- position, and the wire indicates 50.5" hg, then 100%
- throttle is Take-Off Power setting, NOT Military
- Power setting. Military Power is occurring at less
- than 100% throttle.
-
- We have the Military Power climb rates from the
- manual...
-http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/climb.jpg

-
-
- Take note that these climbs times/rates are given
- for a climb at a 44.5" hg manifold pressure. And
- remember, 44.5" hg (Military Power) is occurring at
- UNDER 100% throttle setting.
-
- So, my recommendation is that when testing the
- P-39Q-1 in FB and comparing them to the climb rates
- in the manual, try climbing at a trottle setting of
- about 80-85%, instead of 100%.
-
- If you are climbing at 100% in FB and getting better
- number than in the manual, that's the way it ought
- to be.
-
- I think if you climb at 80-85%, you'll get much
- closer numbers, the way it ought to be.
-
- I think you'll find that the climb rates for the
- P-39Q-1 in FB are a lot closer to correct than some
- would have you believe.
-
- =====
-
- What we really need in FB is working manifold
- pressure gauges. The one in the P-39Q-1 is
- completely useless.

Notice that there is, in fact, no little wire to break on the keyboard. Your argument is based totally on supposition, resting mainly on the overheating behavior, which is actually contradictory to your claims in many ways. Keep in mind that Max Take-off Power can be seen as a form of emergency power in itself. It is to be used only when necessary and for very limited durations. Based on the cautions in the manual, and in the absence of accurate in-game MP information, I would assume that take-off power is greater than 100% throttle. Perhaps 105% is take-off, power and 110% is WEP. That's just an assumption, but so are your claims.

I have always been led to believe that 100% throttle in game represented real life military power, regardless of the aircraft represented. I think you are taking the 100% threshold too literally.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

Buzz_25th
10-12-2003, 07:06 PM
Jippo,

Before I waste my time doing a test. Let me get it straight with you.

I take a Q1, open the radiator, and fly at 100% throttle. With these settings it will never overheat? Is this in level flight, or sustained climb? What altitude?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/drew2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 07:10 PM
Buzz_25th wrote:
- Jippo,
-
- Before I waste my time doing a test. Let me get it
- straight with you.
-
-
- I take a Q1, open the radiator, and fly at 100%
- throttle. With these settings it will never
- overheat? Is this in level flight, or sustained
- climb? What altitude?


You can just fly around, I think it doesn't really matter that much if you keep level. I did it on ground level for simplicity.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 07:13 PM
According to that manual, anything above 44.5 inHg √¬*s limited to 5 minutes. Does the climb to 5000 m take longer than that, yes I believe it does or nearly. What is the time limit on 100% throttle on FB? And furthermore 5 minutes limit is not 5 minutes before you start overheating, it is above 5 minutes and don't try this at home. Overheating is temperature exceeds limit A, failure is temperature is staying above that limit longer than good for health.

Last time I looked the MP is not showing higher than 42 inHg or so regardless of throttle position but the point is, whatever the 100% is, the engine seems to sustain that. So it indeed seems that 100% is closer to military power (limit 15 min) than on take-off or war emergency (limit 5 min, both). There's no wire on my Saitek, does Cougar have one?


-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 07:14 PM
You guys have to remember the little thing that it is so that 100% throttle in the game tries to mimic max sustainable power of the airplane in question. It is the way it is modelled in the game, not something I just invented.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 07:16 PM
In fact, if I recall correctly, the manual's max duration for take-off power is the same as WEP, reinforcing my belief that take-off power is actually greater than 100% in game.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
10-12-2003, 07:26 PM
Since we're not concerned with having to replace engines after every couple of flights the questions becomes - Could the p39 really fly the way it does in FB. So far, based on everything I've seen - the answer seems to be maybe - maybe overmodelled - but not as much as you'd think based on the abysmal whinings (notable exception of Chuck Yeager and a few others) that constitute most american evals of this aircraft.
Really theres not another plane I can think of that's subject to such widely divergent assessments.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 07:56 PM
The aircraft is broke! No matter what I do, I'm totally unable to get more than 42 hg in manifold pressure?

To be honest, I don't think this discussion can be completed until the manifold pressure gauge shows the right numbers.

So if noone can show how to get these 51 under take-off and 57 using WEP there's really no way of saying if the P-39 climbs as according to the data laid before us by "Chimp".

Both of you have good arguments, I give you that, but the aircrafts gauge doesn't comply to the sheets and you can't tell whether or not a specific setting on the throttle should produce the disired results..

rgds

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 08:06 PM
Thank you Skychimp.

At a time when we seem to be loosing so many community members.....thank God your still around. & thanks for your research. I think form all of the people that post here i've learned the most from you about aircraft. S!~ Sir.

<CENTER>
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1022.jpg

<FONT COLOR="White">Ghost Skies Matches Starting soon!
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="blue">
FOR INFORMATION ON THE 310TH FS OR 380TH BG Please visit the 310th FS Online @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange" http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="RED">
A proud member Squadron of Ghost Skies Forgotten Battles Tournament League.
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> 310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
<FONT COLOR="purple">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

ZG77_Nagual
10-12-2003, 08:13 PM
I'll second that - and also thank jippo and cube - who's post is over at simhq (might be one in ORR too). It is very good to hear from beta testers and get a bit of an inside picture - and Jippo, Cube and Skychimp have all done a good job on this subject. Possibly if we continue along these lines we can overwhelm the board with Intelligence.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

Buzz_25th
10-12-2003, 08:18 PM
I believe we're all after the same thing. Accurate FM's. We should all work better together towards this goal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/drew2.jpg


Message Edited on 10/12/0312:32PM by Buzz_25th

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 08:23 PM
Buzz_25th wrote:
- I believe we're all after the same thing. Accurate
- FM's. We all should work better together torwards
- this goal.
-


I'll drink to that! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 08:43 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- I'll drink to that!

Ill get the 1st round! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Name your poision!

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 08:48 PM
Interesting stuff! Looks about right, I must admit. BTW the Allison 1710-85 is rated Indicated: 1,200 HP; Take-off: 1,420 HP according to the FB website (ingame database). If that's right... well 8100lbs should be ~3673kg. 7100 is ~3220kg then, more than a 109G (3100kg) which has 1475PS. that makes 0,386hp/kg (8100lbs) vs 0,475hp/kg (P-39Q vs 109G). That's about 23% more for the 109. Now lets take those 3500ft/min by 1,23 and we are at 4305ft/min. Looks *about* right, if you ask me.
Now which mass do the FB's P-39s have??? Don't think they got their armor strapped off, as a pilot, you're pretty save in that bird, PK wise.

But now I've found this:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/p39q.jpg


Notice that Take off is 1200 here, and in FB DB it's 1420. Now what?? Is that 100% in FB? And 110% even more? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .
Now military is 1125hp. 0,32hp/kg. 0,386hp/kg is ~20% more. Power/Weight is essential for climb, and the P-39 is very clean in terms of aerodynamics. So we should think it's getting a ~20% better climb with full power. Let's take the 8100lbs one. 2700ft/min on the deck. Makes 3240ft/min with 57". It's a tad higher in FB (~3500), but not that much. The other 2 would be 3840 and 4140ft/min then, so I thin we got the heavy model with full armor, which fits to the PK thingy. Let's say it's OK on the deck. But that's not it. In that manual there are also numbers for 5k, 10k, 15k and 25k ft. For the 8100lb one they are (remember: military): 2650, 2250, 2050, 750. Notice they all are worse than on the deck. That's the difference. In FB it goes up to 4000ft/min at 2000m first, then it's decreasing steadily by alt. So there's obviously something wrong with the climb rate, BUT it's not as overmodelled as most think! 2300-2600ft/min max isn't the deal, as I for one thought before.

Message Edited on 10/13/0307:10AM by Willey

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 09:08 PM
Some nice debate here! I'll throw in my two cents: for a quick and easy weight/time/speed etc. converter, I use

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/conversions.html

Using Lbs to Kg conversion, 7100 pounds is 3220 Kg. If you subtract some armor...you get a very competitive T/W to the G2.

Barfly
Staffelkapitan
7./JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 09:29 PM
Jipo you'll drink to anything! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif lol

<CENTER>
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1022.jpg

<FONT COLOR="White">Ghost Skies Matches Starting soon!
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="blue">
FOR INFORMATION ON THE 310TH FS OR 380TH BG Please visit the 310th FS Online @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange" http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="RED">
A proud member Squadron of Ghost Skies Forgotten Battles Tournament League.
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> 310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
<FONT COLOR="purple">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 09:31 PM
A.K.Davis wrote:

- Multiple people, including the author himself, have
- pointed out to you in that other thread that the
- charts were comparing 100% real life to 100%
- in-game, NOT MAX real life to MAX in-game as you
- claimed. Why you did not admit your error there,
- but instead started a new thread here I don't
- understand.

Because there is no error. I pointed oput over there, as I did here, that Military Power is NOT 100% throttle - Cube said it was, and he's wrong. Not in the game, and not in the manual.



- Notice that there is, in fact, no little wire to
- break on the keyboard.

Well, then, Davis, if we use this logic, there should be NO wep available on the P-39Q in FB at all, right?



- Your argument is based
- totally on supposition,

No, Davis, it's based on the manual.



- resting mainly on the
- overheating behavior, which is actually
- contradictory to your claims in many ways.

Wait a minute, that's Jippo's argument, not mine. I specifically said temp and power setting DO NOT correlate. Go back and read the thread.



- Keep in
- mind that Max Take-off Power can be seen as a form
- of emergency power in itself. It is to be used only
- when necessary and for very limited durations.
- Based on the cautions in the manual, and in the
- absence of accurate in-game MP information, I would
- assume that take-off power is greater than 100%
- throttle. Perhaps 105% is take-off, power and 110%
- is WEP. That's just an assumption, but so are your
- claims.

But my assumptions are supported by the manual.

Take off power IS NOT more than 100% throttle according to the manual.



- I have always been led to believe that 100% throttle
- in game represented real life military power,
- regardless of the aircraft represented. I think you
- are taking the 100% threshold too literally.

But who said this? Who led you to believe thiss? Or is this just popular theory?


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/13/0312:48AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 09:40 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
- According to that manual, anything above 44.5 inHg
- √¬*s limited to 5 minutes.

That's not what the manual says. It says 44.5" is limited to 15 minutes, 50.5" is limited to 5.

But WEP is limited to 5 minutes as well, and the P-39Q in FB overheat well before that limit is met. Therefore, if there is an error, its there, not in the throttle settings.



- Does the climb to 5000 m
- take longer than that, yes I believe it does or
- nearly. What is the time limit on 100% throttle on
- FB?

According to the manual, 20,000 feet can be reached in under 15 minutes at military power. 15 minutes is the Military power limit.

Is 20,000 feet greater than 5000m? I believe it is.






- And furthermore 5 minutes limit is not 5 minutes
- before you start overheating, it is above 5 minutes
- and don't try this at home. Overheating is
- temperature exceeds limit A, failure is temperature
- is staying above that limit longer than good for
- health.

It could also be the opposite. 5 minutes as sea level in New Guinea may fry the engine. It may run for 20 minutes in colder Russia. 5 minutes is a recommendation.



- Last time I looked the MP is not showing higher than
- 42 inHg or so regardless of throttle position but
- the point is, whatever the 100% is, the engine seems
- to sustain that.

I can't get the manifold pressure gauge to register anything higher than 42" under any circumstance in this game.



- So it indeed seems that 100% is
- closer to military power (limit 15 min) than on
- take-off or war emergency (limit 5 min, both).

I disgare, and so does the manual.



- There's no wire on my Saitek, does Cougar have one?

You're the second suggesting there should be no WEP available at all in the FB P-39Q.






Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 09:41 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- You guys have to remember the little thing that it
- is so that 100% throttle in the game tries to mimic
- max sustainable power of the airplane in question.
- It is the way it is modelled in the game, not
- something I just invented.
-
-
--jippo


How do you know that? Did Oleg himself tell you that, or did Oleg try and model the game properly. Because more and more it's looking like he did a pretty good job on the P-39Q.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 09:45 PM
jmmoric wrote:
- The aircraft is broke! No matter what I do, I'm
- totally unable to get more than 42 hg in manifold
- pressure?

Correct, it is broke. That's why youy have to try and correlate the power you are making with the throttle position at sea level. The manual lays it out, and the P-39Q in FB seems to follow it pretty closely.



- To be honest, I don't think this discussion can be
- completed until the manifold pressure gauge shows
- the right numbers.

I agree to an extent. The manual clues us in to the throttle positions needed to make certain ratings. T=



- So if noone can show how to get these 51 under
- take-off and 57 using WEP there's really no way of
- saying if the P-39 climbs as according to the data
- laid before us by "Chimp".
-
- Both of you have good arguments, I give you that,
- but the aircrafts gauge doesn't comply to the sheets
- and you can't tell whether or not a specific setting
- on the throttle should produce the disired results..
-
- rgds

I agree the manifold pressure guage needs fixing. But until then, flying th emane in a manner suggested by the manual reveals a more realistically modelled plane. Simply putting the throttle to 100%, ASSUMING this is military power (when the manual says otherwise) is going to suggest the plane is overmodelled.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 09:58 PM
Howdy

N&Q models engine info
(all had V1710-85 some different props)
1200hp takeoff/sealevel
1125 military power/15,500ft
1000 continuous/14,000ft

P-63A V1710-93
1325hp takeoff/sealevel
1150hp military power/24,200ft
1000hp continuous/20,000ft

P-63C1 V1710-117
1325hp takeoff/sealevel
1100hp military power/27,000ft
1000hp continuous/23,000ft

P63E V1710-109
1425hp takeoff/sealevel
1100hp military power/28,000ft
1050hp continuous/sealevel
950hp continuos/24,000ft


Hmm maybe the Q has a P63E engine?

S!
Weasel

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 10:06 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Ugly_Kid wrote:
-- According to that manual, anything above 44.5 inHg
-- √¬*s limited to 5 minutes.
-
- That's not what the manual says. It says 44.5" is
- limited to 15 minutes, 50.5" is limited to 5.
-

I am sorry where's the difference, pray tell?


- But WEP is limited to 5 minutes as well, and the
- P-39Q in FB overheat well before that limit is met.
- Therefore, if there is an error, its there, not in
- the throttle settings.
-
Is it your reading or is this deeper than that. I recall writing that overheating is not the limit, the overheating is a point where the temperature exceeds point A. Limit is actually the point where the fat lady sings.

- It could also be the opposite. 5 minutes as sea
- level in New Guinea may fry the engine. It may run
- for 20 minutes in colder Russia. 5 minutes is a
- recommendation.
-

Recommendation, says who? Recommendation like 10 min of MW-50 on K-4? There is a thing I heard Eurofighter test pilot tell in his presentation if you feel like exceeding a limit in pilot's manual, you have just promoted yourself to a testpilot...


- I disgare, and so does the manual.

I am pushing the throttle to a 100% in the game. I can use this power continuosly longer than 5 mon without even an overheating. Is this now a throttle setting that's overloading engine dramatically or is this just a comfortable throttle setting, huh? The 100% can be anything you like in the game like Jippo said it presents universal climb setting rather than what you'd like it to be.

