PDA

View Full Version : oleg what the hell man 1.2 beta was going good



XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 11:49 PM
I understand the p51 was faster then it should be in 1.2 beta but why add stick pressure and slow down the planes movement you cant even stay on a super flipping rolling 190 anymore and the ki84 controls have no stick pressure either along with the zero but the p40 and hurricane do?? the damn p47 is faster then the p51 now, thats the thing i hate most in 1.11 the super movement of 190s and now its back

also why did you reduce the recoild of the me262 guns? Its better at high alt now 7000 but it has super elevator effectiveness i understand its not final but man makes me wonder what the final will be like.





Message Edited on 11/10/0311:00PM by LeadSpitter_

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 11:49 PM
I understand the p51 was faster then it should be in 1.2 beta but why add stick pressure and slow down the planes movement you cant even stay on a super flipping rolling 190 anymore and the ki84 controls have no stick pressure either along with the zero but the p40 and hurricane do?? the damn p47 is faster then the p51 now, thats the thing i hate most in 1.11 the super movement of 190s and now its back

also why did you reduce the recoild of the me262 guns? Its better at high alt now 7000 but it has super elevator effectiveness i understand its not final but man makes me wonder what the final will be like.





Message Edited on 11/10/0311:00PM by LeadSpitter_

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 11:56 PM
Geez you're e-hyperventilating.

/me hands Spit an asthma puffer and brown paper bag.

Deep breaths...

<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 11:57 PM
Sometimes, at o meter I can't fly faster than 510-20 km/h TAS with the Mustang!

Also it loses a lot of energy in boom and zoom, even with a "light stick"!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 12:16 AM
You know, the Fw 190 really rolled fast like that. Up to 162 degrees per second. And I've timed the P-47 and 51 at 10000 m, 222 mph IAS. The 51 definitely rolls faster, like it should.



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

"Oh no, the V-1 Doodlebug is heading for our bunghole!" ---David

"...I possess the wings of faith. Though heavy on my shoulder (no measurement can prove their weight), still a burden are they not to me. I am the challenger of gravity." ---Emperor

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 12:49 AM
I get 573km/h at sea level with Mustang, there is no problem with P-51 speed at low altitude. Make sure radiator is closed, not set to "auto." Haven't tried up high but I don't anticipate any problems, make sure you are using CEM correctly. This isn't really directed at anyone, just a reminder.

I think the P-51 feels awesome in RC01/2, it was a joke in 1.2beta. I think the P-51 feels more like my 190 than any other plane, it just handles a little better in certain situations (namely turn and hard in the vertical). Actually, I am having a hard time getting out of it.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.


Message Edited on 11/10/0311:50PM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 01:13 AM
I agree it feels more correct but the 190s can easily out manuever the p51d 4000-7000 which shouldnt be the case. I really hope the 190s get some stick pressure added to them along with ki84 out of the hours and hours of 190 guncamera footage i have I have never seen a 190 roll snap and move like they do in 1.2 rc im hoping oleg pays serious attention to this becuase its the worst thing of 1.2 and the 190 is my favorite plane and its so easy to loose a p51 on your 6 and kill it.

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 01:32 AM
The P-51 in my tests so far is now 45 Kph too slow at altitude. The accepted test was at 7620 Meters, closed Rad, 110% throttle and perfect trim. All I could attain speed wise was 658 Kph, where it should be at 703 Kph. Also WTH happened to the supercharger control? It was too fast and all in the beta version but now it is way too slow. I know this is still a beta, so I will hope it gets addressed or keep testing as I may have missed something.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG



<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 01:56 AM
Theres nice LW training guncam with 190A-7 getting to p-51s 6 in vertical scissors. Ofcourse this only shows 190s great roll rate and skill of pilot,,,nothing more. Last time i saw it posted was on SimHQs il-2 FB forums.

190 had the best rollrate and lightests controls at speed AFAIK. P-51s advantages (over 190) were on other areas. High altitude performance, dive acceleration, range etc.

Well..thats what i've read anyway. I'll be happy to learn something new though.


Btw. Is 190 highspeed rollrate fixed? It should peak around 165-190degrees/sec (depending on source) at 450-500kmh and then rollrate should steadily decrease. In 1.11 it seemed to get even better at higher speed like there was no stick pressure at all.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 02:28 AM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- I agree it feels more correct but the 190s can
- easily out manuever the p51d 4000-7000 which
- shouldnt be the case. I really hope the 190s get
- some stick pressure added to them along with ki84
- out of the hours and hours of 190 guncamera footage
- i have I have never seen a 190 roll snap and move
- like they do in 1.2 rc im hoping oleg pays serious
- attention to this becuase its the worst thing of 1.2
- and the 190 is my favorite plane and its so easy to
- loose a p51 on your 6 and kill it.
-
- <center><img
- src="http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.t
- xt">
- Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't.
- (c) Leadspitter
- <a
- HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authori
- dfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655">
- LeadSpitters Skins
- </center>

IIRC the Fw-190 did not create stick forces over 10gk.

Would would be funny is to impliment true body movement due to G forces, you would see fw pilots getting their heads slammed into their windshields with these crazy aileron/barrel rolls.

I think the reasons the 190s arent 'moving' much in your gun camera footage is due to the fact that the pilot did not know the aggressor was on his 6, or he was already injured/dead. Pilot training may have also had something to do with it. I'd have to see the footage to make a judgement.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 02:43 AM
CARBONFREEZE wrote:
-
- Would would be funny is to impliment true body
- movement due to G forces, you would see fw pilots
- getting their heads slammed into their windshields
- with these crazy aileron/barrel rolls.

I would so laugh by *** off the first time in a combat flight sim where I snapped a roll and knocked myself out on the canopy (which did happen). Aircraft will always behave 'unrealistically' in IL2 and probably even Oleg' BoB sim just because the soft human controlling it isn't getting thrown around with it.

