Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: RufusLeaking on October 31, 2009, 10:37:06 AM
-
Try flying any snapshot, FSO, event, scenario, anything other than the MA, where you need a betty, a beaufort, a wellington, a real P-40B, a Ki43, a P-2, or any number of things the game currently lacks.
Pardon my quoting this from another thread. It would have been off topic and out of place after the three pages of point-counterpoint.
Anyway, Krusty appears to imply that there is something amiss in the P-40B modeling.
Is it possible for Krusty, or anyone else in the know to elaborate on this?
And for the record, yes to developing all of the other planes mentioned.
-
Krusty is always right. Let's leave it at that.
-
P-2? Hmmmmm, is that a Pe-2 or a PO-2? Makes a world of difference (although both would be fun).
All the others listed - oh yes, please. :aok
Plus the Fairey Swordfish. I'm an old Royal Navy Brat and I'd be very happy to fly an accurately-modelled Stringbag, even if it'd be the slowest aircraft in the planeset and probably the easiest 'kill'.
<grins when he imagines the perkies to be gained by downing a Hun fighter with a snap full-deflection shot from the front gun>
Re: the P-40B, I don't think there's much amiss in its modelling, its flight characteristics seem to match very well what I've read about the real thing.
:salute
-
Krusty is always right. Let's leave it at that.
See sig. :lol
-
The P-40B is modeled as a P-40C... Thus, it is too heavy and too slow to perform like a B model should. Meanwhile, our P-40E has WEP, which it did not actually have. Performance is essentially that of the P-40K.
P-40Cs has provision for an external drop tank and more armor than the B model. Top speed for the P-40C was 342 mph @16k, whereas the P-40B should manage 351 mph @ 16k.
P-40 issues are well known and well defined and I'm quite sure that they will be addressed when they receive their graphics update.
Krusty is probably correct.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I'm going to quote "Krusty is probably correct" from WideWing in threads all the time now D..
-
I dont know about WEP settings on the later models (what was used specifically, what was allowed, etc) but the top speeds of the E, F, K, L, and M are all almost identical.
So whether or not our E had the right WEP settings, it still hits about the proper top speed.
Maybe Widewing is saying it should hit that without any WEP at all (like the Yak?)
-
Pardon my quoting this from another thread. It would have been off topic and out of place after the three pages of point-counterpoint.
Anyway, Krusty appears to imply that there is something amiss in the P-40B modeling.
Is it possible for Krusty, or anyone else in the know to elaborate on this?
And for the record, yes to developing all of the other planes mentioned.
I'm still waiting for what he implies is wrong about our 1A.
-
I'm still waiting for what he implies is wrong about our 1A.
i'm actually waiting for the rest of the point.
generally when there's a "XXX is modeled wrong" thread, it happens to be that XXX is undermodeled, and was being flown by the person claiming it to be modeled wrongly....and whatever beat that person in the undermodeled aircraft is in fact overmodeled.
-
i'm actually waiting for the rest of the point.
generally when there's a "XXX is modeled wrong" thread, it happens to be that XXX is undermodeled, and was being flown by the person claiming it to be modeled wrongly....and whatever beat that person in the undermodeled aircraft is in fact overmodeled.
me tinks cap is a bbs junkie :joystick:
-
i'm actually waiting for the rest of the point.
generally when there's a "XXX is modeled wrong" thread, it happens to be that XXX is undermodeled, and was being flown by the person claiming it to be modeled wrongly....and whatever beat that person in the undermodeled aircraft is in fact overmodeled.
In the case of the 1A, in the P-47M thread Krusty said it was tossed in "as a gift to the players" and as a result the flight model wasn't what it SHOULD be, without actually saying what was wrong (overmodeled? Undermodeled? What's wrong with it?).
-
P-7M
100 Krustys...
-
100 Krustys...
Fixed my post. Forgive me for dropping a number. :P
-
I'm hoping for a P-40N to be introduced when the Warhawk gets its graphics update. Wouldn't mind seeing a Merlin-powered F for North African scenarios, and the very ungainly looking K.