-- There's no wire on my Saitek, does Cougar have one?
-
- You're the second suggesting there should be no WEP
- available at all in the FB P-39Q.
-

Pray, explain. That remark was to emphasize the previous. A time limit on flight manual is a practical one, so is the 100% in the game. Pumping my throttle back and forth on my comfy desk is breaking no wires here and there nor are there any markers stating "here ******* is da P-39 war emergency power limit". The very point is that there is a difficulty fetching anything more than 100% continuosly in FB on more or less any aircraft so you really can't see it so black and white. I am sorry but the idea of 100% or 110% goes a bit beyound P-39Q-1 and I believe it is more in the sense as described by Jippo.

And please don't take this as saying P-39 climbs way too well I am trying to say something else.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif


Message Edited on 10/12/0310:08PM by Ugly_Kid

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 10:22 PM
p39 flyers are going to be extremely pi$$ed in 1.2

http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/lead.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 10:31 PM
BgWeasel wrote:
- Howdy
-
- N&Q models engine info
- (all had V1710-85 some different props)
- 1200hp takeoff/sealevel
- 1125 military power/15,500ft
- 1000 continuous/14,000ft
-
- P-63A V1710-93
- 1325hp takeoff/sealevel
- 1150hp military power/24,200ft
- 1000hp continuous/20,000ft
-
- P-63C1 V1710-117
- 1325hp takeoff/sealevel
- 1100hp military power/27,000ft
- 1000hp continuous/23,000ft
-
- P63E V1710-109
- 1425hp takeoff/sealevel
- 1100hp military power/28,000ft
- 1050hp continuous/sealevel
- 950hp continuos/24,000ft
-
-
- Hmm maybe the Q has a P63E engine?
-
- S!
- Weasel

Hmmmm you may be onto something there! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

ZG77_Nagual
10-12-2003, 10:35 PM
Leadspitter - are you a beta tester? Well, anyway - they gotta make some room for the p63 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
we'll also have a p51 - which should be okay. Personally I'll be happy as long as it's better than it was in il2

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 10:50 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- p39 flyers are going to be extremely pi$$ed in 1.2
-

Leadspitter, stop dropping these little turds into every thread. You are not adding anything to the discussion, and we all already know you are one of the "special" people, so we don't need to be reminded.

Skychimp, you've gotta let go of this assumption that 100% absolutely equals the "wire." AFAIK, in the other aircraft in the game 100%=military power, whether they have a wire stop or not. With the additional evidence of overheating pointing to 100% not being take-off power, and the lack of manifold pressure information, your entire argument rests on the idea that the 100% mark must correspond to the "wire" limit. The P-39 manual is not going to provide any evidence for this. You have to know whether or not Oleg modelled the P-39 that way, and you don't.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:11 AM
Were did you get these figures?

BgWeasel wrote:
- Howdy
-
- N&Q models engine info
- (all had V1710-85 some different props)
- 1200hp takeoff/sealevel
- 1125 military power/15,500ft
- 1000 continuous/14,000ft
-
- P-63A V1710-93
- 1325hp takeoff/sealevel
- 1150hp military power/24,200ft
- 1000hp continuous/20,000ft
-
- P-63C1 V1710-117
- 1325hp takeoff/sealevel
- 1100hp military power/27,000ft
- 1000hp continuous/23,000ft
-
- P63E V1710-109
- 1425hp takeoff/sealevel
- 1100hp military power/28,000ft
- 1050hp continuous/sealevel
- 950hp continuos/24,000ft
-
-
- Hmm maybe the Q has a P63E engine?
-
- S!
- Weasel
-
-



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:20 AM
Ugly_Kid wrote:There's no wire on my Saitek, does Cougar have one?


No not a wire but it does have a adjustable detent.

No1RAAF_Pourshot
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA-15%20Kangaroo.jpg

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 01:35 AM
Ugly_Kid wrote:

- I am sorry where's the difference, pray tell?

?



- Is it your reading or is this deeper than that. I
- recall writing that overheating is not the limit,
- the overheating is a point where the temperature
- exceeds point A. Limit is actually the point where
- the fat lady sings.

Actually, with regards to the recommended time limits, coolant temperature concerns is secondary. The main reason to set a limit is to avoid excessive cylinder head temperature, not necessarily excessive coolant temperature. And engine can run for a awhile hot before anything happens. But once detonation starts, you have seconds.



- Recommendation, says who? Recommendation like 10 min
- of MW-50 on K-4?

Keep German planes out of this. We're talking about the P-39Q and I've stated that was the direction of my comments.



- There is a thing I heard
- Eurofighter test pilot tell in his presentation if
- you feel like exceeding a limit in pilot's manual,
- you have just promoted yourself to a testpilot...

Possibly.



- I am pushing the throttle to a 100% in the game. I
- can use this power continuosly longer than 5 mon
- without even an overheating. Is this now a throttle
- setting that's overloading engine dramatically or is
- this just a comfortable throttle setting, huh? The
- 100% can be anything you like in the game like Jippo
- said it presents universal climb setting rather than
- what you'd like it to be.

Ugly, forget the temperature issue. Forget it, it's screwed up.

I can fly all day long in the FB P-47D-27 at 110% power and not overheat. According to your theory, this would be Normal Power. So, Ugly, if you ARE right, then I want my Take-Off and War Emergency Power, because it ain't there.

The other thing is, detonation is not modelled in this game at all. Not for ANY plane.

So, knock off the temperature argument. It makes no sense. Oleg hasn't modelled it right, and he hasn't modelled detonation at all.



- Pray, explain. That remark was to emphasize the
- previous. A time limit on flight manual is a
- practical one, so is the 100% in the game. Pumping
- my throttle back and forth on my comfy desk is
- breaking no wires here and there nor are there any
- markers stating "here ******* is da P-39 war
- emergency power limit". The very point is that there
- is a difficulty fetching anything more than 100%
- continuosly in FB on more or less any aircraft so
- you really can't see it so black and white. I am
- sorry but the idea of 100% or 110% goes a bit
- beyound P-39Q-1 and I believe it is more in the
- sense as described by Jippo.

This will be hard for you to understand as you seem to have strayed off on a tangent and won't come back. And on the surface, what I am about to say may SEEM to contradict what I've said earlier, but entertain me for a second.

Throttle position has NOTHING to do with the power rating/manifold pressure, EXCEPT at sea level, where a correlation between manifold pressure and throttle position can be made. But even this correlation is incidental.

Let's just use your assertion that 100% throttle in FB represents continuous maximum power - the power rating that has no time limit. Maximum Continous Power is Normal Power. Normal Power is LESS than Military Power. Military Power is 44.5" hg, therefore Normal Power is less.

Now, keep that throttle at 100% and climb to 20,000 feet. What's your manifold pressure then? It's probably dropped down into the 20's or lower (I'll check, I have Allison power charts as well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

Now, how do you increase power? Push the throttle forward. Now you HAVE to go into the 100+ % throttle range. But you have next to no range left.

Why would an airplane manufacturer make it that a 100% throttle setting produces Normal Power at sea level knowing that at altitude, your power is very low at Normal Power with only a minimal range in the throttle to increase it? Simple, they wouldn't. That's what Normal Power is NOT 100% throttle position at sea level.



- And please don't take this as saying P-39 climbs way
- too well I am trying to say something else.

I've seen.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 01:57 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:

- Skychimp, you've gotta let go of this assumption
- that 100% absolutely equals the "wire." AFAIK, in
- the other aircraft in the game 100%=military power,
- whether they have a wire stop or not. With the
- additional evidence of overheating pointing to 100%
- not being take-off power, and the lack of manifold
- pressure information, your entire argument rests on
- the idea that the 100% mark must correspond to the
- "wire" limit. The P-39 manual is not going to
- provide any evidence for this. You have to know
- whether or not Oleg modelled the P-39 that way, and
- you don't.
-
---AKD


And You need to stop with the overheating arguments. Whether or not your plane is overheating is NO indication of the power it is developing.

As stated, one can cruise indefinitely in the P-47D-27 at 110% power and NOT overheat. Is this right? The overheating aspect of this game is borked. There is NO question. And to use that as a standard is folly.

Also, as stated, the time limit set in the manual is not necessarily their so the pilot avoids excessive coolant temperatures. It's there so the pilot avoids excessive cylinder head temperatures, which leads to detonation, which is more destructive, more quickly, than overly hot coolant. You can run an engine hot, at least for awhile. But once detonation starts, you're going to loose a cylinderhead in seconds.


And yes, my argument is that 100% represents 50.5" hg, which is Takeoff Power. Whether or not Oleg intended to do that, he did. And correctly so.

And I find the continual argument that 100% represents Normal Power somewhat absurd.

I've seen several people on this board state 100% throttle represents Military Power - the Power setting that can be used continually without limit. But they are wrong. Military Power has a time limit, too. It's in the manual - 15 minutes.

The definition of NORMAL POWER is the manifold pressure that can be maintained without limit. Therefore, by theirs, and your, definition, 100% throttle MUST be Normal Power.

If your argument were correct, that means Military Power, Take-Off Power, AND War Emergency Power is all squeezed into that little range of throttle movement that exceeds 100%. Not likely, my friend.

The range of manifold pressures available in the P-39Q's engine is 0" hg to 57" hg. Military Power is 44.5" hg. That means you are asserting all manifold pressures from 44.5" hg to 57" hg are only available by pushing the throttle past 100%. You are saying that 22% of the available power range can only be obtained in that little 10% range of throttle movement. Again, not likely my friend. That would make for a helluva power gradient in that range, one that would make pilots say "Oops" a lot.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 02:05 AM
I wanted to edit my reply to Ugly's post, but of course the UBI board is screwed up and I couldn't. So let me rephrase what I wrote here. I'll plabce an "*" around what I changed:

=======

This will be hard for you to understand as you seem to have strayed off on a tangent and won't come back. And on the surface, what I am about to say may SEEM to contradict what I've said earlier, but entertain me for a second.

Throttle position has NOTHING to do with the power rating/manifold pressure, EXCEPT at sea level, where a correlation between manifold pressure and throttle position can be made. But even this correlation is incidental.

Let's just use your assertion that 100% throttle in FB represents * maximum continuous power * - the power rating that has no time limit. Maximum Continuous Power is Normal Power. Normal Power is LESS than Military Power. Military Power is 44.5" hg, therefore Normal Power is less.

Now, keep that throttle at 100% and climb to 20,000 feet. What's your manifold pressure then? It's probably dropped down into the 20's or lower (I'll check, I have Allison power charts as well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

Now, how do you increase power? Push the throttle forward. Now you HAVE to go into the 100+ % throttle range. But you have next to no range left.

Why would an airplane manufacturer make it that a 100% throttle setting produces Normal Power at sea level knowing that at altitude, your *your manifold pressure has dropped through the floor*? Simple, they wouldn't. *You have to increase throttle to maintain Manifold pressure as you gain altitude.*

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

adlabs6
10-13-2003, 02:19 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Let's just use your assertion that 100% throttle in
- FB represents continuous maximum power - the power
- rating that has no time limit. Maximum Continous
- Power is Normal Power. Normal Power is LESS than
- Military Power. Military Power is 44.5" hg,
- therefore Normal Power is less.
-
- Now, keep that throttle at 100% and climb to 20,000
- feet. What's your manifold pressure then? It's
- probably dropped down into the 20's or lower (I'll
- check, I have Allison power charts as well /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ).
-
- Now, how do you increase power? Push the throttle
- forward. Now you HAVE to go into the 100+ %
- throttle range. But you have next to no range left.

Yes, I had wondered about this. Under such a scenario, the wire would have to be broken at only slighly below 110% throttle position in FB in order to maintain the MAP.

Your ideas are very interesting. I would venture you are correct. But not knowing Oleg's intention during modelling the throttle positions. Too bad the MAP guages do not work, nor apparently do the prop controls, or the truth could be more easily shown.

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 03:00 AM
Here's another monkey-wrench thrown in:



Look at this:

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/manifold.jpg

It says Military Power is 3,000 rpm and 44.5" hg on Auto Rich.



Now look at this:

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/climb.jpg

It says Combat Climb to be done at 3,000 rpm and 44.5" hg (This is military Power).



Ok, using complex engine management and 100% prop pitch and auto rich, I can maintain 3,000 rpm all day long at 85% throttle.

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/tach.jpg


If I change prop pitch to 90%, I can't get back up to 3,000 RPM even if I used 110% throttle.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/13/0306:02AM by SkyChimp

adlabs6
10-13-2003, 03:24 AM
Yes, I had done some testing of this a while back, and it seems that the prop pitch directly controls the MAP, regardless of throttle setting. (Up to a certain point of course.) The only aircraft in FB that I could find that did not behave this way was the Fw-190's, with the auto prop system disabled.

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

adlabs6
10-13-2003, 03:42 AM
Just a quick check, I had wondered if FB had been programmed to operate at prescribed MAP/RPM settings depending on throttle setting when the CEM is turned off.

I disabled CEM and selected a throttle setting of 85%, the engine showed a result of 41Hg @ 2950 RPM. Moving to 110% throttle, the result was 42Hg @ 3050 RPM. (Slightly above redline)





<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 04:04 AM
Here is Jippo's position:

Jippo01 wrote:
- You guys have to remember the little thing that it
- is so that 100% throttle in the game tries to mimic
- max sustainable power of the airplane in question.
- It is the way it is modelled in the game, not
- something I just invented.
-
-
--jippo

"Max Sustainable Power" is called "Normal Power." For the V-1710-85 engine in the P-39Q-1, Normal Power is defined as 2,600 rpm and 39" hg at Sea Level, and 2,600 rpm and 39" hg at 3,000 feet.

According to the manual:
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/normal.jpg


When I fly the P-39Q-1 with complex engine management (100% prop pitch, auto rich), I have to chop the throttle to UNDER 40% to get down to a sustainable 2,600 rpm. (@ 750 m)

When I fly using simple engine management, I have to do the same thing. (@ 750 m)

That tells me that 100% is most certainly NOT modelling Normal Power (Max Sustainable Power), it's modeling something much higher. Something much less than 100% throttle is needed to model Normal Power.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 04:15 AM
adlabs6 wrote:
- Just a quick check, I had wondered if FB had been
- programmed to operate at prescribed MAP/RPM settings
- depending on throttle setting when the CEM is turned
- off.
-
- I disabled CEM and selected a throttle setting of
- 85%, the engine showed a result of 41Hg @ 2950 RPM.
- Moving to 110% throttle, the result was 42Hg @ 3050
- RPM. (Slightly above redline)


That proves the Manifold Pressure gauge is royally screwed.

We may disagree as to what the manifold pressure should be at 85% or 100% throttle, but there is NO question it should be 57" hg at 110% throttle at SL.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 04:16 AM
for me 100% is for cruising & 110 % is for combat

P-39 time to 5000 according to the tests oleg bases his FM on :: 8.07

FB P-39 time to 5000 ( 110 % i assume ) 4.27

OVERMODDELED

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 04:31 AM
We can dream about flying power by condition, don't see it happening. Wish they'd have named it something besides 'Complex' engine management. Nothing complex there, a few timers arbitrarily set, based on what is anyones guess.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 04:32 AM
WUAF_Badsight wrote:
- for me 100% is for cruising & 110 % is for combat
-
- P-39 time to 5000 according to the tests oleg bases
- his FM on :: 8.07
-
- FB P-39 time to 5000 ( 110 % i assume ) 4.27
-
- OVERMODDELED


<img src=http://home.stny.rr.com/fw190a8red1/IronDog.jpg>

(Display at the National Warplane Museum, Corning/Elmira Regional Airport.)