-
- I think the reasons the 190s arent 'moving' much in
- your gun camera footage is due to the fact that the
- pilot did not know the aggressor was on his 6, or he
- was already injured/dead. Pilot training may have
- also had something to do with it. I'd have to see
- the footage to make a judgement.
-
-

Most kills occured thru the bounce, the majority of the rest the victim didn't know the other way there.


http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 02:53 AM
I don't know what you are speaking of - p51 was great - no problem shooting down Ki's with good BnZ



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
11-11-2003, 02:55 AM
i have over 600 5min clips of 190s most trying to avoid desperatly barrel roll and hard bank manuevers, these are the clips im talking about, i do have clips where 190s got bounced also which im not talking about

I would like to see someone provide a clip of a 190 moving like they do in fb.

I also have flight testing video of the 190 which just shows basic manuevers

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 03:00 AM
You're aware the guncams are approximately 1/3rd real life speed, aren' you?

Played back 3 times speed, the 190s roll pretty good, even in guncams.

-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 03:08 AM
yes most are 1/4th speed and with the projector you can change speeds in quarters.



<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

ZG77_Nagual
11-11-2003, 03:19 AM
You know - that P51 was being checked over by a p51 pilot - we can infer changes as a product of his recommendations.

Tonight I had a ki on my six with slightly superior e (him) and pretty quick I started pulling away ( mustang).

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

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 03:22 AM
to quote Rob Snider from the Movie - Water Boy....
" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif On NO!!!! we suck again!" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

<FONT COLOR="White">Ghost Skies Matches Starting soon!
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="blue">
Please visit the 310th FS & 380th BG 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"> Get my USAAF 8th AF Squadron Insignia Files @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=4206')
<FONT COLOR="purple">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

Message Edited on 11/10/0308:22PM by Copperhead310th

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 03:40 AM
The whole "a P-51 pilot is testing it" thing is a bunch of horse hockey. They said they same thing about the P-47 when they released 1.0.

"Tested by a real live P-47 pilot."

Um...sure...we all know how that worked out.

And the P-51's energy retention and acceleration have been vastly reduced in this RC. Or so it seems.

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 04:12 AM
To say the least Machine.

It can no longer outzoom an La7 (which is a feckin RADIAL for gods sake), and I was just online and unable to outzoom a big cannon Yak. We were at about 620 on the deck, I was gaining speed the whole time, if he was closing, it wasn't by much, we were basically at the same speed and I pulled ever so gently into a steep left circle zoom (which worked beautifully against Las, Yaks, and Kis in 1.2B), and the ba$tard was right behind me the whole time. A Ki came in and blasted his engine, saving me, but not before I had a hole in the left wing big enough to crawl through.

This is unreal.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 04:55 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- To say the least Machine.
-
- It can no longer outzoom an La7 (which is a feckin
- RADIAL for gods sake), and I was just online and
- unable to outzoom a big cannon Yak. We were at about
- 620 on the deck, I was gaining speed the whole time,
- if he was closing, it wasn't by much, we were
- basically at the same speed and I pulled ever so
- gently into a steep left circle zoom (which worked
- beautifully against Las, Yaks, and Kis in 1.2B), and
- the ba$tard was right behind me the whole time. A Ki
- came in and blasted his engine, saving me, but not
- before I had a hole in the left wing big enough to
- crawl through.
-
- This is unreal.
-
-


That's not a zoom climb!! If two planes are going the same speed on the deck and pull into a climb, the plane with the best climb is going to win. La-7 not only has a better climb than the P-51, it is faster on the deck!!


--AKD

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

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:04 AM
dont listen to akd he speaks out of the dogs right head in his sig

1.2beta major probs

p51d top speed need reduction
me262 7000m-9000m topspeed
zero manueverabilty
p40 extreme stick pressures
hurricane extreme stick pressures

1.2 rc 01

over 50 new problems
from plane movement stick pressures to max dive speeds and dm it seems like a mix of 1.0 and 1.11 problems

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:06 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- That's not a zoom climb!! If two planes are going
- the same speed on the deck and pull into a climb,
- the plane with the best climb is going to win. La-7
- not only has a better climb than the P-51, it is
- faster on the deck!!
-
-
-
---AKD

Ok, you don't know what a zoom climb is then.

A zoom climb is when a plane (any plane) goes into a climb that is faster than it's max sustained climb rate and is propeled upward by it's momentum.

Drag and gravity are the 2 killers of speed in a zoom. And, generally speaking, the plane with the smaller total drag (parasitic and induced) will zoom higher than the plane with more total drag.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:13 AM
DDT Quote:

..............And, generally speaking, the plane with the smaller total drag (parasitic and induced) will zoom higher than the plane with more total drag.

Very simple theory really. Stick your hand out a car door window while the car is doing 60 miles an hour. Make sure you place your palm flat at the fround cutting into the wind like a knife. Then rotate your palm 90 degrees. Feel the difference?



Message Edited on 11/10/0308:17PM by Greb

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:24 AM
P-51D-5NT acieves 591km/h TAS in level flight at 2-5m ASL (crimea map). Here is proof.

www14.brinkster.com/triggerhappy770/files/P-51speedtest.ntrk

The D20 is listed at 578km/h. This is acceptable to me, but regardless it is technically overmodeled /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:44 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- A.K.Davis wrote:
-- That's not a zoom climb!! If two planes are going
-- the same speed on the deck and pull into a climb,
-- the plane with the best climb is going to win. La-7
-- not only has a better climb than the P-51, it is
-- faster on the deck!!
--
--
--
----AKD

Yes, the P-51 has an excellent zoom climb, but the situation you described is not a very good example of this strength. Seems like you think that superior zoom climb means that the P-51 shoud outclimb all other aircraft. Zoom climb is not going to decide the scenario you described. Climb rate, acceleration and speed are.