-
me tinks cap is a bbs junkie :joystick:
it's kinda how i get my ah "fix" when i can't get the time to log in and fly
-
I wasn't the one that brought up some issues with the F4u1. Somebody else did, so in my response I used it as an example. They said the F4u1 and F4u1A used the same flight model or something (whatever it was). I just said HTC sometimes re-uses flight models (the P-40M is really a -N as evidenced by the old -Ns gas tanks still being listed in the damage list).
P.S. Way to take a hijack and start insulting somebody for no reason. Lovely hospitality. This topic is about the P-40 line.
-
as far as what i said......i insulted no one. it wasn't intended to insult anyone. it's just the way it is when you see a XXX vs ZZZ aircraft thread.
-
Every man has opinions. Krusty has more than most, but even some of Krusty's opinions might be true. Judge the message, not the messenger. This goes double for those opinions that are accepted based on reputation alone.
-
P.S. Way to take a hijack and start insulting somebody for no reason. Lovely hospitality. This topic is about the P-40 line.
I don't see a hijack. Someone asked you to clarify your comments about how a particular aircraft was modeled. I asked you to clarify your comments about another.
-
Meanwhile, our P-40E has WEP, which it did not actually have.
Again, incorrect. Read the pilot's manuals.
-
Again, incorrect. Read the pilot's manuals.
Would help if you post where your info came from... <S>
-
The P-40B is modeled as a P-40C... Thus, it is too heavy and too slow to perform like a B model should. Meanwhile, our P-40E has WEP, which it did not actually have. Performance is essentially that of the P-40K.
P-40Cs has provision for an external drop tank and more armor than the B model. Top speed for the P-40C was 342 mph @16k, whereas the P-40B should manage 351 mph @ 16k.
In AH modelling terms, what makes a P-40B instead of a P-40C?
Without getting into proprietary nuts and bolts, what exactly is modelled?
In my mind, I imagine a set of equations that have a number of variables, like power and weight. There has to be some Lift/Drag information, but I can't imagine the form. What got me thinking was the question: why model the P-40B as a C model? Was C data all that was available in a complete enough set to fill out the flight model variables?
Pardon my ignorance on modelling. I understand the physics of flight. How to express them in efficient computer code is beyond me.
-
just for the heck of it, i tried the p40d(i think) or whichever was the later one ingame. i tried it off line, shooting at the drones.
handling? it kinda feels like an underpowered p38 to me. the biggest difference being that it has the torque issues to contend with.
:bolt: :banana: :airplane:
-
Again, incorrect. Read the pilot's manuals.
Not exactly sure I would argue the point with Widewing...unless I'm totally mistaken (which admittely happens a lot) the E model had an Allison V-1710-39(?) with a 2 stage supercharger on the engine...not exactly the "war emergency power" system that would use something like a methanol injection.
-
Again, incorrect. Read the pilot's manuals.
The P-40 manual that I have (Pilot training manual for the P-40, 1943) talks about different P-40 variants including the Merlin engined versions and its power setting table for the allision engines doesn't specify which engine variant the table is for.
According to Francis Dean's America's Hundred Thousand:
P-40E, Allison V-1710-39
Take off: 3000rpm, 46.2", 1150hp
Military: 3000rpm, 1150hp, up to 12000ft
Normal: 2600rpm, 38.7", 1000hp, up tp 10000ft
No War Emergency Power mentoned
As it has been mentioned, the later -73 -Allison of the P-40K had War Emergency powersetting of 1550hp@3000rpm.
-
Again, incorrect. Read the pilot's manuals.
Pilot manuals change and evolve. I prefer actual engine documentation. I have a copy of TO 01-25CF-1 (P-40D/E/E-1) pilot's manual of December 1942 and a 1944 addition as well.
There is conflicting data on the engine rating, and it depends upon the general time frame.
As far as I can determine, in late 1942, the P-40E SEFC was updated to include a WEP rating of 56 in/hg. Prior to that, I can find no WEP rating in any documents.
Let's stick to the rating of the P-40E when deliveries began in August of 1941.
Download and read this document:http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/P40E-%20RAAF%20T%27ville%20test.pdf (http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/P40E-%20RAAF%20T%27ville%20test.pdf)
You'll note that there is no WEP rating.
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/P-40E-Limits.jpg)
No WEP rating here either.