Why was it called the "Iron Dog?"

Just wondering...

Zip



<center>BlitzPig_Zip

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gingernuts/blitz_anim.gif </center>

adlabs6
10-13-2003, 04:56 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- That proves the Manifold Pressure gauge is royally
- screwed.

More tests, gets even more strange... My apologies that this post is so long, my table arrangement is bugged.

<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>SIMPLE CEM

</td>
<td>MEASURED @ 1000 METERS

</td>
<td>

</td>
<td>MEASURED @ 5000 METERS

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>THROTTLE %

</td>
<td>MANIFOLD PRESSURE

</td>
<td>RPM

</td>
<td>

</td>
<td>MANIFOLD PRESSURE

</td>
<td>RPM

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">110

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">42

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">3050

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">35

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">3000

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">100

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">41

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">3000

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">35

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">3000

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">90

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">41

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2950

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">35

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2950

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">80

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">40

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2900

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">35

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2950

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">70

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">40

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2900

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">35

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2925

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">60

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">40

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2850

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">34

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2900

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">50

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">39

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2800

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">34

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2800

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">40

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">39

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2750

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">33

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2750

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">30

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">38

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2700

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">33

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2750

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">20

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">38

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2700

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">33

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2700

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">10

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">38

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2700

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">33

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2700

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">0

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">36

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2450

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">33

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2700

</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

adlabs6
10-13-2003, 05:04 AM
And another test with the CEM enabled.

I should note my test methods... QMB, with auto level enabled. Made each power/pitch change, observed, wrote results. Same for both charts I've posted. Maybe you'll get different numbers, these are what I got. Again, I apologise for the length of this post.

<table style="text-align: left; width: 100%;" border="1" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>COMPLEX CEM

</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="1">MEASURED @ 1000 METERS

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>THROTTLE %

</td>
<td>MANIFOLD PRESSURE

</td>
<td>RPM

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">110

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">42

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">3050

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">100

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">42

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">3000

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">90

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">42

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">3000

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">80

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">42

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">3000

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">70

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">42

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">3000

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">60

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">42

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">3000

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">50

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">42

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">3000

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">40

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">41

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2950

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">30

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">41

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2950

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">20

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">37

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2550

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">10

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">37

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2550

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">0

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">36

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">2500

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>

</td>
<td>

</td>
<td>

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>THROTTLE 110% / PITCH 0%

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">30

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">1800

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>THROTTLE 0% / PITCH 0%

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">30

</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;">1800

</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 05:12 AM
The P-39Q-1 manual lists the max continuous power speed at sea level as 483 kph. IL2Compares gives 501 kph for 100% power at sea level. This suggests to me that 100% throttle=military power for the in-game P-39.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

adlabs6
10-13-2003, 05:34 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- The P-39Q-1 manual lists the max continuous power
- speed at sea level as 483 kph. IL2Compares gives
- 501 kph for 100% power at sea level. This suggests
- to me that 100% throttle=military power for the
- in-game P-39.



I can achieve 480 kph at sea level with the throttle set as low as 75%, if I keep it level and ball centered. What is IL2 compare referring to, IAS or TAS?

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 05:50 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Jippo01 wrote:
-- You guys have to remember the little thing that it
-- is so that 100% throttle in the game tries to mimic
-- max sustainable power of the airplane in question.
-- It is the way it is modelled in the game, not
-- something I just invented.
--
--
---jippo
-
-
- How do you know that? Did Oleg himself tell you
- that, or did Oleg try and model the game properly.
- Because more and more it's looking like he did a
- pretty good job on the P-39Q.
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp


Oleg himself has said that, yes. Many times. Even on these forums.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 06:10 AM
adlabs6 wrote:
- And another test with the CEM enabled.
-
- I should note my test methods... QMB, with auto
- level enabled. Made each power/pitch change,
- observed, wrote results. Same for both charts I've
- posted. Maybe you'll get different numbers, these
- are what I got. Again, I apologise for the length of
- this post.

Interesting charts... what pitch settings did you take?? I'd suggest: 100% thr - 100% prop, 50/50, 30/30, 0/0 and so on.

+ corrected some values im my post...

adlabs6
10-13-2003, 06:25 AM
Willey wrote:
- Interesting charts... what pitch settings did you
- take?? I'd suggest: 100% thr - 100% prop, 50/50,
- 30/30, 0/0 and so on.


Sorry about that, all entries were tested at 100% pitch. I tried to edit the posts above to reflect this, but serious errors result.


<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 07:31 AM
adlabs6 wrote:
-
- A.K.Davis wrote:
-- The P-39Q-1 manual lists the max continuous power
-- speed at sea level as 483 kph. IL2Compares gives
-- 501 kph for 100% power at sea level. This suggests
-- to me that 100% throttle=military power for the
-- in-game P-39.
-
-
-
- I can achieve 480 kph at sea level with the throttle
- set as low as 75%, if I keep it level and ball
- centered. What is IL2 compare referring to, IAS or
- TAS?

Sea level dude, sea level.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

adlabs6
10-13-2003, 08:39 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- Sea level dude, sea level.

I was at 75% power, 90% prop. Kept straight and level as possible, ball dead center. Held it like that for about a minute to stablilize the speed before shooting the pic. I think I've got it right. BTW, anyone got a clue as to why the water spray didn't show in the screen cap?
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/SEALEVEL.JPG


<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 08:45 AM
A.K.Davis you will see in 1.2, and I can post what ever I wish and you cant do a damn thing about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif turdburglar

http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/lead.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 02:57 PM
Well, about throttle settings I think Skychimp is more right than wrong, and Jippo seems mistaken about something (maybe just terminology wrt power settings on American planes). It isn't just one thing but several things taken together that lead me to this conclusion, so here they are.

-Finnish 109G2 manual (I DLed pdf file from somewhere) lists "climb and combat" as 1.30 ata and 2500-2600 RPM. This corresponds to 100% throttle ingame (auto prop). WEP was disabled on the Finnish G2s, but the numbers it gives correspond to 110% throttle and auto pitch ingame.

-Same manual lists "max. continuous" as 1.15ata and 2300 RPM. This corresponds to 85% throttle ingame (auto prop).

-P40E as tested ingame will overheat with radiator closed and throttle set to 86%, but no overheat with throttle at 85%.

I am not sure where the errors are, if there are any.

It may be that the 109G2, P39 et. al. can, in fact, maintain "combat" power indefinitely and "max continuous" is rated lower for better engine life rather than any real danger of engine failure at "combat" power, whereas some manufacterers (like for P40E) use "max continuous" to mean that it cannot maintain higher output w/o actual engine damage (rather than just excessive wear), and reserve the term "combat power" for a setting that will, in fact, result in engine failure if maintained for too long. Maybe the P40E can run continuously at 100% if you just ignore the warning message.

Or it could be that the CEM overheat parameters are in need of serious tweaking for practically all planes, such that a 109G2 should eventually overheat at anything above 85% throttle.

In any case it appears that Bell liked its P39s to be climb tested at the "max continuous" (85% throttle ingame) setting rather than the "climb and combat" (100% throttle ingame) setting.

I suspect that the CEM code has some holdovers from the old IL2 and so some aspects for some planes are tuned for the wrong throttle settings (for example it could be that the P39 should overheat at 86% like the P40 does, rather than it should produce less power with the throttle set to 100%).

It must get pretty complicated with so many different planes from so many different countries and so many different manufacturers, all of whom have their own terminology and their own specifications and procedures.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 03:11 PM
Fillmore, I am correct as we speak about the way how it is modelled in Il-2, there is not a question about it. Don't let the terminology confuse you. It is not a question about planes at all, it is a question about modelling in the game.

In addition you have several errors in your reasoning.

- Max ATA for G-2 is 1.42, Finnish airforce limited it to max 1.3ATA to reduce wear on the engines. G-2 would not overheat on 1.3 ATA per Finnish climb test, not even fully open radiators were needed.

- About overheating test, the limit is not for radiators closed but radiators open. Radiators are there to be used.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 04:28 PM
Fillmore wrote:
- In any case it appears that Bell liked its P39s to
- be climb tested at the "max continuous" (85%
- throttle ingame) setting rather than the "climb and
- combat" (100% throttle ingame) setting.

No, Bell's climb data is for combat power (military power), not max continuous. This is clearly stated in the manual.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 06:40 PM
Hay SC. I went to the man and asked Oleg. I asked him if 100% throttle is 44" or 50", this is reply.

You right about test of climb. It should be tested on 100% in a sim but not on WEP.

I was hoping that was not the case. But it lookes like the P-39 will be castrated a little on the next patch. Its already the slowest climbing aircraft in 1944. But at least its dive power is back. I can now out dive a 109.

Gib

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

adlabs6
10-13-2003, 07:37 PM
Gibbage, do the RPM and MAP guages work correctly in 1.2?

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 08:10 PM
Thanks for the post Skychimp.

Good to know that the numbers on climb are based on 85% (or so) and not 100%.




S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 11:13 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- Fillmore, I am correct as we speak about the way how
- it is modelled in Il-2, there is not a question
- about it. Don't let the terminology confuse you. It
- is not a question about planes at all, it is a
- question about modelling in the game.

Terminology is important, Jippo. Because you say that 100% throttle in FB is intended to model the power setting at which there is no time limit. The power setting that can be maintained with no time limit is called "Normal Power."

A.K. Davis says that 100% throttle models Military Power, as, apparently, Oleg does too (see Gibbage's post). Military Power is limited to 15 minutes in the P-39Q.

If you want to say that time limit is relevant to overheating, then why is the plane not overheating at 100% throttle after 15 minutes? It's because the heat aspect in the game is screwed up as well. See my previous post about the P-47D-27.

Whether or not the plane is overheating is terrible way to determine what power your plane is generating. A plane may or may not overheat at any given power setting depending on conditions - air temperature being one of them. Again, the primary reason the time limit is in place is to avoid detonation, a condition not modelled in this game.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
10-13-2003, 11:18 PM
Don't matter - rumour is the p39 get's it's climb snipped in 1.2 - and that'll be all she wrote for that one.



http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 11:20 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Jippo01 wrote:
-- Fillmore, I am correct as we speak about the way how
-- it is modelled in Il-2, there is not a question
-- about it. Don't let the terminology confuse you. It
-- is not a question about planes at all, it is a
-- question about modelling in the game.
-
- Terminology is important, Jippo. Because you say
- that 100% throttle in FB is intended to model the
- power setting at which there is no time limit. The
- power setting that can be maintained with no time
- limit is called "Normal Power."
-
- A.K. Davis says that 100% throttle models Military
- Power, as, apparently, Oleg does too (see Gibbage's
- post). Military Power is limited to 15 minutes in
- the P-39Q.
-
- If you want to say that time limit is relevant to
- overheating, then why is the plane not overheating
- at 100% throttle after 15 minutes? It's because the
- heat aspect in the game is screwed up as well. See
- my previous post about the P-47D-27.
-
- Whether or not the plane is overheating is terrible
- way to determine what power your plane is
- generating. A plane may or may not overheat at any
- given power setting depending on conditions - air
- temperature being one of them. Again, the primary
- reason the time limit is in place is to avoid
- detonation, a condition not modelled in this game.
-

Well now, that little argument came full circle, didn't it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 11:22 PM
You have done your homework.

Hans-57

The United States Air Force....
When you absolutely, positively, have to have it blown up over night.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 11:39 PM
A.K.Davis wrote:

- No, Bell's climb data is for combat power (military
- power), not max continuous. This is clearly stated
- in the manual.


AK, combat power and military power are not the same. I don't know if that's what you intended to imply or not. But Combat Power provides for for more manifold pressure than Military power - 57" hg versus 44.5" hg respectively.

===


And let me say this (not directed at you AK), once a certain altitude is reached, there is no such thing as Combat power. That's because as altitude increases, manifold pressure drops.

In a real P-39Q, if you wanted to conduct a Combat Power climb to 25,000 feet, you are only going to be able to maintain combat power up to the rated altitude for that condition.

In otherwords, you set your throttle at sea level so that you obtain 57"hg. As you climb, that manifold pressure begins to drop. You have to increase the throttle position as you climb (that's why there is a range) to compensate for the drop in manifold pressure. But sooner or later, you are going to reach the end of the throttle range of motion and you will have no place to push the throttle to. That altitude where that occurs is the "rated altitude" for that power condition. Once you reach the end of the throttle range of motion at the rated altitude, there is no place for the manifold pressure to go but down.

All power settings, except take-off power (which is a single s.l. throttle setting and s.l. manifold pressure) has a rated altitude. In the case of the P-39Q, those are as follows:

Normal Power (39" hg)-------14,000 feet
Military Power (44.5")-----15,500 feet
Take-Off Power (50.5" hg)-----sea level
Combat Power (57" hg)-------9,700 feet

If I adjust my REAL P-39's throttle so that I am getting 44.5" hg manifold pressure (and adjust prop pitch so that I am getting 3000 rpm) and begin to climb, I will have to continue to push my throttle forward as i climb to maintain 44.5" hg (if i don't, it will drop). I will have to keep doing this as I climb. In real life, I should reach the end of the throttle range of motion at 15,500 feet. At which point, manifold pressure begins to drop and I can't do anything about it because the throttle is all used up. At that point, my climb is no longer a military power climb, it's referred to a a Full throttle climb (becasue I'm at full throttle, but no longer generating military power).

You can do this in normal power, too. And you can see it in the P-39Q-1 manual. Look at this:

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/normal.jpg


As I stated above, the rated altitude for Normal Power is 14,000 feet. At above 14,000 feet, you can no longer make Normal power (keep in mind you are using 2,600 rpm, not 3,000 rpm as with military power) becasue the throttle is all used up. You are at full throttle, but you ar enot making Normal Power. in fact, you are lsoing powwer. That's why it's called a full throttle climb in this portion of the echart.


This is the crux of my suggestion that at sea level, the P-39Q-1 's thorttle setting that produced military power was not at 100%, but something lower. It had to be, becaseu I need that range of motion to maintain military power all the way up to 15,500 feet. And i wouldn't be able to do it if the that setting were at 100% at sea level. I'd have next to no place to go if it were.

The P-39Q-1 in FB is approximately tyhe same way. Whether or not Oleg intended it to be that was is another matter, but it is approximately correct in thsi regard.

Now I fully understand that accoding to Gibbage, 100% throttle according to Oleg is military power, and that perhaps he got the P-39Q in FB RIGHT BY ACCIDENT, but nevertheless, it seems to be more correct than wrong.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/14/0302:41AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 12:47 AM
Ok then it seems to me that the same terminology is being used to mean different things for different aircraft. When referring to a 109 "combat power" refers to a power setting that can be maintained continuously, but when Bell talks about a P39 their "combat power" is a setting that cannot be maintained continuously.

Seems to me the P39 should be overheating at 86% throtle just like the P40E.

I seem to recall prepatch that the P47 would overheat above 85% throttle, though i'm told it doesn't now.

If Oleg wants 100% throttle to correspond to true maximum continuous power then I suppose he should tweak the P40E so that 100% becomes what is now 85%.

It could also be that the CEM system has no means of implementing a 15 minute time limit, such that any power setting which irl had such a limit will always be usable indefinitely ingame, in which case I should be able to run a P40E at 100% forever.