I say again, the La-7 is faster and climbs better than a P-51 on the deck. If you were going the same speed, then the La-7 probably had some power in reserve. You "zoom climbed" and the Lavochkin probably just pressed the throttle to the wall and caught up with you.

If it had been a dive followed by a climb, I'm sure you would have zoomed right away from the La. Ditto if you repeated the scenario you described at 6000m.

--AKD

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

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:52 AM
Zoom climb depends on the speed at the beggining of the zoom and the acceleration in level flight of the plane. From two planes that start a zoom climb a the same speed and angle of zoom, the plane with best acceleration in level flight will reach the highest altitude. That a rule, it happens always.

P-51D had a mediocre acceleration therefore had a mediocre zoom. The same for P-47D. La-7 on the other hand had excellent acceleration at low altitudes, so it had excellent zoom climb.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:03 AM
We are not talking about low level speed that seems ok, it is the high altitude speed that has been castrated. And the supercharger and the mixture. It was too fast in the first beta(Leaked one) but now has been horribly castrated in the RC, I hope that Oleg can check that and get it fixed before release. Only two planes in the game as of now should rival the P-51's high altitude speed, that is the K-4 and the 262. I am not expecting the Mustang to turn fight or save the world but I do expect it's speed to be correct as that is what it is most known for.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:23 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- If it had been a dive followed by a climb, I'm sure
- you would have zoomed right away from the La. Ditto
- if you repeated the scenario you described at 6000m.

Precisely what it had been. We were a good bit above max IAS at that alt for both planes. Was a BC Yak in this instance, but happens with the Las as well - just wasn't the situation I mentioned.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:35 AM
The controls feel plenty heavier now than before as well. It doesn't roll quite as well...I was hoping to maintain the control feeling because it was quite nice.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:37 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Zoom climb depends on the speed at the beggining of
- the zoom and the acceleration in level flight of the
- plane. From two planes that start a zoom climb a the
- same speed and angle of zoom, the plane with best
- acceleration in level flight will reach the highest
- altitude. That a rule, it happens always.
-
- P-51D had a mediocre acceleration therefore had a
- mediocre zoom. The same for P-47D. La-7 on the other
- hand had excellent acceleration at low altitudes, so
- it had excellent zoom climb.
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>

Oh God here we go for the 9,000th time, Huck bashing the Mustang and Jug with nothing but his "good word" for us to take. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif The Mustang was unparalleled in the zoom climb, it was not a good off the line climber, but when in a zoom climb nothing could keep up with it period. When will you get some facts right Huck? Jeezus!
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:21 AM
Salute Huckbein

Wrong again.

Zoom climbs begun by an aircraft at speeds higher than the maximum achievable by the same aircraft in level flight at its current altitude, are not affected at all by acceleration. The only factors affecting how well the aircraft will retain speed in such a zoom is the aerodynamic efficiency of the airframe and how much mass the aircraft has.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:22 AM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- i have over 600 5min clips of 190s most trying to
- avoid desperatly barrel roll and hard bank
- manuevers, these are the clips im talking about, i
- do have clips where 190s got bounced also which im
- not talking about

Although I agree that the 190's roll rate at high speed is off, you will never see any fighter behave in FB as they did in real life.

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:22 AM
Many folks who have tested P51's speed and claim that it is OK go on to say that those who cannot seem to match these speeds are not correctly using CEM.

So I ask you...when quoting your test speeds also give EXACT throttle/prop pitch/radiator/supercharger/mixture settings.

I have tried numerous times to achieve the P51's and P40's sea level speeds and cannot even come close, no matter how much I fiddle with the CEM, and fuel/trim settings....

<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
11-11-2003, 07:35 AM
No mixture control still on the Mustang and we lost the Supercharger control as well as aileron trim so all of those are out the door. All I could manage to do was set prop rpm to 2700 rpm(80%) and close the radiator with 110% throttle and at the specified ideal altitude of 7620 Meters, my top level speed was 658 kph, that is a far cry from 703 kph, where it is supposed to be. I will be making a track to send to Oleg tommorow, hopefully he will address it.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:53 AM
"oleg what the hell man 1.2 beta was going good"

^Some ppl really need to cool down.

//F16 =txmx=
http://www.f16vs.tk

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:03 AM
Eagle 361st

Supercharger operation is now Automatic. Normal operation was Automatic. When it goes into High blower the Yellow High Blower light on the centre pedestal illuminates.

A Manual selection was possible in the real world but in FB its a game engine limitation (I think) that you can only have it Auto or manual. So Auto is a better choice.

MIXTURE
Effectively it was automatic in the P51. You set Normal or Rich (or Idle Cutt Off for engine shutdown). You dont have incremental "Vernier" control so agan whats in FB represents the real world pretty well.



Ps=V(T-D)/W
III/JG11_IvanK

Ps=V(T-D)/W
III/JG11_IvanK

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:07 AM
Ivank wrote:
- Eagle 361st
-
- Supercharger operation is now Automatic. Normal
- operation was Automatic. When it goes into High
- blower the Yellow High Blower light on the centre
- pedestal illuminates.
-
- A Manual selection was possible in the real world
- but in FB its a game engine limitation (I think)
- that you can only have it Auto or manual. So Auto is
- a better choice.
-
- MIXTURE
- Effectively it was automatic in the P51. You set
- Normal or Rich (or Idle Cutt Off for engine
- shutdown). You dont have incremental "Vernier"
- control so agan whats in FB represents the real
- world pretty well.
-
-
-
-
- Ps=V(T-D)/W
- III/JG11_IvanK
-
- Ps=V(T-D)/W
- III/JG11_IvanK

OK good to know, the Mixture I was aware of, but not the supercharger, I would actually prefer control of it. But if it is a limitation and can't be selected so be it. Thanks for poting that mate. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG


<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:26 AM
Eagle_361st wrote:
- No mixture control still on the Mustang and we lost
- the Supercharger control as well as aileron trim so
- all of those are out the door. All I could manage to
- do was set prop rpm to 2700 rpm(80%) and close the
- radiator with 110% throttle and at the specified
- ideal altitude of 7620 Meters, my top level speed
- was 658 kph, that is a far cry from 703 kph, where
- it is supposed to be. I will be making a track to
- send to Oleg tommorow, hopefully he will address it.
- ~S!
- Eagle
- CO 361st vFG


Which aircraft in the game DO meet their historical specs at 7620m? Aircraft behave so oddly above 7000m that I find it very hard to test.


