Wright R-1820-G5 Engine

[Karnak]

Well that brings a new problem to the table IMO. As most planes have time limitations with their lower power settings aswell. It would need more or less a total rework. I'm fine with any system as long as it is consistent towards all aircraft.

IIRC (I am not home with my resources right now) the next power setting below WEP, what we use for MIL, on Merlins was a 30 minute limit.  For most purposes in AH that is an unlimited duration.  Spitfires, for example, need a drop tank to even reach that duration.

The problem with not treating the 5 minute power setting of the F4F and Brewster as WEP is that it is inconsistent with the limits placed on other aircraft and makes them disproportionately good performers.  A Merlin could run WEP for 30 minutes, it would just need to be overhauled at an earlier time than the maintenance log scheduled it for.  It would be much more consistent with the engine modeling in AH to simply model the 5 minute power settings on the F4F and Brewster as "WEP" than what we have now.  I don't see a lack of consistency there.

[Wmaker]

I don't see a lack of consistency there.

The Steigh und Kampfleistung for DB605 (1.3ata) also had 30min limit. But American fighters like P-40N for example had a different setting for take off and WEP and both settings had relatively short time limits. This greates a situation where let's say a P-40N could run its 1200hp take off setting indefinately which in real life had 5min limit and the only limited setting would be WEP at 1360hp. The MIL for P-40N is 1125hp and I'm not sure about the time limits for that setting. Of course there could be a bigger jump for longer duration allowed setting to straight to WEP but I'm not sure if that would an ideal solution either. What I'm trying to say is that it isn't quite as simple as you put it IMO.

[Karnak]

Not saying it is simple, just that it would be more consistent than what we have now.  For the P-40N the easiest solution would be to remove the 1200hp take off setting and just go with the 1125hp setting for MIL, leaving WEP of 1360hp, which is what most people in game use for take off anyways.

[Megalodon]

The above is utterly untrue as anyone who reads the Boomerang thread can see.

Here's the link to the page: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,321264.60.html

The whole thing started because I questioned the use of HTC's rescourses on something that saw little use compared to the true work horse aircraft like B-239 and Ki-43. Megalodon obviously take my opinion and set off on this silly crusade against me.

No silly crusade.. at least no less crusade than you went on against the Boomerang... just pointing out the super engine R-1820-G5  that stunk so bad in real life that the DC3 got rid of it by 1936 the B18 got rid of it by 1937 the CW21, 1938, 72 sold to China to get rid of it and the Seversky P-35 used 1 in 1939 and got rid of it. All replaced this motor and got rid of it exactly because it did not make its rated power of 850hp. This all happened years before your little 239 was made, because it stunk!

So I thought I would put the focus on your little plane and it's super magnificent engine. Most engines are lucky to make 85% of there estimated, calculated or theorized max statistics. But... the R-1820-G5 in 239 goes well beyond that it can pull 1000hp below 3k indefinitely and 850hp up to 7000ft........BULLHOCKY.

You are the 1 who wouldn't let it go and kept hammering, what you consider, crappy stats and the time is not worth it. You were the callus one agreeing on how much you and the other folks were going to suffer if HTC put resources into making the Boomerang and adding another country to the fold of AH, it was just not worth the effort............. NO? ......do I have it backwards here?


That is all,

[Karnak]

Megalodon,

The Boomerang is not nearly as significant as the Brewster.  Even the briefest examinations of the service records of the two aircraft reveal that.  The performance of the Brewster in AH matches the historically documented performance as well.  There is, I think, a strong argument to limit the 1000hp output to 5 minutes as on Merlin and Allison engined aircraft, but while it has that 1000hp everything looks to be in line with what it should be.

Your statements such as "So I thought I would put the focus on your little plane and it's super magnificent engine" give lie to the claim that you are not on a vendetta.  Wmaker's comments about the Boomerang are accurate.  It was a complete non-factor in the war and while it meets the criteria to be added, there are many other aircraft of minor powers or major powers that were knocked out of the war early that should have higher priority.

[Megalodon]

Megalodon,

The Boomerang is not nearly as significant as the Brewster.  Even the briefest examinations of the service records of the two aircraft reveal that.  The performance of the Brewster in AH matches the historically documented performance as well.  There is, I think, a strong argument to limit the 1000hp output to 5 minutes as on Merlin and Allison engined aircraft, but while it has that 1000hp everything looks to be in line with what it should be.

 It was a complete non-factor in the war and while it meets the criteria to be added, there are many other aircraft of minor powers or major powers that were knocked out of the war early that should have higher priority.

I disagree  


I'm just here to talk about the R-1820-G5 engine. I moved the conversation from the Boomerang thread because I felt it was hijacking and clearly wmaker wanted to continue.
 

Edit: Btw can you tell me the research you have done on the R-1820-G5 engine since, as you say, everything is in order?

[Karnak]

I disagree

Then your bias is blinding you.  One aircraft that shot down hundreds of aircraft compared to one that did light ground attack and target marking tasks does not make for an even evaluation.

Edit: Btw can you tell me the research you have done on the R-1820-G5 engine since, as you say, everything is in order?

Not the engine, the performance of the aircraft in question.  If the aircraft produced those performance numbers on less power somehow, so be it, but it produced the modeled performance

[Megalodon]

Then your bias is blinding you.  One aircraft that shot down hundreds of aircraft compared to one that did light ground attack and target marking tasks does not make for an even evaluation.



Not the engine, the performance of the aircraft in question.  If the aircraft produced those performance numbers on less power somehow, so be it, but it produced the modeled performance

Your criteria for inclusion is blinding.

The engine makes the performance of the airplane.

About that research you have done on the R-1820-G5? and stop the hijack.

[Karnak]

Your criteria for inclusion is blinding.