Note that I really don't fly the allied planes, or test them much. All my experience in LW planes has been that 100% is max continuous.

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 02:25 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Hay SC. I went to the man and asked Oleg. I asked
- him if 100% throttle is 44" or 50", this is reply.
-
- You right about test of climb. It should be tested
- on 100% in a sim but not on WEP.
-
- I was hoping that was not the case. But it lookes
- like the P-39 will be castrated a little on the next
- patch. Its already the slowest climbing aircraft in
- 1944. But at least its dive power is back. I can
- now out dive a 109.
-
- Gib

Thanks for clearing that up. Now we know how Oleg modeled the P39. I hope it will clear things up.

Nic

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 02:25 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- A.K.Davis wrote:
-
-- No, Bell's climb data is for combat power (military
-- power), not max continuous. This is clearly stated
-- in the manual.
-
-
- AK, combat power and military power are not the
- same. I don't know if that's what you intended to
- imply or not. But Combat Power provides for for
- more manifold pressure than Military power - 57" hg
- versus 44.5" hg respectively.

No where in the P-39Q-1 manual is there a listing for "Combat Power."

http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/planes/p39/Bel-P39-Q1-Manual/original/p28.jpg


There is a listing for combat climb, which as you will note at the top of the chart uses Military Power (3000 RPM, 44.5" hg).

http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/planes/p39/Bel-P39-Q1-Manual/original/p29.jpg


If you were to ask the author of the P-39Q-1 manual, he would almost certainly say that combat power is military power. If you asked him what 57" hg was, he'd say War Emergency Power. A combat climb uses Military Power, which in the game is 100% throttle. That's that.


--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 02:28 AM
Also, we should all note that the climb data in the manual is for 0 deg. Celsius, which is not the temperature used for in-game data, AFAIK.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 02:42 AM
Ok I reread Skychimps last post, I must have gotten confused earlier, I thought he was saying that the climb tests were done at normal power, rather than that military power should be 85%.

I believe the throttle is modelled in a manner similar to the control stick in that the virtual throttle can move without your input, just as the virtual control stick can. So if you set your throttle input to 100% then the sim's CEM will try to maintain the military setting even with changes in altitude.

This is similar to how you can hold your joystick in a constant position and watch as the virtual stick moves as your plane changes speed (this property of the sim can be extremely annoying at times).

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 03:09 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:

- No where in the P-39Q-1 manual is there a listing
- for "Combat Power."
- There is a listing for combat climb, which as you
- will note at the top of the chart uses Military
- Power (3000 RPM, 44.5" hg).

Look beyond the charts, my friend. You ought to read the whole manual.

Again, check page 3, section 6 entitled "Engine Controls." You will see this:

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/thottle.jpg



- If you were to ask the author of the P-39Q-1 manual,
- he would almost certainly say that combat power is
- military power. If you asked him what 57" hg was,
- he'd say War Emergency Power. A combat climb uses
- Military Power, which in the game is 100% throttle.

Combat Power is NOT Military Power. Never has been, never will be. Military power generates less power than Combat Power. Combat Power and War Emergency Power are interchangable terms.



- That's that.

No, it's not.

You, and several others, seem to think you can just shove the throttle to 100% power, start to climb, take measurements, and then compare them to the numbers in the manual and declare the plane overmodeled.

But the manual makes it VERY clear what the parameters are for Military Power.

Military Power at sea level is 44.5" hg manifold pressure and 3,000 rpm. This power can be maintained all the way up to 15,500 feet by increasing throttle. Above that altitude and you will run out of throttle and your manifold pressure will begin to fall.

The proper method to take measurements is to do the following:

1) Fly as close to sea level as possible.

2) Adjust your throttle so that you are developing 44.5" hg manifold pressure (hard to do since the manifold pressure gauge doesn't work).

3) Adjust your prop pitch so that your engine speed is 3,000 rpm.

4) Set your mixture control to auto rich.

(all of these are necessary according to the manual)

5) Let your speed stabilize under these conditions.

6) Pull back on the stick and let your speed bleed to 175 mph IAS. Maintain 175 mph IAS in the climb.

7) As you climb, steadily increase your throttle to MAINTAIN 44.5" hg and 175 mph IAS. (You HAVE to do this, otherwise manifold pressure starts to drop, and then your speed either drops or your climb flattens out)

8) Continue to do this and take your time-readings at 3000, 5000, 10000, 15000 and 25000 feet. (Somewhere around 15500 feet, if the plane is modelled properly, you are going to run out of throttle and you will just have to continue your climb at full throttle).



This is the way to properly test the aircraft.


To just push the throttle forward to 100% makes it so that at low altitude you climb at too high a power, and at high altitudes you climb at too low a power - giving erroneous results. You HAVE to move the throttle throughout the climb until you reach that altitude that it won't move any further.

Davis, the method to test climb is clear. It's a difficult process, and just not as simple as shoving a throttle and trying to climb. The manual tells you EXACTLY what you have to do to get the results. Nowhere does it say just push the throttle to 100% and see what happens.

==========


Another confusing aspect of this game that I think throws people is the use of the term "###% throttle."

100% throttle does not generate the same power at 30,000 feet as it does at sea level. Even in the game this is modelled. The P-39Q in FB has a manifold pressure gauge that doesn't work properly, but the one thing it does do is reflect a drop in manifold pressure as altitude increases (assuming the same throttle position).

I tested it:

At 85% throttle and 3000 rpm at 500 meters, the MP gauge reads 41.4" hg (obviously wrong, but not important at this moment). But at 85% throttle and 3000 rpm at 5000 meters it reads 35" hg. That's correct! It should drop. I haven't compensated for that drop by increasing the throttle (even though at that altitude I wouldn't be able to bring it back up to that MP even at full throttle).



You need to understand, you DO NOT need 100% throttle to generate military power at sea level. You will at some higher altitude. And at 15,500 feet you will need all of the throttle, 110%, to achieve military power. And above that, you won't achieve military power at all because your throttle is all used up and there is no other way to generate additional power.


Shoving the throttle to 100% causes you to climb with too much power (more than military power) at low altitudes. In fact, it's too much all the way up to whatever altitude 100% DOES produce military power (probably somewhere between 12,000 and 14,000 feet). And after that, if you are not moving the throttle towards 110% to MAINTAIN military power, then you are climbing with too little power.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 03:28 AM
Okay, I see what you are saying. Power output is not consistent throughout the climb. The question is, when Oleg says 100% throttle is Military Power, does he mean at sea level, at 15,000 ft., at 30,000 ft.? Clearly the FB game throttle does not work exactly like a real throttle. As someone else pointed out earlier, in a real aircraft throttle input and throttle position do not even correlate consistently. Regardless of the correlation, moving the throttle through 100% of it's travel in-game should have consistent effects, even if they vary with external factors.

I assumed sea level and was primarily comparing sea level military power climb to IL2Compare 100% sea level climb as a base of reference.

But I still don't see the manual refering to War Emergency Power as combat power in the section you referenced, although I can't see the image you posted in conjunction with that. I may recall another part of the manual referring to WEP's use in a "combat emergency" or something like that.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg


Message Edited on 10/14/0302:39AM by A.K.Davis

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 03:33 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- Okay, I see what you are saying. Power output is
- not consistent throughout the climb. The question
- is, when Oleg says 100% throttle is Military Power,
- does he mean at sea level, at 15,000 ft., at 30,000
- ft.? Clearly the FB game throttle does not work
- exactly like a real throttle. As someone else
- pointed out earlier, in a real aircraft throttle
- input and throttle position do not even correlate
- consistently.
-
- I assumed sea level and was primarily comparing sea
- level military power climb to IL2Compare 100% sea
- level climb as a base of reference.
-
---AKD

Well now, that little argument came full circle, didn't it? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 03:49 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- Okay, I see what you are saying. Power output is
- not consistent throughout the climb. The question
- is, when Oleg says 100% throttle is Military Power,
- does he mean at sea level, at 15,000 ft., at 30,000
- ft.? Clearly the FB game throttle does not work
- exactly like a real throttle. As someone else
- pointed out earlier, in a real aircraft throttle
- input and throttle position do not even correlate
- consistently.

I don't think the throttle itself is the problem. Like I said, throttle position is incidental to manifold pressure. You simply set your throttle at WHATEVER position you have to to achieve the desired manifold pressure.

On a real P-39Q, there aren't any markings on the throttle to indicate 100% power (or any other setting). That's because 100% power (or any other setting) varies with altitude. The only markings that exist on the throttle (besides the word "throttle") are the words "Closed" at the bottom of the throttle, and "Open" at the top.

I use the throttle argument because the manifold pressure gauge doesn't work in the FB P-39Q. But I happen to know that in real life, 100% throttle at sea level in the P-39Q makes for take-off power, which is higher than military power. Therefore, at sea level, I can make some correlation between throttle position and power developed.

I don't know what Oleg has done. Gibbage's remarks were vague. If the Manifold Pressure Gauge worked, then the "###% throttle" message we see would become irrelevant. Again, because throttle position is incidental to manifold pressure. And Manifold Pressure is THE measure of power, not throttle position.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 03:51 AM
tagert wrote:

- Well now,...

knock it off, save that crap for Huck.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 03:55 AM
tagert wrote:
- A.K.Davis wrote:
-- Okay, I see what you are saying. Power output is
-- not consistent throughout the climb. The question
-- is, when Oleg says 100% throttle is Military Power,
-- does he mean at sea level, at 15,000 ft., at 30,000
-- ft.? Clearly the FB game throttle does not work
-- exactly like a real throttle. As someone else
-- pointed out earlier, in a real aircraft throttle
-- input and throttle position do not even correlate
-- consistently.
--
-- I assumed sea level and was primarily comparing sea
-- level military power climb to IL2Compare 100% sea
-- level climb as a base of reference.
--
----AKD
-
- Well now, that little argument came full circle,
- didn't it?

Not yet it hasn't, but perhaps it will. I suspect we need more info from Oleg before that can happen.

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt Skychimp's understanding of the manual data, I doubt it's applicability to the game.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 03:56 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
-
- SkyChimp wrote:
--
-- Jippo01 wrote:
--- Fillmore, I am correct as we speak about the way how
--- it is modelled in Il-2, there is not a question
--- about it. Don't let the terminology confuse you. It
--- is not a question about planes at all, it is a
--- question about modelling in the game.
--
-- Terminology is important, Jippo. Because you say
-- that 100% throttle in FB is intended to model the
-- power setting at which there is no time limit. The
-- power setting that can be maintained with no time
-- limit is called "Normal Power."
--
-- A.K. Davis says that 100% throttle models Military
-- Power, as, apparently, Oleg does too (see Gibbage's
-- post). Military Power is limited to 15 minutes in
-- the P-39Q.
--
-- If you want to say that time limit is relevant to
-- overheating, then why is the plane not overheating
-- at 100% throttle after 15 minutes? It's because the
-- heat aspect in the game is screwed up as well. See
-- my previous post about the P-47D-27.
--
-- Whether or not the plane is overheating is terrible
-- way to determine what power your plane is
-- generating. A plane may or may not overheat at any
-- given power setting depending on conditions - air
-- temperature being one of them. Again, the primary
-- reason the time limit is in place is to avoid
-- detonation, a condition not modelled in this game.
--
-
- Well now, that little argument came full circle,
- didn't it? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-
-
---AKD

Crap? I thought it was good to go in that AKD used it just a few msg's ago?


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 03:58 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- Not yet it hasn't, but perhaps it will. I suspect
- we need more info from Oleg before that can happen.
-
- Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt Skychimp's
- understanding of the manual data, I doubt it's
- applicability to the game.
-
---AKD

I think that in the end it is going to turn out to be somwhere in between. But at least it appears it is not as far off as some initally made it out to be IMHO


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 04:12 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:

- Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt Skychimp's
- understanding of the manual data, I doubt it's
- applicability to the game.

That's the rub. Without that working manifold pressure gauge you can't tell for sure. But at this moment, I suspect there is some correlation between in-game operation and the parameters specified in the manual, whether or not Oleg intended it. This game would seem to me to be rather arcadish if in fact there were no correlation.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

adlabs6
10-14-2003, 04:48 AM
I did a timed climb rate test, recording times at the intervals shown on the manual pages posted here. I also noted MP at each interval.

Test parameters were as shown on the Chart (p23), 175 mph IAS climb speed, transitioned to 150 mph IAS climb speed at 15,000 feet through to 25,000 feet, as shown on the chart. I repeated this test twice, and the recorded times showed a difference of no more than 2 seconds between tests. So however right or wrong my method was, I was fairly consistent.


P-39 Climb Data

Performed at 85% Throttle, 100% Pitch.

S.L. to 3000 Ft. / 0:25 (minute:second) @ 42 MP

@ 5000 Ft. / 1:11 @ 42 MP

@ 10,000 Ft. / 2:53 @ 42 MP

@ 15,000 Ft. / 5:02 @ 35 MP (MP drop began to occur at 11,000 Ft.)

@ 25,000 Ft. / 11:34 @ 23 MP

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 04:50 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- A.K.Davis wrote:
-- Okay, I see what you are saying. Power output is
-- not consistent throughout the climb. The question
-- is, when Oleg says 100% throttle is Military Power,
-- does he mean at sea level, at 15,000 ft., at 30,000
-- ft.? Clearly the FB game throttle does not work
-- exactly like a real throttle. As someone else
-- pointed out earlier, in a real aircraft throttle
-- input and throttle position do not even correlate
-- consistently.
-
- I don't think the throttle itself is the problem.
- Like I said, throttle position is incidental to
- manifold pressure. You simply set your throttle at
- WHATEVER position you have to to achieve the desired
- manifold pressure.
-
- On a real P-39Q, there aren't any markings on the
- throttle to indicate 100% power (or any other
- setting). That's because 100% power (or any other
- setting) varies with altitude. The only markings
- that exist on the throttle (besides the word
- "throttle") are the words "Closed" at the bottom of
- the throttle, and "Open" at the top.

Not entirely true. From the section of the manual you referred me to earlier:

"A take-off stop is located approximately at the top of the throttle quadrant to indicate the proper setting for take-off. This stop may be released by raising the metal clip at the base of the knob and pushing the lever forward."

Clearly this stop is separate from the WEP wire stop. What if we consider the take-off power stop 100% and exceeding it entering the realm of 100%+?

-
- I use the throttle argument because the manifold
- pressure gauge doesn't work in the FB P-39Q. But I
- happen to know that in real life, 100% throttle at
- sea level in the P-39Q makes for take-off power,
- which is higher than military power. Therefore, at
- sea level, I can make some correlation between
- throttle position and power developed.
-
- I don't know what Oleg has done. Gibbage's remarks
- were vague. If the Manifold Pressure Gauge worked,
- then the "###% throttle" message we see would become
- irrelevant. Again, because throttle position is
- incidental to manifold pressure. And Manifold
- Pressure is THE measure of power, not throttle
- position.