--AKD

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


Message Edited on 11/11/0308:32AM by A.K.Davis

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:30 AM
AKD,
It did achieve that speed in the"leaked" beta and then some, I am using that number because it is where the Mustang reached it's top speed in generally accepted testing in RL. I am just hoping that it meet's a little closer to it. Or 690 kph @ 5K as then it would still be in the parimeters of the game engine. I understand that FB high altitude modelling is not very good, but trying to test where there is hard numbers behind it if you know what I mean.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:32 AM
"All I could manage to do was set prop rpm to 2700 rpm(80%) and close the radiator with 110% throttle and at the specified ideal altitude of 7620 Meters, my top level speed was 658 kph, that is a far cry from 703 kph, where it is supposed to be."

Since the level stabilizers option is no more available, my test results varied from between about 687km/h to 711km/h. 110%/rad closed/100% RPM

What I'm wondering is, why did you run the plane at 80% RPM?



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:35 AM
2700 RPM is the "power band" listed on the tach for the P-51. I tried 100% prop pitch as well, but achieved lower top speed. The Merlin in general has a peak power band of 2300-2700 RPM's adjusting the Prop pitch to achieve it.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 09:26 AM
TaZ_Attack wrote:
- Looks like the Americans are gonna take a beating
- again...lol! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- Seriously, was the P-51 performance in pravda na
- khuya, Oleg?
-
- The Mustang should be nev'ebenny...IMHO. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- Cheers,


Taz, there are quiet a few russian speaking ppl at the forums, this was rather unpleasent and i suggest you to edit your post. Exercise youe knowledge in russian somewhere else. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 09:31 AM
I was wrong to a degree cruise setting would be 2300-2700.

PACKARD ROLLS ROYCE, P-40, P-51B
Take-off 40" Hg 3000 RPM, Auto Rich
Climb 35" Hg 2600 RPM, Auto Rich
Cruise 26"-28" Hg 2300 RPM, Auto Rich
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG


<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 09:48 AM
yes, but cruise does not equal such high power settings. In the real world 65-75% power would be a typical cruise. The P-51 manual states that when engaging boost, that RPM should be set to 3,000. so at or above 100% set for 3,000 RPM. Incidentally, the boost kicks in according to teh hud indication AT 100%, technically this means it can only fly for five cumulative minutes at 100%. :-/

S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Member-Team Raven
http://www.waynehandley.com

(Former)Reserve Pilot Aircraft #2 of Gruppo 313
Pattuglia Acrobatica Virtuale
http://www.vhvt.com/

http://www.attitudeaviation.com/

http://www.calaggieflyers.com/



http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/ravenvert.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 10:00 AM
I just made a test, I could maintain it around 684-686kph at 7600m (I started at 300 and 7500m, so it was true acceleration by my own means, no dive prior to the run)

It's a bit lower than 703, but quite close anyway.

prop pitch 100%
radiator closed
110% throttle (however, I noticed that you needed to move it a bit (play with it in 100-110% range) which gives you more manifold pressure, as if you pumped it a bit more)
50% fuel
full ammo

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 10:20 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Huckbein
-
- Wrong again.
-
- Zoom climbs begun by an aircraft at speeds higher
- than the maximum achievable by the same aircraft in
- level flight at its current altitude, are not
- affected at all by acceleration. The only factors
- affecting how well the aircraft will retain speed in
- such a zoom is the aerodynamic efficiency of the
- airframe and how much mass the aircraft has.


Buzzsaw are you parading again your incompetence on the matter?

Buzzsaw, planes are zooming with power on, so not the drag is important but the difference between thrust and drag. That's excess thrust. Both Bf-109K4 and La7 have similar excess thrust with P-51D since all reach about the same max speed. But both K4 and La7 are with more than 1 ton lighter than P-51D. This is why they zoom better than P-51D. P-47D is much worse.


zoom_acceleration = (Thrust - Drag)/mass - sin(zoom angle) * gravitational_accel

zoom acceleration has a negative value, it is a deceleration. The plane with the highest zoom acceleration (smallest zoom deceleration) has the best zoom charateristics - climbs at the highest altitude before stall.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 10:45 AM
Ivank wrote:
- Eagle 361st
-
- Supercharger operation is now Automatic. Normal
- operation was Automatic. When it goes into High
- blower the Yellow High Blower light on the centre
- pedestal illuminates.
-
- A Manual selection was possible in the real world
- but in FB its a game engine limitation (I think)
- that you can only have it Auto or manual. So Auto is
- a better choice.
-
- MIXTURE
- Effectively it was automatic in the P51. You set
- Normal or Rich (or Idle Cutt Off for engine
- shutdown). You dont have incremental "Vernier"
- control so agan whats in FB represents the real
- world pretty well.
-
-
-
-

I thought the mixture control on all American planes was about the same- full rich, auto rich auto lean, and idle cuttoff. Back in 1.0 P-39, P-47, P-40 all had these equivalent settings. Why did they get rid of them just for P-40 and P-39? after 1.0? and now for P-51s too? This is not very realistic IMO.