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/KittyhawkV-1710-39-Rating.jpg)
Nor here....
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/V-1710-39rating.jpg)
Not even here.
Where you find a WEP rating is in the late 1942 manual, reflecting an uprating of the engine.
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/P-40E-SEFC.jpg)
So, you can argue either side of the coin. However, the uprating does not appear until after all 800 P-40K-1 and K-5 (short fuselage) fighters were delivered with the V-1710-73 (F4R), with a WEP rating of 1,550 hp at 56 in/hg. By 1943, most E models still in service were retrofitted with the -73 (or a remanufactured, upgraded -39) as -39 had long since ceased production. Hence, the uprating in the SEFC.
If you have an SEFC chart dated prior to 1942 showing the V-1710-39 with a WEP rating, please post it. I'd very interested to see it.
My regards,
Widewing
-
In AH modelling terms, what makes a P-40B instead of a P-40C?
Without getting into proprietary nuts and bolts, what exactly is modelled?
In my mind, I imagine a set of equations that have a number of variables, like power and weight. There has to be some Lift/Drag information, but I can't imagine the form. What got me thinking was the question: why model the P-40B as a C model? Was C data all that was available in a complete enough set to fill out the flight model variables?
Pardon my ignorance on modelling. I understand the physics of flight. How to express them in efficient computer code is beyond me.
The P-40C weighed 152 lb more than the P-40B. That reduced climb rate slightly. Speed was reduced by the permanent drop tank shackles on the belly. One pilot with experience in both models stated that the C was about 7 mph slower than the B. However, that would vary some depending upon the service condition of the aircraft. The AH2 P-40B can manage only 340 mph, whereas test data for the actual aircraft varies between 346 and 351 mph, dependent upon service condition and the facility performing the test.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Fairey Swordfish. I'm an old Royal Navy Brat and I'd be very happy to fly an accurately-modelled Stringbag, even if it'd be the slowest aircraft in the planeset and probably the easiest 'kill'.
Werd!
That was what my Grandfather started out flying in WWII for the FAA and I for one woul love the chance to get in one, even if it is only in this pretend world of ours.
-
My manual is scanned so badly that the date is not readable.
The data is:
Take-off: 3000rpm/45,5", time limit 5 min.
Military power: 3000rpm/44,5", time limit 5 min
Maximum continuous power: 2600rpm/38,5".
My definition of WEP is something along the line: "Power that cannot be sustained longer than 5-10min".
For comparison, AH data for P-40E is:
Military 3000rpm/44,6" (this is the "WEP" with 5 min limitation, note that it is labeled correctly by the manual)
Normal 2600rpm/38,5"
So to nitpick, there is no "WEP" labeled as such, but "MIL" power limited (correctly) to 5 minutes.
-
I do not think 'MIL' and 'WEP' are interchangeable.
My experience is in jets. There was a MIL setting at approx 100%, then there was afterburner. Not a direct comparison, to be sure, but it leads me to believe that 'WEP' was something beyond MIL. Didn't some engines of the era have nitrous injection?
-
I do not think 'MIL' and 'WEP' are interchangeable.
My experience is in jets. There was a MIL setting at approx 100%, then there was afterburner. Not a direct comparison, to be sure, but it leads me to believe that 'WEP' was something beyond MIL. Didn't some engines of the era have nitrous injection?
WW2 era aircraft used all sorts of injections, but in many aircraft WEP was simply a higher manifold pressure and more RPMs.
-
WW2 era aircraft used all sorts of injections, but in many aircraft WEP was simply a higher manifold pressure and more RPMs.
my understanding was that most german airctaft used some sort of nitrous injection, most liquid cooled allied "V" engines just had a "stop", which if you forced the throttle, you'd pass that point for higher manifold pressure(but this required engine replacement?), and allied radial engines had water injection.
i could be wrong though.
-
The key letter in WEP is the E ,,,the emergency part
For many engines it means just running it at a rating which would require the ground crew to check it or perform extra maintenance for it upon landing, and often could only be sustained for a limited period of time before the engine started doing things you didn't want it to do with the enemy around you. As opposed to MIL , which is in a way just the highest setting the engine can run at indefinitely (or you run out of fuel)
With some engines WEP means a Methanol or Water or GM (nitrous oxide) injection. As far as I know Aces High doesn't model the 'go juice' , it only models the higher engine rating that the 'go juice' would give you.