I don't know what Oleg has done either, but I think for consistency's sake it is appropiate to compare the best climb achievable in game at 100% throttle to the best climb achievable in test data without resorting to some form of emergency power.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 06:02 AM
SkyChimp wrote:

- That's the rub. Without that working manifold
- pressure gauge you can't tell for sure. But at this
- moment, I suspect there is some correlation between
- in-game operation and the parameters specified in
- the manual, whether or not Oleg intended it. This
- game would seem to me to be rather arcadish if in
- fact there were no correlation.
-


Even with working manifold pressure gauge it wouldn't make any difference. AFAIK the gauges are only "dressing on a cake" and do not show power output.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 06:08 AM
One other tester just put Q-1 through it's paces(at 95%) and Ok'd it. That is why I didn't argue about overmodelling the plane, nobody I know hadn't tested it. And According to Oleg Q-10 should be better than Q-1 because of the better prop and reduced weight.


But there is still one big thing that really disturbs me here, the lack of data. SC, do you have any report of testflights, or is the manual all you have? What does the much queted America's Hundred Thousand say?



-jippo

adlabs6
10-14-2003, 06:17 AM
Jippo01 wrote:
- Even with working manifold pressure gauge it
- wouldn't make any difference. AFAIK the gauges are
- only "dressing on a cake" and do not show power
- output.

Looking at guage operation in this code revision, this is true. If this is all that the guages will ever be treated as, then I am truly dismayed.

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 06:38 AM
Starting with a specific throttle setting at the beginning of the climb and adding throttle through the climb? I've never heard of that before? Usually you apply throttle at the beginning of your climb, usually maximum (depends on the engine), and hold it there throughout the climb to obtain best rate of climb, not applying throttle throughout, since you would get an inefficient initial climbrate.

rgds

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 06:49 AM
As you climb, the air thins. This means you need ajust the engine accordingly to maintain the optimum climb speed.

jmmoric wrote:
- Starting with a specific throttle setting at the
- beginning of the climb and adding throttle through
- the climb? I've never heard of that before? Usually
- you apply throttle at the beginning of your climb,
- usually maximum (depends on the engine), and hold it
- there throughout the climb to obtain best rate of
- climb, not applying throttle throughout, since you
- would get an inefficient initial climbrate.
-
- rgds
-
-



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 06:54 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- As you climb, the air thins. This means you need
- ajust the engine accordingly to maintain the optimum
- climb speed.


No. Throttle to 100% or 110% depending which one you are testing. This will keep engine ATA until the rated altitude (is that the correct english term?).


Do not adjust throttle while climbing, it renders your results absolutely useless.


But do reduce climbing speed as you go up. For example 290km/h until 3000m, and then 10km/h less for every climbed kilometer.

<If you are trying to compare with a test, use the exact speeds mentioned in the test for their respective altitudes.>


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 08:16 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- As you climb, the air thins. This means you need
- ajust the engine accordingly to maintain the optimum
- climb speed.

Right about that, but that adjustment isn't made using the throttle, when the air thins you get less air into the engine and has to lower the amount of fuel pumped through the carburattor to get the right mixture, this is done using the mixture-handle, not the throttle.

The throttle stays, the mixture is adjusted while climbing.

And before starting the climb, you give the engine a richer mixture than usual to cool the engine when climbing.

rgds

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 11:57 AM
Chimp, you're making wrong conclusions, I am sorry.

- In a real P-39Q, if you wanted to conduct a Combat
- Power climb to 25,000 feet, you are only going to be
- able to maintain combat power up to the rated
- altitude for that condition.
-
- In otherwords, you set your throttle at sea level so
- that you obtain 57"hg. As you climb, that manifold
- pressure begins to drop. You have to increase the
- throttle position as you climb (that's why there is
- a range) to compensate for the drop in manifold
- pressure.

Your throttle position effectively adjusts the wastegate. The blower is not able to provide more than that never mind what you do (unless you start pushing more rpm). So effectively down on the deck your supercharger is blowing the air out of the wastegate providing more than you need with any throttle position less than full throttle.

You see it's a pressure valve, it's not a control to supercharger speed or delivery (not in the most cases, if holding constant rpm). The rated altitude means that the stuff is not coming any more. So it does not help to wank the throttle and try to set the wastegate on even a higher pressure value if it can't open it on the lower. So theoretically if you fly at rated altitude for 44.5"Hg pushing the throttle is not going to increase MP anymore it may even sink because you effectively increase the flow through the carburetor but can't charge anymore. I suggest you look carefully at couple of power curves from Focke-Wulf where you see the gain from Erh√¬∂hte Notleistung vs. Steig- und Kampfleistung over altitude. These two ratings meet at the rated altitude of Steig- und Kampfleistung. FW because the curves I have seen are clearest available. If you have one for P-39's Allison, please post.


- All power settings, except take-off power (which is
- a single s.l. throttle setting and s.l. manifold
- pressure) has a rated altitude. In the case of the
- P-39Q, those are as follows:
-
- Normal Power (39" hg)-------14,000 feet
- Military Power (44.5")-----15,500 feet
- Take-Off Power (50.5" hg)-----sea level
- Combat Power (57" hg)-------9,700 feet
-

Ahm, why would 50.5‚? "Hg have lower critical alt as even a higher pressure? rpm is the same...

- You can do this in normal power, too. And you can
- see it in the P-39Q-1 manual. Look at this:
-

This shows nothing more than that the engine can run with full throttle continuously. (Its max. continuous power), it's also logical the power output and thus thermal loading is sinking with altitude. In FB admittedly this works even in the opposite way, overheating seems to happen easier in a higher altitude.


- Now I fully understand that accoding to Gibbage,
- 100% throttle according to Oleg is military power,
- and that perhaps he got the P-39Q in FB RIGHT BY
- ACCIDENT, but nevertheless, it seems to be more
- correct than wrong.

You see you would be indicating that one would have to progressively start with 100% power setting and then increase that to 110% while climbing, linearly to 110% at 15,500 ft. What would you think P-39 would do? Would you think that it a) climbs worse than holding constant 100% or b) better. This would put that right by accident into an interesting light. I think you're being a bit liberal with that sort of remarks given that you make some quite untrue statements. To me it seems mostly right by construction (excluding MP indications and some overheating peculiarities and excluding that 100% produces better results than in the manual).

If you read that to this point with thought I think you should think very hard on one particular issue: the wire.

Yes, the wire is indicating something, isn't it. Now what your idea for standard procedure would be suggesting is that anytime flying towards 15,500 ft setting military power would mean breaking that wire. Yes, I know the wire is not expensive but would be rather annoying to put always new wires after every combat sortie.

If you don't believe me, e-mail your stuff to Oleg and let us know about his reply.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 12:04 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
-
- Yes, the wire is indicating something, isn't it. Now
- what your idea for standard procedure would be
- suggesting is that anytime flying towards 15,500 ft
- setting military power would mean breaking that
- wire. Yes, I know the wire is not expensive but
- would be rather annoying to put always new wires
- after every combat sortie.


Not to mention that the engine will go through non scheduled maintenance everytime the wire is cut. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 12:37 PM
Too bad we can't find someone who flew the real thing. Then we could clear this up.

But some of you would say it's anecdotal, and use the performance figures that back your particular bent in this.


Is it any wonder that more and more people are dropping IL2/FB like a hot potato?

Gentlemen this is the real problem we face. More and more people are FED UP with this sim because the FMs constantly change. Seeming only due to political reasons. Half of my squad won't even touch it anymore.

We need CONSISTANT flight models. Not new ones every frigging patch.

I love history and historic aircraft as much as anyone here, but this constant bickering MUST STOP!!!

You are KILLING this sim, wether you realize it or not, you are.

Ever wondered why Oleg never comes here anymore?

Think about it.

And please, this is not a personal jab at anyone. We are all guilty in greater or lesser degree here. There are many examples of over/under modelled aircraft in the sim, and the list changes with each patch. If we could just settle on a consistant FM package, things would be better for everyone.

S!

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence


Message Edited on 10/14/0309:57AM by ElAurens

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 12:54 PM
Ugly, there is no waste gate on a supercharged engine(turbo charged yes). If there was you would be blowing the air/fuel mixture out into the engine compartment. Not a good thing./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The carb is on the input side of the supercharger.


Ugly_Kid wrote:

-
- Your throttle position effectively adjusts the
- wastegate. The blower is not able to provide more
- than that never mind what you do (unless you start
- pushing more rpm). So effectively down on the deck
- your supercharger is blowing the air out of the
- wastegate providing more than you need with any
- throttle position less than full throttle.
-
-

The throttle lever might be postioned at its maximum position of its range of movement but the intake butterfly valves would only open enough to allow the maximum allowable MP. see pg 64 of "Allied A/C Piston Engines of WW2" by G. White.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 02:16 PM
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-39.html

I don't know if this link has been posted. Just as a note for some, there is no horsepower gauge in an a/c. My C-130 engines fly using tubine inlet tempurature and torque. Fuel manifold pressure seems like a good indication of how much coal is being put on the fire of a piston job. Hope this info helps this get resolved.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 06:20 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- The throttle lever might be postioned at its maximum
- position of its range of movement but the intake
- butterfly valves would only open enough to allow the
- maximum allowable MP. see pg 64 of "Allied A/C
- Piston Engines of WW2" by G. White.
-

Mind scanning the pic I don't feel like buying the book for it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ?

Anyway what's your pick? A) You have to add constantly throttle in order to maintain boost and press the throttle all the way through the gate and once it drops below any particular value it's the rated alt for that like Chimp says or B) rated alt is the altitude where the pressure can't be maintained by supercharger anymore. Effectively meaning that if I select 100% throttle ~44.5 "Hg on SL I still have the throttle lever in the same position at the rated alt and then the pressure starts dropping.

You know it's already his second or third suggestion how to interpret the stuff. First he says it should climb like the figures in the manual with 80-85% throttle and now he says start with 100% and increase that linearly to 110% towards 14,000 ft that's how it should climb according to the manual. But absolutely not by choosing 100%, keeping it and going for that. That's quite a quessimate range to authoratively advice a) you should note this before you complain about P-39 climb b) they got it right by accident.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 11:26 PM
Jippo01 wrote:

- Even with working manifold pressure gauge it
- wouldn't make any difference. AFAIK the gauges are
- only "dressing on a cake" and do not show power
- output.
-
-
--jippo


That would be a real shame.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 11:29 PM
jmmoric wrote:
- Starting with a specific throttle setting at the
- beginning of the climb and adding throttle through
- the climb? I've never heard of that before?

Yes, you have to. othewise the manifold pressure you develope at sea level goes down as you climb. you compensate for that by increasing throttle.



- Usually
- you apply throttle at the beginning of your climb,
- usually maximum (depends on the engine), and hold it
- there throughout the climb to obtain best rate of
- climb, not applying throttle throughout, since you
- would get an inefficient initial climbrate.
-
- rgds

We're not talking about a "best" climb rate here. We're talking about a Military Power climb rate. To make a military power climb rate, you climb at military power.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 11:39 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- Gibbage1 wrote:
-- As you climb, the air thins. This means you need
-- ajust the engine accordingly to maintain the optimum
-- climb speed.

Bad advice, Gibbage.



- No. Throttle to 100% or 110% depending which one you
- are testing.

No, throttle to whatever power setting you wish to climb at, ie Normal, Military or Combat. Manifold pressure determines where you start, not throttle position. It appears to be this way in FB as well. Watch your manifold pressure gauge as you climb. It drops as you go up (one of the few things it does right).



- This will keep engine ATA until the
- rated altitude

No, it won't. As soon as you start to climb, manifold pressure begins to drop. It DOES NOT remain constant at a constant throttle setting. You MUST move the throttle forward to compensate for it.



(is that the correct english term?).

No. ATA is a German termn. American use manifold pressure, British use boost in pounds.




- Do not adjust throttle while climbing, it renders
- your results absolutely useless.

Actually, this rendered you numbers useless. Because you are not climbing at the power rating to be measured.



- But do reduce climbing speed as you go up. For
- example 290km/h until 3000m, and then 10km/h less
- for every climbed kilometer.

No, you do not. You maintain climbing speed. Best climb rate for the P-39Q was 175 mph IAS. This could be maintained up to rated altitude as long as maniffold pressure kept up. Look at the chart in the manua. That's wht it listes 175 mph IAS all the way up to 15,000 feet, and 145 mph IAS at 25,000. That's because 25,000 feet is above rated altitude and the plane can not achieve that 175 mph IAS - because the power is not there.



- <If you are trying to compare with a test, use the
- exact speeds mentioned in the test for their
- respective altitudes.>
-
-
--jippo

Most climb charts don't give you a climb speed, only a climb rate. You sort of have to figure out the best speed on your own. But the manual gives you both. In this case, for Military Power.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 12:13 AM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
- Chimp, you're making wrong conclusions, I am sorry.

Ok, tell me.



- Your throttle position effectively adjusts the
- wastegate. The blower is not able to provide more
- than that never mind what you do (unless you start
- pushing more rpm). So effectively down on the deck
- your supercharger is blowing the air out of the
- wastegate providing more than you need with any
- throttle position less than full throttle.
-
- You see it's a pressure valve, it's not a control to
- supercharger speed or delivery (not in the most
- cases, if holding constant rpm). The rated altitude
- means that the stuff is not coming any more. So it
- does not help to wank the throttle and try to set
- the wastegate on even a higher pressure value if it
- can't open it on the lower. So theoretically if you
- fly at rated altitude for 44.5"Hg pushing the
- throttle is not going to increase MP anymore it may
- even sink because you effectively increase the flow
- through the carburetor but can't charge anymore. I
- suggest you look carefully at couple of power curves
- from Focke-Wulf where you see the gain from Erh√¬∂hte
- Notleistung vs. Steig- und Kampfleistung over
- altitude. These two ratings meet at the rated
- altitude of Steig- und Kampfleistung. FW because the
- curves I have seen are clearest available. If you
- have one for P-39's Allison, please post.

Wastegate? Ugly, the P-39 does not have a wastegate. A wastegate is a feature on the turbosupercharged P-47. It is used to vent exhaust gas before it reaches the turbine. And it is NOT controlled by the throtte. Again, like on all American WWII fighters, the throttle controls manifold pressure. On the P-47, the throttle controls manifold pressure, and a control unit mounted on the firewall automatically controls the wastegate to mainatin manifold pressure.



- Ahm, why would 50.5‚? "Hg have lower critical alt as
- even a higher pressure? rpm is the same...

Because 50.5" hg and 3000 rpm is a TAKE_OFF power. It's used at take off. Take off is done at sea level.



- This shows nothing more than that the engine can run
- with full throttle continuously.

The only time the plane can run continuously at full throttle is at high altitude when full throttle developes a power with no time limit, ie less than military power.



(Its max.
- continuous power), it's also logical the power
- output and thus thermal loading is sinking with
- altitude. In FB admittedly this works even in the
- opposite way, overheating seems to happen easier in
- a higher altitude.

Overheating occurs at high altitude in FB even when it shoudl not. I agree here.



- You see you would be indicating that one would have
- to progressively start with 100% power setting and
- then increase that to 110% while climbing, linearly
- to 110% at 15,500 ft.

No, you continue to confuse throttle setting with developed power. As stated earlier, throttle position is incidental to manifold pressure. If you want to climb at military power, you set your throttle to develope 44.5" hg. Whether it developes it at 50%, 75%, 85%, 100% or 105% throittle is irrelevant. Manifold pressure and RPM define the power setting, NOT throttle position.

But you can correlate throttle position to manifold pressure **to some degree** at sea level, because you know the wire is at the 100% of the throttle's normal range of motion. And at the wire is Take-Off Power.