I know the supercharger was auto though.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 11:37 AM
The decision to include P-51 on FB was very bold but unwise.

Of course obvious errors can and should be sorted out, but there is no way to model it such a way that over-expecting fanboys(TM) would approve it. Without "secret hyper-jet" from Spaceballs, that is. And there are way too many fanboys around, who think that Mustang won the war and so on it is not from this world. (However it should be noted that Mustang-fans are not fanboys(TM), there are people who know and sort out the errors, but also guys with fancy thrust-theories and more.)

B & W hasn't even started yet. In two weeks time UBI board is unreadable I'm afraid.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 11:47 AM
Kannaksen_hanu::
-- The decision to include P-51 on FB was very bold but unwise.

I have been thinking the same. Oleg should have waited to releace the flyable P~51 after January, and make a Profit and run to the bank. Already some old timer Noobs are whining about some onwhine squad leaving the FB cos he don't like P~51.

S! is for See Ya! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 12:01 PM
txmx wrote:
- "oleg what the hell man 1.2 beta was going good"
-
- ^Some ppl really need to cool down.


txmx, you got that right. It seems some people keep forgetting what beta test means.......

I have this terrible vision that the P-51 could be more whined about than that unmentionable bit of cockpit frame /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif




"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 12:08 PM
Hmm, is this an effect of flying an unfinished plane first, and then being disapointed when it performs like in real life ?

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

Fw 190 durbatulūk
Fw 190 gimbatul
Fw 190 thrakatulūk,
agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 03:42 PM
Hiristos real life?? take a look at the 190s so far only planes that seem realistic

p40 hurricane p51

you either give all aircraft stick pressure or you dont becuase the planes that dont have it move ridiculously like the mustang did in 1.2 beta and the ki84 yak zero b239 i153 i16 g2 190s do now
can you show me a track of the p51 outrunning the d27 and outclimbing it?

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 03:53 PM
Easy, no need to get so nervous /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

It is beta, I'm sure Oleg knows what he's doing. So far he hasn't disapointed us, right ?

IMO, P51 is still an excellent fighter, very effective in competent hands. What would be too much is a P51 outturning Zeros at low speeds, outaccelerating La-7s or such.

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

Fw 190 durbatulūk
Fw 190 gimbatul
Fw 190 thrakatulūk,
agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 04:17 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- Hiristos real life?? take a look at the 190s so far
- only planes that seem realistic
-
- p40 hurricane p51
-
- you either give all aircraft stick pressure or you
- dont becuase the planes that dont have it move
- ridiculously like the mustang did in 1.2 beta and
- the ki84 yak zero b239 i153 i16 g2 190s do now
- can you show me a track of the p51 outrunning the
- d27 and outclimbing it?


190 handling is completely unrealistic. When flown in proper trim the plane was impossible to spin. Why Oleg decided that it spinned a lot I don't understand. It had a high wing loading, but also it had a generous washout. A very important difference between Fw-190 and rest of the fighters (except Bf-109) is the elevator/stabilizer mechanism. Fw-190 had very small elevators designed for small stick forces at high speeds, but brought an unpleasant elevator at small speeds (heavier and less effective) so they made a mechanism which changes the angle of attack of the stabilizer, for better control at low speeds. The only disadvantage this system brought is that pilot has to learn the correct correlation between speed and stabilizer AOA and use it like any other control of the plane. But the solution was so good that it was adopted on F-86A. F-86A had movable horizontal stabilizer and hydraulically boosted stick (which is not a complete hydraulic control surfaces actuation system, using pumps and valves), a simple system that traded distance for force, equivalent with rods and bell cranks used for elevator on Fw-190, Bf-109 and Me-262.

Below you can read about Fw-190 stall and dive abilities. Note that Tank dived Fw-190 up to 0.83Mach (955kmh at around 6000m) and he makes a 7G pullout without any trouble. There was no other piston fighter that could do the same.


http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/FW190_stall.jpg


ladoga posted this test
http://www.saunalahti.fi/meheko/190dive.jpg



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:19 PM
TX-EcoDragon wrote:
- yes, but cruise does not equal such high power
- settings. In the real world 65-75% power would be a
- typical cruise. The P-51 manual states that when
- engaging boost, that RPM should be set to 3,000. so
- at or above 100% set for 3,000 RPM. Incidentally,
- the boost kicks in according to teh hud indication
- AT 100%, technically this means it can only fly for
- five cumulative minutes at 100%. :-/
-
- S!
- TX-EcoDragon
- Black 1
- TX Squadron XO
EcoDragon,
I understand that, but everything I have ever read states that the lower RPM's were actually where the nominal HP was achieved for the Merlins. Now if this is correct for running at 3,000 RPM to achieve this, I will apologize as I was wrong, the top speed is not as far off as I had found. Some of us only want the thing right or as close to right as possible, not UFO or anything of the sort. In car engines which I know are quites different than a/c engines, max RPM does not neccassarily mean max power, usually with a supercharger you will have the nominal HP band at a lower RPM. Most large engines usually it is around 4,000-5,200 RPM, on a engine that has a max RPM of 6,000+ RPM. I would tend to think that same dynamics would apply here, perhaps a little differently but nevertheless the same. In reality you want your max HP and max Torque to meet at a certain RPM which means Peak power band, and that is very rarely to never at max RPM. Actually at max RPM you would find that parastic loss of power is happening. Now again I would state I may be very wrong about this and have no problem admitting when I am wrong and will apologize if I am. It just makes no sense, to run at max RPM in the lowest "gear" if you will to achieve top speed.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG







<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:08 PM
Lead,

come on now, you seem to still be doing okay with the 51, you were doing okay last night

its just not a goddess anymore

<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/john/BP-johann-9-4-03.gif <center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:16 PM
johann63 wrote:
- Lead,
-
- come on now, you seem to still be doing okay with
- the 51, you were doing okay last night
-
- its just not a goddess anymore


How effective you are in a particular plane does not says anything about overmodelling/undermodelling issue. Only test numbers, in game compared to reality.