-
AH doest really accurately model any of the WEP settings when it comes to total duration....
If so most of the German and American radials would run out of WEP permanently in five to ten minutes.
Without ANY regen, nitrous and water tanks dont get refilled in midair.
Planes that utilized extra boost/manifold pressure would not have this limitation.
Strip
-
AH doest really accurately model any of the WEP settings when it comes to total duration....
If so most of the German and American radials would run out of WEP permanently in five to ten minutes.
Without ANY regen, nitrous and water tanks dont get refilled in midair.
Planes that utilized extra boost/manifold pressure would not have this limitation.
Strip
This is what I understand as well.
It is highly unfortunate that some planes utilizing injections to cool/boost their engine power have in effect 'infinite' sized tanks of MW or GM-1, Water, etc.
Should need to land on a pad to regenerate the supply , just like ammo or fuel.
-
AH doest really accurately model any of the WEP settings when it comes to total duration....
If so most of the German and American radials would run out of WEP permanently in five to ten minutes.
Without ANY regen, nitrous and water tanks dont get refilled in midair.
Planes that utilized extra boost/manifold pressure would not have this limitation.
Strip
the limitation on the engines using extra boost or manifold pressure would be overheating, or self destruction.
-
the limitation on the engines using extra boost or manifold pressure would be overheating, or self destruction.
Until you just cool the engine off and do it again. Drawing on the magic limitless supply
-
Until you just cool the engine off and do it again. Drawing on the magic limitless supply
nononono......mypoint was that if they started to do the other types of wep properly, then this would be how they could do it with the "over revved" engines.
-
My bad .
You're right. :cheers:
-
My bad .
You're right. :cheers:
not your bad really. i sometimes don't get things out of my head through my fingers as i intend them to come out.....and as such, am sometimes misunderstood. :aok
-
FYI...
Some engines, especially the Merlin in certain applications, could be run at full power until the fuel ran out without overheating.
The magical supply arguement only holds water with respect to nitrous or water injection, boosted engines would run til you pulled the throttle back or the engine quit.
Strip
-
Some engines, especially the Merlin in certain applications, could be run at full power until the fuel ran out without overheating.
Then it's not WEP.
The magical supply arguement only holds water with respect to nitrous or water injection, boosted engines would run til you pulled the throttle back or the engine quit.
obvious point is obvious
-
FYI...
Some engines, especially the Merlin in certain applications, could be run at full power until the fuel ran out without overheating.
The magical supply arguement only holds water with respect to nitrous or water injection, boosted engines would run til you pulled the throttle back or the engine quit.
Strip
if i recall, aircraft such as the p51, p38, p47, had a "false" throttle stop...for lack of a better word. when the pilot got into trouble, he "forced" the throttle(s) through this "false" stop, thus increasing his manifold pressure, boost, and i think possibly rpm.
this is what limited the time on these engines. they would overheat, or self destruct.
again, i'm not sure, but one of the mustang drivers that was in our r/c club(Bob Emme, passed last summer) said that using this required the removal of the engine when they got back to base.
-
AH doest really accurately model any of the WEP settings when it comes to total duration....
If so most of the German and American radials would run out of WEP permanently in five to ten minutes.
Without ANY regen, nitrous and water tanks dont get refilled in midair.
Yes, but how much "go juice" did they carry? Many planes carried 15 minutes of water injection, even if it could only be run at 5 minute bursts, and some LW planes carried well over half an hour's additives onboard, way more than needed to melt the engine down several times over from excess heat.
In a game like AH where 2x fuel burn in the MA limits most sorties to 30 minutes or less, you could run out of GAS before you run out of MW50.
Maybe eventually HTC will get around to adding this level of detail, but for all intents and purposes, it's the same end result. HEAT limits WEP, not so much the additives being drained dry.