- What would you think P-39
- would do? Would you think that it a) climbs worse
- than holding constant 100% or b) better. This would
- put that right by accident into an interesting
- light.

I don't know if English is your first language, but I don't quite understand your question.

Maintaining manifold pressure as you climb requires a continuous increase in throttle. If you want to climb at military power, you climb at 44.5" hg and 3000 rpm. You can't just set the throttle to some point and maintain that - becasue manifold pressure drops as you increase your altitude.



- I think you're being a bit liberal with that
- sort of remarks given that you make some quite
- untrue statements.

Untrue? I think it is you that misunderstands. The "wastegate" remark is quite a besic error. If you believe the P-39 has a wastegate, I suppose your other misconceptions are are rather minor in comparison.



- To me it seems mostly right by
- construction (excluding MP indications and some
- overheating peculiarities and excluding that 100%
- produces better results than in the manual).

100% produces better results than in the manual. Ok. IU've tried to explain why that is. Re-peruse the thread.



- If you read that to this point with thought I think
- you should think very hard on one particular issue:
- the wire.
-
- Yes, the wire is indicating something, isn't it. Now
- what your idea for standard procedure would be
- suggesting is that anytime flying towards 15,500 ft
- setting military power would mean breaking that
- wire. Yes, I know the wire is not expensive but
- would be rather annoying to put always new wires
- after every combat sortie.

That's absolutely correct.

Everytime you apply full throttle, push it until it won't go any further, you break the wire. If you do that at low altitude, you will generate Combat Power (57" hg) and the engine may need special servicing after landing.

But if you do it at 30,000 feet, you will never get up to Combat power - at best you will produce will be around 26" hg. And that is well below even normal power, the power that can be used with no limit.

A broken wire means the technician needs to determine the circumstances under which it was broken.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 12:16 AM
Ugly_Kid wrote:


- Anyway what's your pick? A) You have to add
- constantly throttle in order to maintain boost and
- press the throttle all the way through the gate and
- once it drops below any particular value it's the
- rated alt for that like Chimp says or B) rated alt
- is the altitude where the pressure can't be
- maintained by supercharger anymore. Effectively
- meaning that if I select 100% throttle ~44.5 "Hg on
- SL I still have the throttle lever in the same
- position at the rated alt and then the pressure
- starts dropping.


A is sort of right, but not worded well. Rated Altitude is the maximum altitude at which you can develope a specific power. In the case of Military Power, 15,500 feet is the rated altitude. At anythign over that, you can not dewvelope additional power because there is no throttle travel left.



- You know it's already his second or third suggestion
- how to interpret the stuff. First he says it should
- climb like the figures in the manual with 80-85%
- throttle and now he says start with 100% and
- increase that linearly to 110% towards 14,000 ft
- that's how it should climb according to the manual.
- But absolutely not by choosing 100%, keeping it and
- going for that. That's quite a quessimate range to
- authoratively advice a) you should note this before
- you complain about P-39 climb b) they got it right
- by accident.

I've been entirely consistent throughout this thread. But you have demoinstrated a lack of knowledge about the P-39. I point you back to your "wastegate" comment. There is no wastegate on the P-39.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 12:27 AM
Here is a power chart for the Allison V-1710-81. I don't have a similar chart for the -85, but this one will do. The only difference is the manifold pressure at combat power. Everything else, including rated altitudes int ehr same.

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/chart.jpg


Look at what I have high lighted.

The line leading from the left to right that is highlighted in yellow represent a Military Power Climb (44.5" hg at 3000 rpm) from sea level to 15,500 feet. As you follow the line from left to right, imagine pushing the throttle as you go. At 15,500 feet, you are at full throttle with no where else to go. The manifold pressure begins to fall as you continue to climb.


(BTW...the line climbs from left to right indicating increasing brake horse power. This is because air temperature drops as altitude increases, and cold air helps to develope more power. You always develope max BHP at the rated altitude.)


Look at the that rightmost angled line. That line represents FULL THROTTLE Manifold Pressures. It's on the chart. I highlighted it.


Ugly, when you climb on Military Power, you do not do it at a constant throttle setting. And when you get to rated altitude, you DO NOT have throttle left over. Otherwise, you are not at tated altitude.

If you want to maintian a constan power as you cvlimb, you MUST move the throttle to keeps the manifold pressure up. Once you can no longer do that, you are at the rated altitude for that power. After rated altitude, power goes downhill.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/15/0303:30AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 05:13 AM
There is an automated boost control though as indicated by Milo, I used wastegate for the want of the word, the need for the device is nevertheless the same. If the device works sensitively on each selected MP (monitoring throttle position) going 110% at rated altitude for 100% is not going to do a thing. Automatic boost control has already opened it for you.

Here is a bit from the book that Milo tipped:

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/Merlin1.jpg

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/merlin2.jpg


You see even the highest boost has rated altitude, not much but it's there. 9000 ft, density is already 22% lower. would you effectively say once going WEP on SL you push the throttle almost to the firewall but not quite?

What I was trying to tell to you is that you come close to the values in the manual by holding 100% during the climb. What you suggest is that a correct procedure to obtain the numbers in the manual is that instead of being on 100% throttle in 5000 m like now, I should be in 110%. If it's done like that P-39 overperforms quite drastically I'm afraid.


-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 06:00 AM
SC, I think you will keep arguin no matter you are being told. Let's hold it here, I have my opinions and you have your opinions.

I see absolutely no future in this.


-jippo



Message Edited on 10/15/0306:46AM by Jippo01

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 07:02 AM
I don't know, he's suggesting a complete lack of boost regulation. If there was no such thing in P-39, for example, then the climb to 5km has to be performed with applying the throttle and in that case it climbs better than it should in the game. Well this is of course slowed down by the overheating.

It would mean more workload and boost management to those flying the allied aircraft.

It's anyway clear that overheating issue has something funny going on. Ignoring the sinking ambient temperature, for instance.

One way or another I don't see CEM getting another face-lift.

I don't buy the wire stuff though, going through the gate, or breaking the wire is always described as a sort of dramatic last resort act./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 07:49 AM
Yes I know what he trying to tell us, and it may be so, as I'm far from being P-39 expert. But I have hard time believing it could be so primitive plane.

It wouldn't help the performance either...

And as said I don't buy going through the wire either for normal climbs, or even little "abnormal" ones either. Wire is a seal for the mechanics, and when the seal is broken, engine is heading to maintenance.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 08:00 AM
Obviously this is not my area of expertise, but I think the point SC is making is that the P39 has no supercharger whatsoever, so in effect, there is no boost control, there can't be because there is no boost. The only control for MAP is the throttle.

In British guages they like to show boost pressure, they measure the manifold pressure in terms of how much greater (or less) than the atmosphere is the pressure in the manifold. In a normally aspirated engine it is not possible for MAP to be greater than atmospheric pressure, hence boost will always be <=0.

With a supercharged engine you can have automated supercharger controls (like a wastegate) to regulate manifold pressure independantly of the throttle, linking these controls to the throttle allows the throttle to control boost pressure, but with automated systems to prevent overboost no matter the throttle setting. Without a supercharger only the throttle controls manifold pressure, and the only way to prevent too high a pressure would be if there were some intermediate system between the throttle lever and the actual throttle. I doubt a normally aspirated engine would incorporate such a system as there is not the danger there is with a supercharged system (if you break the wire at sea level and use WOT on takeoff you may damage the engine, but it will not literally explode. with a supercharged system a severe overboost condition can cause the engine to literally explode, at least it can with car engines).

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 10:02 AM
Cajun76 you are correct, engine power output is controlled by fuel to air ratio and manifold pressure used in conjunction. Fortunatly, while the (fuel to air) to power ratio for a given manifold pressure is not linear, it does have a large, relatively flat region, where minor variations in fuel to air ratio have little effect on power output.

Now, for a given fuel to air ratio, the Manifold pressure to power ratio is highly linear, so if we can deterimine the horsepower out put, for a given fuel flow, and a given manifold pressure, it is very easy to extrapolate the power output for the same fuel to air ratio, and a different manifold pressure.

Engine temperature, however, is not directly related to engine power output. At higher power outputs, the engine does tend to have a higher temperature, due to higher energy density, and the effects of detonation, however, it is quite possible to melt an engine with low power settings as well. Unfortunatly, most research in that area stopped in the late fifties, so it's a largely missunderstood area.

On a side note, it is quite possible to damage an engine in such a way, that the effects do not occure until the second or third starting afterwards. Running a cylinder block at to high a pressure is quite capable of causing stress fractures, without ever overheating an engine. Having an engine pop in flight is a Bad Thing (tm), and as I understand, the Allison engines were rather lightly built, when compaired to other engines of similare displacement, and power output for a given manifold pressure. (i.e They weighed 300 lb less than the Merlins, despite both engines having nearly the same displacement, and producing similare power, for given manifold pressures.) This would imply that the earlier Allisons were significantly more suceptable to overstressing.

That would also explain what Golodnikov meant when he said, you could fly the aircraft to kill 109s and 190s, or you could fly it to achieve 120 hours of engine life. It also explains why the top Russian P-40 ace was killed when his aircraft's engine blew apart on take-off. Most likely the P-40 pilots were also running their engines out of specs, as well, and compromising their structual integrity.

Just to return to SkyChimps statements, I believe what he is trying to say, is that 50.5" of manifold pressure was the accepted safe operating limit for the Allison engine, and that that was most likely the power setting used to test the aircraft's performance with in official tests. However, in Il-2, we are permitted to operate our P-39's at up to 57" of manifold pressure, giving a significant increase in power, and hence performance over the offical tests for the P-39, and that, by testing the aircraft at 57" manifold pressure, and compairing it to tests using 50.5", we are unfairly judging the modelling of the aircraft in Il-2 FB.

Harry Voyager

Edit: forgot to add, the obligatory articals on engine operation, as turbo compressor operations:

Engines (4 parts):
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182081-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182082-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html

Turbo compressors, aka Turbo chargers, aka Super Chargers, aka TruboSuperchargers, aka Tubro normalisers, aka etc. etc. etc. (6 parts)
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182102-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182103-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182104-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182105-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182106-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182107-1.html

That should cover everything, in more detail than I ever could. Enjoy.

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

Message Edited on 10/15/0304:08AM by HarryVoyager

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 12:56 PM
Fillmore wrote:
- Obviously this is not my area of expertise, but I
- think the point SC is making is that the P39 has no
- supercharger whatsoever, so in effect, there is no
- boost control, there can't be because there is no
- boost. The only control for MAP is the throttle.
-

The P-39's Allison engine had a supercharger(mechanical) attached.


-
- With a supercharged engine you can have automated
- supercharger controls (like a wastegate) to regulate
- manifold pressure independantly of the throttle,
- linking these controls to the throttle allows the
- throttle to control boost pressure, but with
- automated systems to prevent overboost no matter the
- throttle setting. Without a supercharger only the
- throttle controls manifold pressure, and the only
- way to prevent too high a pressure would be if there
- were some intermediate system between the throttle
- lever and the actual throttle. I doubt a normally
- aspirated engine would incorporate such a system as
- there is not the danger there is with a supercharged
- system (if you break the wire at sea level and use
- WOT on takeoff you may damage the engine, but it
- will not literally explode. with a supercharged
- system a severe overboost condition can cause the
- engine to literally explode, at least it can with
- car engines).
-
-

In WW2, supercharged = mechanical chargers, turbocharged = turbine chargers.
...............

Ugly, thought you said you did not have the book? Where did the scans come from?



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 02:02 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Ugly, thought you said you did not have the book?
- Where did the scans come from?
-

Santa's little helpers /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 02:22 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Fillmore wrote:
-- Obviously this is not my area of expertise, but I
-- think the point SC is making is that the P39 has no
-- supercharger whatsoever, so in effect, there is no
-- boost control, there can't be because there is no
-- boost. The only control for MAP is the throttle.
--
-
- The P-39's Allison engine had a
- supercharger(mechanical) attached.


So there must be some kind of wastegate then? Otherwise high rpm at low level would rise the MAP into heavens and blow up the engine, right?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 02:24 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:

"Just to return to SkyChimps statements, I believe
what he is trying to say,....
....we are unfairly judging the modelling of the aircraft in Il-2 FB."


On my computer the subject title listed doesn't match the original post title made by SkyChimp.

The origianl post was titled:

"Please, when complaining about the P-39Q-1 climb rates..."



The Subject Title is listed in the window above this response composing window is:

"RE: A few quotes from the much vaunted Golodnikov Interview"

That may be the reason why this thread has lost it's initial theme.

Initially SkyChimp was making a report concerning this thread at SimHQ:

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004181;p=1

SkyChip wrote:

"...please make sure you are testing it properly."


SkyChimp stated his original concern:

"I've been following a thread at SimHQ wherein the author states that the P-39Q-1 in FB climbs too fast. Maybe, but the tests need to be done properly to make an accurate determination."

Notice the word "Maybe"

The original concern as stated above has led to another wild goose chase here on this board. Why did he move this subject from the SimHQ board where to this one?

I think it is because on this board SkyChimp has cheerleaders that are more than willing to massage his ego.

I think the move to this forum was simply a need of SkyChimp's to lick his wounds. He was hosed at SimHQ.

Now the original concern that inspired this post has been twisted all around into a circle jerk.

The common circle jerk that this board is apt to generate.


My point;

"If we are unfairly judging"

Who is we?

Doesn't this type of scrutiny apply to every plane?

The original concern of this post had to do with a well documented comaprison made by Cube on the SimHQ board.

Cube presented data that makes it easy to quantify the climb performance accuracy of IL2/FB.

Cube compared all the planes based upon documented test results.

Who is unfairly judging the planes?

The data speaks for itself.


More to the point:

Why is it anyones concern just how fast a P-39 will climb?

Some people are concerned with historical accuracy and the question is important in a historical context.

Some people are protecting their ego's and it pains them to think that the IL2/FB game will not allow them to dominate with their favorite plane.

If the former is your concern then why not stop jerking each other off and actually quantify the P-39s climb rate relative to the other planes being modeled in the sim?

Cube has made an initial effort to quantify cimb rate accuracy. Can all the discussion in this post be used to refine his work?

The final point:

If accuracy in combat flight simulation is going to improve then who will determine what constitutes improvement?


P.S. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Notice the smiley face.


Get real





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 06:05 PM
- Doesn't this type of scrutiny apply to every plane?

Yes, Josf, it does, however, this thread is dedicated to one aircraft, and has already generate 5 pages worth of barely managable replies. There are close to 100 flyable aircraft in Forgotten Battles. That would imply a thread trying to discuss all of them, at the same time, will likely generate over 100 pages, within short order. Very few people can follow that massive a thread.

And, just for refference, after reading through that thread, SkyChimp did not get owned, rather the thread turned into the typical mess of insults, accusations, assumtions, and missquoting that we always get over here whenever anyone debates aircraft flight modelling.

Frankly, to many people are completely assured that their opinion is correct, and utterly unwilling to consider that it could possibly be wrong, for any sort of rational debate to occure, on either of these forums.

On a side note, I am amazed a the sheer ignorance of engine operation that has been displayed. To try and compair engine setting based on how quickly the engine overheats...

Frankly, I can show well over a dozen engine settings for the P-39, with the radiator fully open, where the engine will overheat, but the aircraft's performance will be far poorer than that in Cube's charts.

Any takers?