If Leadspitter has hard data to prove why he thinks that Mustang is not correctly modelled, we are all ears. "I'm not effective anymore" or "you seem effective so why bother?" are not arguments for a FM discussion.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 11/11/0303:46PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 09:34 PM
For once I agree with Huck. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif It matters more about how close the model matches reality than how good you are in it.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 10:52 PM
- I understand that, but everything I have ever read
- states that the lower RPM's were actually where the
- nominal HP was achieved for the Merlins. Now if this
- is correct for running at 3,000 RPM to achieve this,
- I will apologize as I was wrong, the top speed is
- not as far off as I had found. Some of us only want
- the thing right or as close to right as possible,
- not UFO or anything of the sort. In car engines
- which I know are quites different than a/c engines,
- max RPM does not neccassarily mean max power,
- usually with a supercharger you will have the
- nominal HP band at a lower RPM. Most large engines
- usually it is around 4,000-5,200 RPM, on a engine
- that has a max RPM of 6,000+ RPM. I would tend to
- think that same dynamics would apply here, perhaps a
- little differently but nevertheless the same. In
- reality you want your max HP and max Torque to meet
- at a certain RPM which means Peak power band, and
- that is very rarely to never at max RPM. Actually at
- max RPM you would find that parastic loss of power
- is happening. Now again I would state I may be very
- wrong about this and have no problem admitting when
- I am wrong and will apologize if I am. It just makes
- no sense, to run at max RPM in the lowest "gear" if
- you will to achieve top speed.
- ~S!
- Eagle
- CO 361st vFG

I will restate that the above information comes from my P-51 Pilots manual and checklists, and should be found in the many reprints that are out there.


Aircraft powerplants and "drivetrain" are quite different from automobiles in many respects. Note what RPM is "redline" and then then compare that to the redline which most cars have, aircraft engines are designed to run at nearly their redline for teh life of the engine, if cars operated in the same way thet too would have lower redlines. The transmission analogy also does not work. Power is indicated in an aircraft with a constant speed prop using the engine manifold pressure gauge, this is controlled by throttle position and RPM has nothing to do with this (well, unless you start running WAY oversquare ie higher MP than RPM). The Engine RPM is controlled by the prop lever which in constant speed props will maintain whatever set value you select no matter the flight attitude or power setting (when in the green on the MP). The value of the adjustable blades is that the aircraft can be configure for a variety of flight regimes all while making maximal power. Normally with a fixed pitch prop pitching up will reduce rpm, and diving will in crease it, a CS prop governor will prevent this by automatically changing blade angles, in this way the engine will not overspeed in dives, nor will it bog the engine power below its maximal setting (full).

Remember that this is for AT OR ABOVE 100% power. So in normal flight you would not use such and RPM for any significant length of time, as max speed cruises were practical. During my flights in the Mustang I set RPM to 2,750 for aerobatics, and other than takeoff it was never set higher.

Despite these points, I would agree with the initial poster that the cruise, and max speed at altitude are less (~50 kmh at alt) than book values when performed using book procedures, and also when using whatever seems best in the sim when tested at equivalent altitudes. (Incidentally, what seems best is rad closed, prop at 100%.)

The P-51 also had extremely clean lines and does not have such pronounced parasitic drag, and in my experience in aerobatics (well, for a 51) it also has less induced drag and very good vertical penetration and energy retention, ie. zoom climb, as well. (Please forgive an arbitrary statement)




S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Member-Team Raven
http://www.waynehandley.com

(Former)Reserve Pilot Aircraft #2 of Gruppo 313
Pattuglia Acrobatica Virtuale
http://www.vhvt.com/

http://www.attitudeaviation.com/

http://www.calaggieflyers.com/



http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/ravenvert.jpg




Message Edited on 11/11/0302:56PM by TX-EcoDragon

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 11:35 PM
S!


""We are not talking about low level speed that seems ok, it is the high altitude speed that has been castrated. And the supercharger and the mixture. It was too fast in the first beta(Leaked one) but now has been horribly castrated in the RC, I hope that Oleg can check that and get it fixed before release. Only two planes in the game as of now should rival the P-51's high altitude speed, that is the K-4 and the 262. I am not expecting the Mustang to turn fight or save the world but I do expect it's speed to be correct as that is what it is most known for.""


Well said !

________________



My observations :

When subtle changes are needed in Flight Models, it seems that TOO DRASTIC of a change occurs instead. That is why these F/M's are allways flip/flopping back and forth.


Flew the Mustang up to around 8000m against BobCat (beta tester ?) last night in a 109k4. The 51 is so gutless now up high, it was all I could do to keep from getting shot down-totally defensive. The K4 is able to zoom climb away at will. That was with a 25% fuel load too in the 51.

The 1.2b version of the Mustang was 98-99% percent right. The 51 at low alt could NEVER turn with a Ki84 Frank or a Zero--I dont know who started that falsehood. The 109G2 flew circles around the 51 at low alt. The low alt performance of the 51 in the beta form was nothing spectacular and if you got in a turning fight you usually lost.

Now top end speed at alt is reduced way too much-another drastic change again. I am only able to get 672kph at 7500m and thats with a gentle dive and leveling out and 25% fuel. From a standing start-no dive-just level flying, I barely achieve 650kph @ 7600m with 25% fuel.

As a result of the speed reduction, dive acceleration and zoom climb back up are also reduced. The Mustang and the Jug were the king of the dive and the zoom climb that resulted from the dive acceleration(IRL). Energy bleed is more pronounced in the zoom now.