-
if i recall, aircraft such as the p51, p38, p47, had a "false" throttle stop...for lack of a better word. when the pilot got into trouble, he "forced" the throttle(s) through this "false" stop, thus increasing his manifold pressure, boost, and i think possibly rpm.
this is what limited the time on these engines. they would overheat, or self destruct.
again, i'm not sure, but one of the mustang drivers that was in our r/c club(Bob Emme, passed last summer) said that using this required the removal of the engine when they got back to base.
Oh let's not start THAT debate again. WW, hitech and others with actual flight experience or experience working with these engines have already made it clear that there is NOT any time at those power settings before your engine blows up in your face. Over the course of a single sortie overheats will NOT affect engine performance like this. The only actual effect would be an ass-chewing by your crew chief and extra time in maintenance before the aircraft is cleared for flight again.
Overheats in sims are an artificial means of imposing operational procedures, NOT an accurate mechanical limitation of the equipment itself.
-
As opposed to MIL , which is in a way just the highest setting the engine can run at indefinitely (or you run out of fuel)
I thought the same, but the above posted pages from P-40 manuals show a time limit on MIL settings.
-
Oh let's not start THAT debate again. WW, hitech and others with actual flight experience or experience working with these engines have already made it clear that there is NOT any time at those power settings before your engine blows up in your face. Over the course of a single sortie overheats will NOT affect engine performance like this. The only actual effect would be an ass-chewing by your crew chief and extra time in maintenance before the aircraft is cleared for flight again.
Overheats in sims are an artificial means of imposing operational procedures, NOT an accurate mechanical limitation of the equipment itself.
No offense here but you're assertion is flying almost in direct contradiction to real life evidence. At any point in time a system failure (i.e. cracked supercharger housing, defective cylinder, cracked fuel line, leaking radiator, etc...) could cause an engine to explode when War Emergency Power was enabled, either at the time it was enabled or when something caused a part(s) to fail. The documented effects of using WEP in WWII were predominantly excessive engine wear due and overheat due to the increased RPMs and in some instances when tolerances were pushed to the mechanical limits, engine failure. Very similar to the effects of a car engine exploding in a drag race (especially the top fuel dragsters). After every sortie the engine would be inspected for damage and if the WEP had been used the engine would be torn down and inspected inside and out which added to the amount of time the plane and its pilot was grounded.
-
No, my assertion is based on the real-life evidence posted in other threads on this discussion by people who have both general flight experience (hitech) and specific experience WITH these engines (Widewing).
-
Very similar to the effects of a car engine exploding in a drag race (especially the top fuel dragsters). After every sortie the engine would be inspected for damage and if the WEP had been used the engine would be torn down and inspected inside and out which added to the amount of time the plane and its pilot was grounded.
Sorry comparing a Merlin engine to a nitromethane burning Top Fuel car is a very very very bad idea....
In terms of hp per cubic inch the Merlin engine even at its best performance was only pulling about 1.3 hp/cid. Do you REALLY think that the engineers back then were pushing the limits of the engine that far? The Top Fuel on the other hand is pulling about 16 hp/cid while doing that in a very small and light design. Your talking about an engine that pulls over 150 inches of manifold pressure igniting a substance that is 52% (by weight) oxygen. Sorry but comparing anything in a Top Fuel with a Merlin engine is like comparing a V8 to a weed eater.
Strip
-
Sorry comparing a Merlin engine to a nitromethane burning Top Fuel car is a very very very bad idea....
In terms of hp per cubic inch the Merlin engine even at its best performance was only pulling about 1.3 hp/cid. Do you REALLY think that the engineers back then were pushing the limits of the engine that far? The Top Fuel on the other hand is pulling about 16 hp/cid while doing that in a very small and light design. Your talking about an engine that pulls over 150 inches of manifold pressure igniting a substance that is 52% (by weight) oxygen. Sorry but comparing anything in a Top Fuel with a Merlin engine is like comparing a V8 to a weed eater.
Strip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIj2GVfua84
check this out dude. :aok
-
I have watched that one a few times before......just watched it again because its so cool.
<Insert drool smiley>
The real question....whats the 1/4 mile time?
:D
Strip
-
I have watched that one a few times before......just watched it again because its so cool.
<Insert drool smiley>
The real question....whats the 1/4 mile time?
:D
Strip
i've never found a video where the guy ran it. it'd be interesting........and yes, i drool EVERY time i see that too. :aok