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

Message Edited on 10/15/0312:26PM by HarryVoyager

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 07:07 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- On a side note, I am amazed a the sheer ignorance of
- engine operation that has been displayed. To try
- and compair engine setting based on how quickly the
- engine overheats...


I guess this means me.

I'm not an engine expert by all means. I do know something about Otto and Diesel engines though, but just somethings a normal layman would. I could take one apart, and put it together, but only barely.

I also know something about cooling and overheat effects etc..

BUT the point about engine overheat in my posts refers to game mechanics. This simulator is a huge simplification of complex real world events, and in this sim there is only ONE way to damage engine without external action, and that is overheat. So if you over-rev an engine in the game you don't get the valves popping out manifold nor do you get exploded engine blocks, you get overheat and then engine damage.

Overheating on my behalf refers only to the game and it's way of modeling things. I have said it many times in this thread and said it again now.

I am talking about how something is SIMULATED in a game, and if it is correct or not. That is not ignorance, that is explaining how the game works.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 07:20 PM
And where are the quotes of real performance? America's Hundred Thousand? Anything? Anything else than the manual?

It is getting quite ridiculous, because nobody wants to post any reference except the manual. It is the third time I'm asking for it...


-jippo

ZG77_Nagual
10-15-2003, 07:25 PM
I think we don't have much on the p39 - american's werent' all that interested in it. I am sure Oleg has some interesting data - but may be unable to release it.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 07:29 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:

- And, just for refference, after reading through that
- thread, SkyChimp did not get owned, rather the
- thread turned into the typical mess of insults,
- accusations, assumtions, and missquoting that we
- always get over here whenever anyone debates
- aircraft flight modelling.


And why did it turn in to that? SC second post in that thread:

"I think when one has the intention of comparing simulated plane performance to the performance of planes in real life, some effort should be expended to determine just how those planes in real life performed."

He himself didn't spend any effort in trying to study the planes in the sim. He just came in and said "You is wrong!" I think considering the effort Cube put into that thread, that could be an insult already!

Another quote from the same post:

"But it appears many of the posts here are simply part of an agenda."


Do I need to say more?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 09:32 PM
If SkyChimp's intent of this post was to expose error in judgment concerning accuracy in simulation with respect to Cube's comparative climb performance presentation then what is missing is a better example of accurate documented climb performance. SkyChimp is merely whining. Those defending SkyChimp without offering a better example of comparitive climb performance are doing what?

Cube has presented an easy to read climb performance comparision between real life and in game values for some of the games primary fighter planes.

Cube's work allows anyone to check for themselves how well or how badly IL2/FB has accurately modeled relative climb performance.

Relative climb performance is important because IL2/FB is a combat flight simulator, therefore it is more important to get relative performance values correct than is is to get absolute values correct for any one plane.

For example, anyone can take a historical matchup such as;

190A5 vs Yak9U

From here:
http://www.il2sturmovik.com/games_elts/fb_aircraft.php
Can be found these numbers published by Ubisoft

190A5 1943
Weight 4,000
Power 1,460/1,800
Wing area 18.609
Climb time to 5,000m 6.4min

Yak9U 1943
Weight 3,204
Power 1,500
Wing area 17.15
Cimb time to 5,000m 5min

In the past someone could take the Ubisoft performance numbers and with some calculation they could figure out how well these planes match up in the game. The player can then tailor tactical considerations based upon known strengths and weaknesses by this relative performance comparison.

Are those numbers historically accurate and did those numbers reflect actual game performance?

Example of Ubisoft numbers compared for tactical consideration:
http://home1.gte.net/res0l0yx/sustained%20turn%20technique.htm

Now thanks to those who have produced IL2compare it is possible to see in game performance comparisons at a glance.

What is yet undefined (except for Cube's work) is to quantify in game performance relative to historical performance.

Now the Historical WWII Combat simulator enthusiast can not only compare in game relative performance variables with IL2comapre, but they can also compare those relative performance capabilities with historical reference.

Where in the past one had to rely upon Ubisofts web page and or personal research in order to quantify the level of accurate simulation now IL2compare takes out the guess work when considering if UBisoft published values reflected in game capabilities, and with Cube's work, at least some of the in game capabilities can now be checked against real documented performance test results.

Example:

190A5
http://www.zmogausteises.lt/fb/FW190climb.jpg

source[ ]http://www.zmogausteises.lt/fb/FW190A5.gif] (http://www.zmogausteises.lt/fb/FW190A5.gif)

Yak 9U
http://www.zmogausteises.lt/fb/yak9uclimb.jpg

source[ ]http://www.zmogausteises.lt/fb/103.jpg] (http://www.zmogausteises.lt/fb/103.jpg)


The Historical WWII combat flight sim enthusiast can readily see with the above information that:

A.In the game the 109A5 is going to be in a lot of trouble even if the FW pilot uses Max power and the Yak9U pilot only uses 100% power.

B.The Yak9U although listed on the Ubisite as a 1943 plane and listed in the game as a 1944 plane is compared to a FW190A8 and FW190D-9 on the reference document dated 1945.
These two planes may not be a historically relevant matchup.

C.The documented Yak9U out climbs the documented 190A5 when both are at 100% power at all altitudes.



Why is information like this important?

The historical WWII combat flight sim enthusiast is likely to have a backround of study that has contributed to his perception of how these planes should matchup in combat. When the game does not reflect this educated perception then it is good to have information to clarify the perceived error.

For example:

http://www.airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm

"A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, how do you see the I-16 in comparison with the Bf-109F and FW-190?"

"N. G. I did not have occasion to fight much in the I-16, but I can relay the opinion of my comrades."

"The type-28 and -29 were arguably equal to the Bf-109F, perhaps a little bit behind. The remaining I-16 types, of course, were not even close. The F model appeared in the north in large numbers in November 1942. Before that time we saw primarily the E model. The I-16 type-28 and -29 fell behind the F model in maximum speed and vertical maneuver, but surpassed the F model in horizontal maneuver and armament. The F model was very capable in vertical maneuver. If he even thought you were going to catch him, the pilot gave it more throttle and broke away."

"The FW-190 appeared at approximately the same time as the Bf-109F, sometime in October 1942. It was a powerful fighter. The 190 surpassed the I-16 in every respect, perhaps, except horizontal maneuver. But by this time our Yaks and lend-lease P-40s and P-39s were arriving in large numbers."


If someone played IL2/FB and found that the 109F4 could not open the throttle and break away from an I-16 he is now able to open IL2compare and see that below 2,000 meters the I-16 can out climb the 109F4 by a wide margin.

He can also check if Cube's documented evidence supports the IL2/FB modeling.

If he wants the player can also check to see if anyone has come up with any better climb performance comparisons with even better documentation.





JG14_Josf

Message Edited on 10/15/0308:40PM by JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 01:40 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- jmmoric wrote:
-- Starting with a specific throttle setting at the
-- beginning of the climb and adding throttle through
-- the climb? I've never heard of that before?
-
- Yes, you have to. othewise the manifold pressure
- you develope at sea level goes down as you climb.
- you compensate for that by increasing throttle.
-

Agreed, you would have to give the throttle a notch from time to time to maintain manifold pressure, that's wel-known physics, I was reffering to the fact that a pilot would do that throughout the climb and I don't think so, but I've never flown the P-39 in real life.

In my opinion you only set the throttle once to get "military power" throughout altitudes and for one specific altitude the manifold pressure is 57 hg, for the others it varies (or you would not be able to select "military power" above a surden level)? Like a specific throttle setting for take-off (meaning, if the airfield was located on a mountain you wouldn't come near the pressure given in the tabel)

All I'm saying is, in my opinion, military power is one setting and it doesn't vary through altitudes, but if it does I guess it must be described in the "How to fly the P-39"-book (which I don't have).

rgds

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 01:45 AM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
- There is an automated boost control though as
- indicated by Milo...

That might be relevant, Ugly, if the P-39Q were powered by a Merlin with a two stage, two-speed supercharger. But it ain't. It's powered by an Allision V-1710 with a single stage, single speed supercharger.

Single speed, Ugly. The pilot had no control over it. It spun at a fixed ratio.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 01:47 AM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
- I don't know, he's suggesting a complete lack of
- boost regulation. If there was no such thing in
- P-39, for example, then the climb to 5km has to be
- performed with applying the throttle and in that
- case it climbs better than it should in the game.
- Well this is of course slowed down by the
- overheating.
-
- It would mean more workload and boost management to
- those flying the allied aircraft.
-
- It's anyway clear that overheating issue has
- something funny going on. Ignoring the sinking
- ambient temperature, for instance.
-
- One way or another I don't see CEM getting another
- face-lift.
-
- I don't buy the wire stuff though, going through the
- gate, or breaking the wire is always described as a
- sort of dramatic last resort act./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
--------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif
-

It's true, the P-39Q pilot had no direct control over the supercharger. As I stated, it ran at all times the engine was on, at a fixed ratio. The only way to control engine power was the use of the throttle.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:05 AM
Jippo01 wrote:

- So there must be some kind of wastegate then?
- Otherwise high rpm at low level would rise the MAP
- into heavens and blow up the engine, right?
-
-
--jippo
-
-

No, there is no wastegate, and yes, you can "over throttle" the plane to a manifold pressure in excess of it max rating.

Every power setting has a throttle range. Every power setting can be achieved at sea level, and it can be maintained up to that power's rated (critical) altitude.

As stated, the P-39Q's rated altitudes were as follows:

War Emergency (Combat) Power (57.0 "hg)---- 9,700 feet
Military Power (44.5" hg) ------------------ 15,500 feet

That means that Combat power is achieved at less than full throttle at sea level, and at full throttle at 9,700 feet.

Military power is also achieved at less than full throttle (much less) at sea level, and at full throttle at 15,500 feet.

In a real P-39Q, if you push your throttle all the way forward at sea level, or any altitude BELOW 9,700 feet, you will develope MORE than Combat Power (a manifold pressure of more than 57.0" hg), a destructive condition that will lead to over heating and detonation.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:06 AM
HarryVoyager wrote:

- On a side note, I am amazed a the sheer ignorance of
- engine operation that has been displayed.

Amen. But then again, some people don't really care to learn about the historical operation of an engine.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:11 AM
jmmoric wrote:

- Agreed, you would have to give the throttle a notch
- from time to time to maintain manifold pressure,
- that's wel-known physics, I was reffering to the
- fact that a pilot would do that throughout the climb
- and I don't think so, but I've never flown the P-39
- in real life.
-
-
- In my opinion you only set the throttle once to get
- "military power" throughout altitudes and for one
- specific altitude the manifold pressure is 57 hg,
- for the others it varies (or you would not be able
- to select "military power" above a surden level)?
- Like a specific throttle setting for take-off
- (meaning, if the airfield was located on a mountain
- you wouldn't come near the pressure given in the
- tabel)
-
-
- All I'm saying is, in my opinion, military power is
- one setting and it doesn't vary through altitudes,
- but if it does I guess it must be described in the
- "How to fly the P-39"-book (which I don't have).
-
-
- rgds


Here, maybe some excerpts from the book:

"Vee's For Victory!: The Story of the Allison V-1710 Aircraft Engine 1929-1948"
Daniel D. Whitney
ISBN: 0764305611

I scanned the pages, lest the unconvinced claim I missquoted:


http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/page1.jpg


and this

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/page2.jpg

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/page3.jpg



See? You select the power (manifold pressure) at sea level. And as you climb, you increase the throttle to maintain that power. Once you reach the end of the throttle, you are at the critical altitude and the power begins to fall off.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/16/0305:15AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:12 AM
I admite my statement was overly harsh.

However, damage caused by minor overpressure would have little or no effect on an engine during a given flight. It is only when an engine has been run over pressure for several flights that damage occures, and it is often instantanious, and catastrophic. There is no overheat, little warning, simply the engine throws a large chunk of itself through the cowling, firewall, or whatever else happens to be in the way of the path of the flying chunk. There is compellign evidence that overpressure damage is not modelled at all in Il-2 or Forgotten Battles, due to it's time delayed nature.

In short, overboost damage, short of detonation, takes dozens of hours to occure. When it does, it's very very bad. If that were modelled as overheating damage, it would only add very slight levels of heat to the engine.

Now, if you overboost the engine enough to shift the timing of the combustion into detonation, then you will have noticable, and serious results immediatly after the cause.

Over-Reving damage, by compairison, is very immediate. It directly causes very high heat build ups, very quickly.

Again, the implication of the manual posted, is that the Russian pilots were running their engines well out of specification, but in a manner that did not cause immediate damage or overheat and that, in Il-2 Forgotten Battles we are doing the same thing.

However, the USAAF tests for aircraft performance, were restricted from running their aircraft in such a matter. Max Except Take Off power is not always the maximum power an engine can generate, but it is the maximum power an engine can generate without causing damage, whether immediately visible, or otherwise, to itself.

Witness, Reno air racers regularly run their engines at over 100 inches of manifold pressure, using the same, or similare cooling system used for the engines when operating at METO power, without overheating their engines. These engines typically run at two to three times their METO power rating, yet do not generate compairably greater quantities of heat. What they do generate, however, are *massive* cylinder pressures, which both stress the cylinder walls, beyond safe limits, and shift the pressure peak until it is to close to the time the cylinder has passed top dead center.

You don't get heat from that, you get stress fractures along the cylinder walls, in the crankshaft, and elseware.

You can *probably* fly an entire flight running at 10% or so over safe pressure, and not even notice it, unless the engine pops, but your mechanic will have a bloody fit, if he or she is worth their salt, because you may well have compromised the entire engine core, and to my knowledge there is no easy way to tell just how much damage has been done, until it fails.

What the manual SkyChimp posted implies is that the P-39 had throttle setting avaliable to it, that overboosted the engine. These power setting would not necessarily push the engine into detonation, or over heat it, rather they would cause faults along the cylinder blocks. The USAAF mechanics knew this, and would rip the eyes out of any USAAF pilot who used those power settings. It is less likely that the VVS mechanics were privy to the same information, and were less likely to be strict with pilots for using them. The VVS pilots would then proceed to operate their engines, well into the overboost region, without noting any overheating, or engine seizure as a result. However, Allison engines had a tendancy to break down rather spectacularly in VVS use. This was never connected to the VVS operating proceedures of the engine, however, from compairing the operating manuals, and pilot accounts posted, it seems that this was the case.

Summary:
Mild overboosting does not cause engine overheating. Neither does it cause engine damage, within a span of only a few hours of operation.

There is strong indication that
A: It is possible for a P-39 pilot to run their engine overboosted.
B: This was not used in American service, due to the long term effects (semi-random catastrophic engine failures), and was not considered a valid power setting.
C: However, in VVS service, it was very common to run the engine in full overboost, which generated poor engine reliability.

Engine reliability is not modeled in Il-2, either, or else we would be having problems with the DB605ASM series as well. Mild overboost causes problems with relaibility, not heat, or other forms of immediate damage.

My perception of the core debate: The P-39, in VVS 100-200 more hp avaliable to it, than the P-39 used in USAAF tests, due to differences in the two services operating proceedures.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:25 AM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- I admite my statement was overly harsh.
-
- However, damage caused by minor overpressure would
- have little or no effect on an engine during a given
- flight. It is only when an engine has been run over
- pressure for several flights that damage occures,
- and it is often instantanious, and catastrophic.
- There is no overheat, little warning, simply the
- engine throws a large chunk of itself through the
- cowling, firewall, or whatever else happens to be in
- the way of the path of the flying chunk. There is
- compellign evidence that overpressure damage is not
- modelled at all in Il-2 or Forgotten Battles, due to
- it's time delayed nature.