Speed test RESULTS : -- How are they performed by FB testers?
Is there a standerized way for all of us to test and know for sure we are comparing results the same way ?

2 stage supercharger on auto-- I like being able to manually shift it. Did not hear any differance in engine at altitude with 1.2RC version. The 2nd stage shifted best at around 5500m in 1.2beta. The Jug needs to be able to manually shift the SC also.

The stick feels heavier now on the 51 and the roll rate seems reduced--not sure about this though.

_____________


I had a chance to sit down and have dinner with several P51 Aces. Bud Anderson & Bob Goebel both stated the P51 could out dive and out zoom climb any prop german plane.

Anderson commented on how he would have to reduce throttle because he would catch 109/190's so quickly in a dive. It is a MISTAKE to equate level flight acceleration with dive acceleration and the resulting zoom climb back up.

Both the P47 & P51 were king of the dive and the resulting zoom climb back up from it.

Both Anderson & Goebel stated that they outurned at high speed 190's on a regular basis. They also said that with 10% of flap they could turn with a 109.

There seems to be some personal agendas on some people's part to simply castrate this high performance high altitude fighter --the Mustang no matter what.

I think the rest of us want it as realistically modeled as possible. Right now in version 1.2RC, it is castrated badly at high altitude and that is a shame.


_________

Saburo Sakai on the Mustang
vs (On the Zero)
During the war, I was convinced the Zero Model 21 was the best fighter plane anywhere. It was always number one with me. Then a few years ago, at Champlin, I had the chance to fly in a Mustang and take the controls for a while. What an incredible plane! It could do anything the Zero could, and many things the Zero can't, like a high-speed, spiraling dive. In the Zero, the stick would be too heavy to control the plane at those speeds. The Mustang's number one with me now, and I'm afraid the Zero's number two!





Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

dux-1
11-11-2003, 11:39 PM
Yaahhhhhhhhhhhhnnnnnnn....

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 11:46 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Zoom climbs begun by an aircraft at speeds higher
- than the maximum achievable by the same aircraft in
- level flight at its current altitude, are not
- affected at all by acceleration. The only factors
- affecting how well the aircraft will retain speed in
- such a zoom is the aerodynamic efficiency of the
- airframe and how much mass the aircraft has.

This would be presumably be why big, clean aircraft
should do best, hence the likes of the P47 and Tempest
having good zoom climbs? The 109 isn't too bad at vertical
manoeuvers, though. Might this be ok initial zoom, followed
by good subsequent climb meaning that as sustained climb
takes over from zoom, the 109 does comparatively well?

As a side point, larger bodies tend to have smaller
surface area with respect to their volume (to which mass
is roughly related), so the total wetted area relative
to 0.5mv^2 is smaller (for the same v), so drag relative
to kinetic energy (all other things the same) would be
in favour of the larger plane.


All this assumes no input from the engine, though,
so Huckebein also has a valid point.

Message Edited on 11/11/0310:52PM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:00 AM
"Flew the Mustang up to around 8000m against BobCat (beta tester ?) last night in a 109k4. The 51 is so gutless now up high, it was all I could do to keep from getting shot down-totally defensive. The K4 is able to zoom climb away at will. That was with a 25% fuel load too in the 51."

BigKahuna... i`m no expert...would it make sense if i`ll say that lighter plane with more power will perform better on high altitude? I meant K4. Not flaming by all means... just a simple question.

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:03 AM
TX-EcoDragon wrote:
-
- I will restate that the above information comes from
- my P-51 Pilots manual and checklists, and should be
- found in the many reprints that are out there.
-
-
- Aircraft powerplants and "drivetrain" are quite
- different from automobiles in many respects. Note
- what RPM is "redline" and then then compare that to
- the redline which most cars have, aircraft engines
- are designed to run at nearly their redline for teh
- life of the engine, if cars operated in the same way
- thet too would have lower redlines. The transmission
- analogy also does not work. Power is indicated in an
- aircraft with a constant speed prop using the engine
- manifold pressure gauge, this is controlled by
- throttle position and RPM has nothing to do with
- this (well, unless you start running WAY oversquare
- ie higher MP than RPM). The Engine RPM is controlled
- by the prop lever which in constant speed props will
- maintain whatever set value you select no matter the
- flight attitude or power setting (when in the green
- on the MP). The value of the adjustable blades is
- that the aircraft can be configure for a variety of
- flight regimes all while making maximal power.
- Normally with a fixed pitch prop pitching up will
- reduce rpm, and diving will in crease it, a CS prop
- governor will prevent this by automatically changing
- blade angles, in this way the engine will not
- overspeed in dives, nor will it bog the engine power
- below its maximal setting (full).
-
- Remember that this is for AT OR ABOVE 100% power. So
- in normal flight you would not use such and RPM for
- any significant length of time, as max speed cruises
- were practical. During my flights in the Mustang I
- set RPM to 2,750 for aerobatics, and other than
- takeoff it was never set higher.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- S!
- TX-EcoDragon
- Black 1
- TX Squadron XO
Ok thank you for a better explanation of that, I guess I was misunderstanding what I was reading. Being an auto racing person, it kind of goes against everything we hold true, but it makes sense in how you explained it. I will now aplogize as I was wrong. So in essence I need to have my RPM @3,000 RPM to achieve top speed, I will test it and see what I get. Thank you again for your very thorough explanation of the difference between our two worlds. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:09 AM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- BigKahuna... i`m no expert...would it make sense if
- i`ll say that lighter plane with more power will
- perform better on high altitude? I meant K4. Not
- flaming by all means... just a simple question.

