Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: DweebFire on May 07, 2007, 07:13:27 PM
-
Just wondering what grade the planes use in this game. Do they all use the same grade or do they use the grade that their respective countries mostly used?
If it's the latter, i'd like to take a peek at an F4U-4's performance with 100 octane.
Thanks!
-
There Powered by some Brew HiTech makes out in the woods .
:noid
-
xD
Ain't that just dandy.
-
I seem to recall they were talking about high octane fuel last year in the Aircraft and Vehicles forum.
As for performance, I think the aircraft are modelled on published wartime performance records.
-
I see. Well then methinks the F4U-4 may be a little undermodeled in climb. I looked it up www.spitfireperformance.com (http://www.spitfireperformance.com) and the tests were based on an F4U-4 carrying '115 - 145 octane' whatever that means.
The tests showed that the maximum climb rate @ SL was 4770 fpm and the climb rate charts showed that it practically outclimbed even the Spitfire LF.IX (Merlin 66) at almost all heights, except at uber high altitudes. In fact, the tests show that the 4-hawg is actually passing 4,800 fpm as of 7,800 feet.
The 4-hawg in the game is outclimbed by the Merlin 61 Spitfire IX.
Anyone care to clarify?
-
Well...
I guess they've had it wrong all these years.
Thanks for coming along and pointing out the error.
I'm sure they'll get somebody right on it and straighten this whole mess out.
Is it September yet??
-
LOL
Well just wondering. I mean... why do the tests seem so different from the Aces High performance?
-
I'll type this as slowly as I can.
Put the words octane, fuel, climb, F4U4, Corsair, etc. into the search engine for the Aircraft and Vehicles forum on this BBS and it'll kick back enough info for you to study for years to come.
-
lol ok dude, i'm not very smart. you don't have to rub it in xD
Thanks though!
-
also there are a bunch of site with the "correct" ratings, so anyone can quote facts to the contrary to pretty much any theory. HTC set his standards, and thats what we play by. If you want to compare aircraft in the game, use only info compiled in the game.
-
Don't worry Dweebfire, I thought it was a good post! Ignore these guys, most people around here know that all that matters is what I think. :)
-
Looked at the linked site from above.
I know little about engines, but I saw this and wondered.....
If the 109G has:
Radiator: 2 in wings,
Why does mine seem to lose its radiator (note: only one is listed on the damage chart) when I take a .50 cal round forward of the canopy?
-
Originally posted by Xasthur
If the 109G has:
Why does mine seem to lose its radiator (note: only one is listed on the damage chart) when I take a .50 cal round forward of the canopy? [/B]
Hmmm,maybe there are hoses and lines that run from rads to engine.
all likely to be damaged by rounds bouncing around the engine compartment.
But, to get back to the thread, there has been some talk about adding 150 octane fuel,in CT, which would allow for higher MP settings and more HP.
Also the variable octane ratings stated were because the different fuels used had slightly different octane levels.
I read that some companies had a problem with the lead additives,this cause no end of problems,engine misfires,burnt plugs,ect.
One other thing I might add is that no 2 planes had the exact same performance.Simply polishing an A/C could add to it's performance as drag has a huge effect.
-
I think that those inlets under the wings are not the radiators. The inlet under the nose cowling is the radiator. Just what i think.
Morfiend, you are right about no a/c having the same performance. Not a single plane on the face of this earth (to my limited knowledge) ever had the exact same performance.
Also, about the fuel grades. Fuel grades didn't always create a super boost in performance. i.e. Some planes are only instructed to go above a certain boost level with only high levels of octane. For example the Spitfire LF IX was only allowed to have its pilot boost to + 25 lb. of boost IF he had 150 octane in the tank or better. If the fuel was even just 145, that wouldn't have been allowed, and performance probably wouldn't have changed (i think) in comparison with the performance figures of 100 octane.
-
One more thing to keep in mind.. octane in Europe is calculated differently than octane in the U.S..
I don't remember the specifics, but there is a difference...
-
Oh wow! did not know that. Would that mean something like 115 octane in the US would be like 150 octane in britain or something? i'm not getting as to how those F4U-4's in the http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4.pdf) file are climbing at 4770 fpm @ SL. this one fact of the octane being calculated differently may be the one shot of proof i'll need so i can understand.
-
The higher the octane rating, the lower the flash point, therefore higher boost could be used without causing detonation.
I do not think Navy/Marine Corps units had access to 150 octane fuel in the combat zone of the PTO. Widewing knows more about this than probably anyone on the boards, and could set me straight if I'm wrong. IIRC, he stated in another thread that 150 octane (in combat zones) was limited to 8th Air Force for the most part. So, if they were only using lower grade fuel, they wouldn't be able to pull as much manifold pressure as a test pilot back in the States, i.e. lower climb rate from less horsepower.
-
Originally posted by morfiend
Hmmm,maybe there are hoses and lines that run from rads to engine.
all likely to be damaged by rounds bouncing around the engine compartment.
If this is the case then it seems illogical that .50 hits from above and behind could damage the radiator. This seems to happen all too often when buff hunting.
-
Originally posted by Xasthur
If this is the case then it seems illogical that .50 hits from above and behind could damage the radiator. This seems to happen all too often when buff hunting.
Well, I wont claim to understand HT's damage modeling,but I seems to me that only a certain amount of compenets can be listed.So damage to a coolant line would appear as damage to Rad.Also a cracked block,50"s will do this,might be represented as engine and radiator damage.
1 other thing to consider,the engine is mounted inverted,so this might also contribute to those above,behind shots registering as rad damage.
The only way to rid yourself of this problem is to fly a Radial engined plane.
-
The performance of the 109's suffered near the end of the war because the Germans could not produce enough High octane fuel and started to use lower grade.
-
Another would be the newer, less experienced pilots. Some of whom bailed out when in the sights of an Allied plane.
Btw, Xasthur, please don't thread hijack. If you need some clarification, the HTC community will be more than happy to help if you start your new thread. Plus, you'll probably get more help there.