No, 5 inches more of max boosting recommended for a particular engine and fuel leads to detonation immediatelly. This candid story you just invented from your loving care for american aircraft is simply ridiculous.

Fortunatelly for all the faint at heart grannies in here, P-39Q had boost control, just like in any other late war plane. It just did not have a switch on the cockpit panel, like british planes, so it is not mentioned in pilot handbook. You can firewall the throttle in it safely at any altitude.

Early P-40 and P-39, like P-39D did not have boost control.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:27 AM
Good post, Harry.

And yes, overboost (power in excess of the rated power) was available. Here's how (I've explained it several times):

Every power rating had a critical altitude. Every power rating had a range of throttle motion at sea level up to that critical altitude.

War Emergency Power (or Combat Power) was defined as 57"hg at 3000 rpm. That power could be achieved at sea level, and reached all the way up to 9,700 feet. At sea level, that power was achieved with something less than full throttle. As you climbed, throttle was increased. At 9,700 feet the end of the throttle was reached and it could not be pushed forward any further.

Since Combat Power could be reached at less than full throttle at sea level, what would happen if you pushed the throttle all the way forward at sea level? You would develope the overboost condition Harry describes. You would develope a power in excess of Combat power (57"hg). When you do this, several things could happen: nothing, overheat, detonation...



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:29 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- No, 5 inches more of max boosting recommended for a
- particular engine and fuel leads to detonation
- immediatelly. This candid story you just invented
- from your loving care for american aircraft is
- simply ridiculous.
-
- Fortunatelly for all the faint at heart grannies in
- here, P-39Q had boost control, just like in any
- other late war plane. It just did not have a switch
- on the cockpit panel, like british planes, so it is
- not mentioned in pilot handbook. You can firewall
- the throttle in it safely at any altitude.
-
- Early P-40 and P-39, like P-39D did not have boost
- control.


Huck, first of all we have been fortunate that you have stayed out of this with your aminated anti-Americanism. I ask that you find another thread to deficate in.

Additionally, you are wrong. See my last post.

Now go away, and find another thread to spread the hate in.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:46 AM
SkyChimp wrote:

- Huck, first of all we have been fortunate that you
- have stayed out of this with your aminated
- anti-Americanism. I ask that you find another
- thread to deficate in.
-
- Additionally, you are wrong. See my last post.
-
- Now go away, and find another thread to spread the
- hate in.

Those are ugly words Skychimp, I wonder what Ven has to say about them.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:53 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Those are ugly words Skychimp, I wonder what Ven has
- to say about them.


I already alerted Vens and Rock to your comments.

Again, go somewhere else and stop with your trouble-making.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/16/0305:53AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 03:09 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- No, 5 inches more of max boosting recommended for a
- particular engine and fuel leads to detonation
- immediatelly. This candid story you just invented
- from your loving care for american aircraft is
- simply ridiculous.
-

That is incorrect. Detonation is directly caused by combustion occuring before the piston had moved far enough past TDC position. Increasing the manifold pressure does increase the rate at which the flamefront travels, but it does not necessarily push the engine immediately into severe detonation. That depends on where the piston is when Peak Pressure occures.

It's a very complex field however, and one that I am far from an expert in.

Here is an excellent artical on Detonation, and Detonation myths:

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182132-1.html

I highly recommend people read it for this debate.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 03:26 AM
Again:

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/page1.jpg


"Much higher boost pressure than the engine required to produce maximum power at sea-level."

You had to be careful with the throttle under the rated altitude for combat power - 9,700 feet. Because you could achieve more power than combat power by pushing the throttle all the way forward below this altitude. Above 9,700 feet, you could not achieve a power in excess of combat power.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 06:16 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Again:

- "Much higher boost pressure than the engine required
- to produce maximum power at sea-level."
-
- You had to be careful with the throttle under the
- rated altitude for combat power - 9,700 feet.


Thanks for clearing that out. What a b**ch it must have been to fly in to combat. I would be as dangerous to myself as enemy fire!

So basically the plane is then incorrectly modelled in the throttle department. Like are all other planes that didn't have the "wastegate" (or what ever is the correct term in English for non-turbo planes). And I bet that if an American plane didn't use a wastegate system that time, also not many Russians did. What a CEM oversight in the game!

If you are interested of more facts, another one is that detonation is not modelled. This can be checked by setting second gear and taking of at 110% in any plane with two stage charger.



Now that we have this thing sorted out, what about the climb figures? I think there is no other way out of this debate, but to use the best possible tested climb for P-39, and then see if it reaches that with full throttle or not. We cannot test any intermediate values anyway because of the game mechanics.



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 06:53 AM
Didnt you say you were not going to reply about 4 pages back? I dont wanna come down on you, but for someone who wanted to opt out of a debate, you sure keep sturring it up! Let them have there debate without your little jabs every now and then.

Gib

Jippo01 wrote:

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 07:31 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
-
- Didnt you say you were not going to reply about 4
- pages back? I dont wanna come down on you, but for
- someone who wanted to opt out of a debate, you sure
- keep sturring it up! Let them have there debate
- without your little jabs every now and then.


What is that supposed to mean?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 08:02 AM
Just ignore me, just like you should the rest of this thread.

Jippo01 wrote:
-
- Gibbage1 wrote:
--
-- Didnt you say you were not going to reply about 4
-- pages back? I dont wanna come down on you, but for
-- someone who wanted to opt out of a debate, you sure
-- keep sturring it up! Let them have there debate
-- without your little jabs every now and then.
-
-
- What is that supposed to mean?
-
-
--jippo
-
-



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 08:32 AM
And what's your contribution, Gibbage?

I thought it would be fun to do some sketching in the world according to Chimp. Effectively the guy is doing a remarkable Luftwhining job here.

Now what would it mean? Looking at the climb chart we have then 15500 ft and 44.5 "Hg, 3000 rpm, meaning full throttle according to Chimp. This provides 2600 fpm.
Goind on SL we see 3200 fpm with 44.5 inHg. Good we know the increase in power and boldly assuming power increase equals to thrust increase we get 20.5 m/s (4040 ft/min) with 57 "Hg. The rest of the figures above 15500 ft mean throttle in the firewall.

So a new P-39Q1 climb rate curve with 110% throttle in FB:

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/p39_climb.jpg


Sure looks like a nasty bit. If you then combine the 15500 ft corner point with 16.2 m/s on SL you should see military power climb.

Note, effectively I do not disagree with Chimp about rated altitude, I said it's the limit for the compressor. I think I said in the end that you don't have to increase the throttle by yourself, boost control does it for you. In this way there would be no further opening if you moved throttle from 100% to 110% (throttle has been already opened without you knowing it). Hence no need to break that precious wire. Chimp says you have to do it by yourself. Either way it seems likely that there nothing more than 44.5 "Hg coming out of the engine at 15500 ft.

And we agree about the overheating. The thermal loading, engine power sinks at altitude. So does the ambient temperature. Fine, flying with constant IAS the mass flow through a radiator is reduced but looking at mass flowxtemperature difference it favours the temperature drop saying that at about 6000 m cooling is 11% more effective. And if the engine power sinks the need for cooling is even less.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif


Message Edited on 10/16/0308:54AM by Ugly_Kid

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 08:37 AM
This is a little just a little OT but the main reason the brit's croped the supercharger on the LF spitfires ,is so it could use full throttle at SL and also why it's power dropped off almost completly above 5000ft.

No1RAAF_Pourshot
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA-15%20Kangaroo.jpg

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 09:48 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Just ignore me, just like you should the rest of
- this thread.


Really, what is your problem? You better say it right out, and not just mumble in the corner.



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 10:08 AM
Ugly_Kid wrote:


So according to Skychimp and you, we have approximately 4-5m/s too big rate of climb at 3000m with most if not all throttle settings? Am I reading this correctly?

That would be then about 30% overmodeling in FB for that altitude. And 3000 is propably the most important altitude in fighting.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 11:42 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Again:
-
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/page1.jpg
-
-
- "Much higher boost pressure than the engine required
- to produce maximum power at sea-level."
-
- You had to be careful with the throttle under the
- rated altitude for combat power - 9,700 feet.
- Because you could achieve more power than combat
- power by pushing the throttle all the way forward
- below this altitude. Above 9,700 feet, you could
- not achieve a power in excess of combat power.


Lack of boost control is a BIG disadvantage and should be modelled.
Allison's got boost control quite late, but they had it in the end. V-1710-81, 83, 85 were the first models with boost control that saw large adoption. Planes fitted with them P-39L,M,N,Q, P-40M,N and P-51A were mass produced models.
The were though some earlier variants that had boost control like P-39J but they were produced in very small numbers. So it's safe to say that earlier variants did not have boost control. For example P-40E did not have boost control, just by firewalling the throttle at sea level you should be able to knock the engine in an instant.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 12:32 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
--
-- No, 5 inches more of max boosting recommended for a
-- particular engine and fuel leads to detonation
-- immediatelly. This candid story you just invented
-- from your loving care for american aircraft is
-- simply ridiculous.
--
-
- That is incorrect. Detonation is directly caused by
- combustion occuring before the piston had moved far
- enough past TDC position. Increasing the manifold
- pressure does increase the rate at which the
- flamefront travels, but it does not necessarily push
- the engine immediately into severe detonation. That
- depends on where the piston is when Peak Pressure
- occures.
-
- It's a very complex field however, and one that I am
- far from an expert in.
-
- Here is an excellent artical on Detonation, and
- Detonation myths:
-
- <a
- href="http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182132-1.h
- tml"
- target=_blank>http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/18
- 2132-1.html</a>
-
-
- I highly recommend people read it for this debate.


The article you found there is completely irrelevant for this discussion.
What author describes there are the problems encountered in small civilian planes when the mixture is poor or lean and the power setting is high, leading to misfire, overheat and occasionaly knock.

The planes in that article are not superchargered (or turbocharged) or only mildly supercharged. The most performant piston propelled turbocharged VIP plane, Piper Mirage, has a take-off rating (max power) of only 35"MP, just 5" more over sea level atmosferic pressure. You cannot compare those with the monster superchargers found in warbirds. P-51D supercharger can produce twice the atmosferic pressure (more exactly 61"MP) at 26.000ft where the atmosferic pressure is down to 35%. That means it compresses the air 6 times! Imagine all this boost at sea level. No fuel was capable to take such boost at that time.

We are not talking here about misfire because of lean mixture or poor mixture. All american fighter engines had internal superchargers, meaning that the mixture from carburetor was send to supercharger, making an excellent mixture. You won't see such installation in a civilian plane.

Instead we are exactly in that situation described by the author of the article as having catastrophic consequences: the "preignition". Boost levels over those prescribed in SEFC charts lead to ignition of the fuel without spark and immediate knock of the engine. This condition was very easy to achieve in piston fighters of the ww2 without boost control. The pilot of the early ww2 fighters had to carefuly select the boost and work on RPM (RPM also affects the boost), a very difficult task in combat.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/16/0308:12AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 12:35 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- Ugly_Kid wrote:
-
-
- So according to Skychimp and you, we have
- approximately 4-5m/s too big rate of climb at 3000m
- with most if not all throttle settings? Am I reading
- this correctly?
-
- That would be then about 30% overmodeling in FB for
- that altitude. And 3000 is propably the most
- important altitude in fighting.
-
-

I don't know. To me the question was actually gaining more power above rated altitude as possible reflecting to the fact that Chimp claims advancement in the throttle position towards the rated alt (so after this nothing above 100% available). If indeed the climb figures from the manual are obtained by having throttle on the firewall after 15500 ft and IL2Compare gives real figures then we have P-39 in FB that climbs better with 100% than the real one did with 110%

The 110% figures are not really obtainable in the game (overheating). Another question is whether that "real" 110% curve was obtainable as well. (Real combat power climb yes, but it excludes the bit above 44.5 "Hg all the way to 15500 ft)

You can also note the simulated performance rising towards 3000 m. This is not in harmony with engine performance.

Additionally, there is the traditional question of what was the advantage of the German automated systems. Apparently none, one would think, playing the game - only disadvantages.

Then on the other hand who cares, I know bunch of tough guys who blow them without them blowing their engines

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 11:25 PM
Huck,

I'm not sure what "boost control" is that you keep referring to. The "boost control" on the P-39Q's V-1710-85 is as I stated - careful throttle control.

Realize that the Allison V-1710s were produced in series, later models being more robust that earlier models.

For instance, the C series engines, found in the early P-40s were permitted to be over-rev'd to 3600 rpm, 20% above their rated speed of 3,000 rpm. E series engines with crankshaft improvements, like the V-1710-85 (E19) were permitted to be over-rev'd to 4,100 rpm, significantly above it's rated speed of 3,000 rpm.

All Allisons were very robust in this regard. The E series very much so.

Allisons were also capable of withstanding manifold pressures in excess of the combat power ratings. Many Allisons were rated at 61" hg combat power on 100/130 fuel. The -85 in the P-39Q was rated at 57.0" hg at combat power. But overboosting to 61"hg in this engine would have caused little, if any, problem.

The reason earlier Allisons may have sustained damage to overboosting was more than likely due to the lower octane fuel being used.

====

On a side note, you indicated in a previous thread that 100/130 fuel could not produce a manifold pressure of 72"hg. Remember the P-47 overboost thread?

I argued that a copious use of ADI fluid could be used to increase the manifold pressure of an engine using 100/130 fuel to 72"hg or even beyond.

Here is what I found on it:

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/adi.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/17/0302:27AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 12:19 AM
No time to elaborate now, but here are some links from official documents:


V-1710 variants that had boost control:

http://www.enginehistory.org/ModDesig/I3%201.tif


and previous variants that didn't:

http://www.enginehistory.org/ModDesig/I3%200.tif

http://www.enginehistory.org/ModDesig/I2%209.tif


Then look on Joe Baugher site, on P-39 and P-40 variants, and see that his sources confirm the same facts.




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 03:18 AM
Huck, I went thru the books "Vee's For Victory" and "America' Hundred Thousand," as well as "Cobra" to check out the nature of these systems.

I can see why the term "Automatic Boost Control" would throw you off. It's an oddly applied term.

The Automatic Boost Control in the P-39Q and the P-40N did not control boost, that was still the job of the throttle.

The Automatic Boost Control linked the throttle and the propellor controls together. This allowed for the propellor pitch to be automatically controlled as the throttle was moved (although manual propeller controls were still available). This alleviated the pilot of having to fiddle with the prop when using the throttle. But it did nothing to alleviate the pilot from having to increase throttle as he climbed. This linkage was not available on earlier P-39s or P-40s - all controls were manual.


Additionally, it did not permit the pilot to safely "firewall" the throttle at any altitude. The only type of Allison V-1710 that could be done with was a "sea-level" rated engine - an engine that developed max rated power at sea level. However, the V-1710-85 was an "altitude" rated engine. It developed it combat power rating at 57" hg at 9,700 feet. The pilot did not have to select a full throttle setting to achieve this at sea level. But he did at 9,700 feet. Application of full throttle at sea level would have resulted in an overboost condition which was ill-advised.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/17/0307:04AM by SkyChimp