If it had more power, perhaps. But, thanks to the Tubosupercharger, the Jug was not out powered by the K4 at high alt.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:13 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- crazyivan1970 wrote:
-- BigKahuna... i`m no expert...would it make sense if
-- i`ll say that lighter plane with more power will
-- perform better on high altitude? I meant K4. Not
-- flaming by all means... just a simple question.
-
- If it had more power, perhaps. But, thanks to the
- Tubosupercharger, the Jug was not out powered by the
- K4 at high alt.
-
-


P-47 was twice as havier then any 109`s , so after all it was outpowered... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif ... besides we are talking about P-51

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:41 AM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
-- crazyivan1970 wrote:
--- BigKahuna... i`m no expert...would it make sense if
--- i`ll say that lighter plane with more power will
--- perform better on high altitude? I meant K4. Not
--- flaming by all means... just a simple question.
--
-- If it had more power, perhaps. But, thanks to the
-- Tubosupercharger, the Jug was not out powered by the
-- K4 at high alt.
--
--
-
-
- P-47 was twice as havier then any 109`s , so after
- all it was outpowered...


Hmm, not really. Bf-109K4 had roughly half the power of P-47D at altitude, so basically the same powerloading. This is why P-47 was dangerous above 25000ft.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 11/11/0306:50PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:52 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- crazyivan1970 wrote:
-- BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
--- crazyivan1970 wrote:
---- BigKahuna... i`m no expert...would it make sense if
---- i`ll say that lighter plane with more power will
---- perform better on high altitude? I meant K4. Not
---- flaming by all means... just a simple question.
---
--- If it had more power, perhaps. But, thanks to the
--- Tubosupercharger, the Jug was not out powered by the
--- K4 at high alt.
---
---
--
--
-- P-47 was twice as havier then any 109`s , so after
-- all it was outpowered...
-
-
- Hmm, not really. Bf-109K4 had roughly half the power
- of P-47D at altitude, so basically the same
- powerloading. This is why I say P-47 was dangerous
- above 25000ft.
-

Ok, i`ll take it...even if it doesn`t make sence.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif as you stated before K4 could hold 1800hp @5000m which is 15000ft...and then say it would be around 1200 at 30000ft...so what you saying is... P-47D had 2400 available at that altitude?? Clear that one for me please.

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 01:01 AM
crazyivan1970 wrote:

-- Hmm, not really. Bf-109K4 had roughly half the power
-- of P-47D at altitude, so basically the same
-- powerloading. This is why I say P-47 was dangerous
-- above 25000ft.
--
-
- Ok, i`ll take it...even if it doesn`t make sence..
- as you stated before
- K4 could hold 1800hp @5000m which is 15000ft...and
- then say it would be around 1200 at 30000ft...so
- what you saying is... P-47D had 2400 available at
- that altitude?? Clear that one for me please.


Yes K4 had 1800HP at 5000m and slightly less than 1100HP at 9000m. R-2800-63 (P-47D late) had something like 2200-2300HP at 30000ft.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 01:04 AM
Impressive... what was the power at SL for P-47D with R-2800-63

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 01:06 AM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- Impressive... what was the power at SL for P-47D
- with R-2800-63


Emergency power with water injection was 2530HP (sea level).
It keeps the power very well, up to high altitude. To me this huge turbocharging installation is a drawback, it makes the plane completely underpowered at low and medium altitudes. But others like it.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 11/11/0307:09PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 01:08 AM
So bottom line... K4 would lose 1000HP on the way up and P-47D only 250-300... ack

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 01:09 AM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- So bottom line... K4 would lose 1000HP on the way
- up and P-47D only 250-300... ack

Yep/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 01:12 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- crazyivan1970 wrote:
-- So bottom line... K4 would lose 1000HP on the way
-- up and P-47D only 250-300... ack
-
- Yep

Sometimes things hardly make any sence, you just have to take them for what they are /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 01:16 AM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- crazyivan1970 wrote:
--- So bottom line... K4 would lose 1000HP on the way
--- up and P-47D only 250-300... ack
--
-- Yep
-
- Sometimes things hardly make any sence, you just
- have to take them for what they are


Hmm, it makes perfect sense, if your requirement can afford the weight of a huge turbocharger or at least a two stage supercharger then you can go for it, but it will badly affect the powerloading. It gives very good performance at high altitude but decreases the climb and acceleration at medium and high altitudes.

So it depends on the mission envisioned for the plane.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 01:21 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Hmm, it makes perfect sense, if your requirement can
- afford the weight of a huge turbocharger or at least
- a two stage supercharger then you can go for it, but
- it will badly affect the powerloading. It gives very
- good performance at high altitude but decreases the
- climb and acceleration at medium and high altitudes.
-
- So it depends on the mission envisioned for the
- plane.
-
-

No wonder that thing is as big as IL-2 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
I rest my case, thanks for info Huck.

V!

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:19 AM
Kannaksen_hanu wrote:
- The decision to include P-51 on FB was very bold but
- unwise.
-
- Of course obvious errors can and should be sorted
- out, but there is no way to model it such a way that
- over-expecting fanboys(TM) would approve it. Without
- "secret hyper-jet" from Spaceballs, that is. And
- there are way too many fanboys around, who think
- that Mustang won the war and so on it is not from
- this world. (However it should be noted that
- Mustang-fans are not fanboys(TM), there are people
- who know and sort out the errors, but also guys with
- fancy thrust-theories and more.)
-
- B & W hasn't even started yet. In two weeks time UBI
- board is unreadable I'm afraid.
-
-
Wow! You have us all figured out...Let me break it down slowly so you can understand. We want it modeled correctly is all speed mainly 703kph.


http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/P47_Thunderbolt/P47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:32 AM
Your all dirty evil people.

<center>
http://www.americanrecordings.com/slayer/disco_hell.gif


<center>The Gates of Hell lie waiting as you see
There's no price to pay just follow me