What the heck does that mean?  The Boomerang meets the criteria, as I stated, it is just a low priority as it did very little.

The engine makes the performance of the airplane.

About that research you have done on the R-1820-G5? and stop the hijack.

If the aircraft climbed at X and had a max speed of Y and those are the numbers it hits in AH then it is modeled correctly.  The power level the engine needs to provide that performance doesn't change that.

What you need to do is provide data that says the Finnish flight testing was faulty.  Arguing about engine power doesn't accomplish that.

[Megalodon]

What the heck does that mean?  The Boomerang meets the criteria, as I stated, it is just a low priority as it did very little.
If the aircraft climbed at X and had a max speed of Y and those are the numbers it hits in AH then it is modeled correctly.  The power level the engine needs to provide that performance doesn't change that.

What you need to do is provide data that says the Finnish flight testing was faulty.  Arguing about engine power doesn't accomplish that.

It is a low priority for you

Okay

I'm sorry I was unaware that we used the Finish numbers for an American engine manufactured in USA.
I suppose we could use Australian numbers for the P-40E right?

[Karnak]

It is a low priority for you

It is a low priority for anybody who has an honest appraisal of its role in history and to whom such things matter.  I can understand that it matters more to you as a fan of the aircraft, but from a neutral standpoint it is a low priority.

I'm sorry I was unaware that we used the Finish numbers for an American engine manufactured in USA.
I suppose we could use Australian numbers for the P-40E right?

Once again, the engine is irrelevant if the aircraft hits the correct performance numbers.  If it hit those on 850hp or 1000hp does not matter.  The performance numbers that matter are the Finnish numbers as the aircraft is intended to be a Finnish Brewster, not a Marine F2A or an RAF B339E.

[Wmaker]

No silly crusade.. at least no less crusade than you went on against the Boomerang...

That's exactly what it is. You even admitted it yourself:

This came about by WMaker talking down the Boomerang in the Boomerang thread. Basically saying that the Boomerang didn't belong in the game. His criteria for not including it in the game are, it must have shot down an enemy plane to be included, that it is not as good as the 239, and would be a waste of resources.

In my argumentation regarding the Boomerang I've used facts, figures and sources, and unlike you, refrained from ad hominem type of argumentation. All I've really done is disagreed with you and argued my position. You were one of the people who brought the Brewster into the Boomerang discussion and I simply corrected the factual errors regarding the Brewster in that coversation.

just pointing out the super engine R-1820-G5  that stunk so bad in real life that the DC3 got rid of it by 1936 the B18 got rid of it by 1937 the CW21, 1938, 72 sold to China to get rid of it and the Seversky P-35 used 1 in 1939 and got rid of it. All replaced this motor and got rid of it exactly because it did not make its rated power of 850hp. This all happened years before your little 239 was made, because it stunk!

Regarding the power output I've provided primary source material (manufacturer's data) to you, which is something that HTC mostly uses when they model these aircraft) which clearly states that the G5 had an output of 1000hp. You keep saying that it only put out 850hp but you've failed to cite a single source yet. Basically you could have just as well pulled everything in the OP out of your own hat since you haven't cited a single source.

Wright constantly put out new versions of the Cyclone as the development advance just like any other firm with its engines at the time. The older versions were upgraded to newer ones and the older versions were exported as the country of origin (United States in this case) upgraded versions available, a luxury which Finland certainly didn't have. Cyclone was a product of its time just like other aircraft engines before and during WWII. Pulling it's problems out of the context of place and time and the problems with other engines just blows the problems out of proportion and all it really does is it reveals your obvious bias.

Brewsters fought from June of '41 until October of '44, flew 448 hours per plane on average and scored ~11 victories per airframe on average. Not too bad considering they had a useless engine.

Most engines are lucky to make 85% of there estimated, calculated or theorized max statistics.

Based on what exactly? Where's your source?

But... the R-1820-G5 in 239 goes well beyond that it can pull 1000hp below 3k indefinitely and 850hp up to 7000ft........BULLHOCKY.

It is no more "bullhocky" (whatever that means) than how HTC models the powersetting time limits on every single plane in the game.

You are the 1 who wouldn't let it go and kept hammering, what you consider, crappy stats

Like I said time and again, wheather or not I think if Boomerang is competetive or not has nothing to do on why I object its inclusion right now. I merely explained why it isnt going to run rings around the Brewster for example like people in the Boomerang thread led to believe, you included.

You were the callus one agreeing on how much you and the other folks were going to suffer if HTC put resources into making the Boomerang and adding another country to the fold of AH, it was just not worth the effort............. NO? ......do I have it backwards here?

Don't know what "callus" means but basically correct, yes. Instead of wasting time on obscure and relatively insignificant aircraft like the Boomerang, HTC's time should be put to better use like on modelling work horse aircarft like Ki-43 and Pe-2 which much much bigger impact on the course of the war than something like the Boomerang.

[kilo2]

 

[dirtdart]

I personally avoid using the term E-Bleed generally as it is a bit vague but generally the better power loading and the less drag an aircraft has the less E it loses over time and can generate it back faster. On the area I'm sure that the K-4 has a considerable advantage. I think it has more to do with the fact that Brewster, when following a K-4 in its rear hemisphere can simply cut a corner and gain angles on the K-4 and the .50s reach a long way. If the K-4 simply insists on staying above the Brewster and is patient there isn't much the Brewster can do about it.

Wmaker, I also sincerely know so little about aero stuff, I am just calling it what I think everyone else might refer it to.  I am a geological engineer.  You want to talk resistivity, etc... I am your man.  The crap here is vodoo. 

[Butcher]

Wmaker is correct, Megalodon you need to show some sources to your claim - I would dig through and find the information but Wmaker I know - has his material correct.