Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Nath-BDP on December 02, 2000, 01:38:00 PM
-
First of all theres a bug in the P51 where the oil meter goes past 0 and the engine keeps running, but here are the times and film with an oil leak for both aircraft:
P51D - 5 Minutes http://pobox2.zyan.com/~nath/films/p51oil.ahf (http://pobox2.zyan.com/~nath/films/p51oil.ahf)
Bf109G10 - 30 seconds http://pobox2.zyan.com/~nath/films/G10Oil.ahf (http://pobox2.zyan.com/~nath/films/G10Oil.ahf)
I don't see how a P51 losses its oil so slowly compared to a Bf 109, they both have engines that are practically the same size.
Can someone with more knowledge on aircraft powerplants give a reasonable explanation or historical data that proves that the P51 should run for such a long time with an oil leak, compared to the 109? If not I would hope Pyro fixes this ASAP.
Laters
------------------
Nath_____
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
"It felt as if an angel was pushing..."
-Reponse of Gen. Adolf Galland after flying the fourth prototype Me 262 in May 1943.
[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 12-02-2000).]
-
USAAF planes come with additional can of hair grease that can be used as a lubricant if the oil supply should run out. Also, as the German war industry was heavily suppressed due to Allied bombing they were forced to replase standard oil with lager beer. Lager is more runny and flows faster out of the holes, thus emptying the available supply rather fast.
This was the most reasonable and rational explanation that I could come up with in such a short notice.
------------------
---
SageFIN
"I think I´ll believe in Gosh instead of God. If you don´t
believe in Gosh too, you´ll be darned to heck."
---
[This message has been edited by SageFIN (edited 12-02-2000).]
-
How many more times we gott say it?
It is an LW conspiricy!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
it may be that the oil used by germany was far inferior /less refined or possibly the strange oil they produced from coal i believe.who knows but i bet thats what will be given as explanation.
hazed
-
Turbolasers punch bigger holes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Hi
I really think oil cooler damage on all inline liquid cooled planes should be the same. maybe up to 20 or 30 seconds max time. I see nohing in the P51 design where its oil cooler damage run time is 10 times longer than a 109s. What basis in reality is there for this HTC? Wernt P51 nutorious for various coolant system damage vulnerability in RL combat. I just dont see why some planes are given such a tremendous combat advantage, based on apparently no evidence???
HTC??
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
Most of the hipowered warplanes of WWII burned alot of oil.
The longer the plane's endurance, the more oil it has to have available. Say a B-17, it has about 50 gallons of oil per engine, and can burn most of that off during a max endurance flight.
While it may not explain that large or difference (but then again I don't think oil leaks have a static length) it's a reality.
Given the combat radius and endurance of the two planes, the P-51 probably has a larger lubrication system altogather.
Course finding the oil capacity of both planes would tell you. It seems to make sense though, since most of the radial planes have enormous oil quantities, and run the longest with an oil hit in AH.
Just as the F4F and B-17 have the same engine, yet they nowhere near the same oil capacity, let alone comparing different engines.
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 12-02-2000).]
-
109G10- 11 gallon oil tank.
P51d -12 gallon oil tank.
Aircooled engines haul so much oil around for cooling purposes, and probably the higher tendancy to leak.
-
Maybe the liquid cooling itself is prolonging the run time?
Might be something in the respective pilot handbooks in the EP section under loss of oil pressure. Anyone have the manuals?
-
Anyone know how long the Spit runs with an oil leak? Should be similar to the Mustang. If not, there must be a problem.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan:
If not, there must be a problem.
If yes there is a bigger problem, with BOTH the Spit and P51...
or a smaller one with the 109.
BTW a Fw190A with an oil leak lasts for less than a minute. And it is a radial.
I know it well. It used to be my ride, yah know.
-
109's engine werent from the top end reliability, but those sure didnt just stop running few seconds after oil hit.
I've read some stories told by 109 pilots that had some more and less bad cooling damages, but they were still able to fly for minutes.
190 is kind of amazing me as well, for radial..
Typhoon engine also quits running very quickly after cooling gets hit.
I wonder why this is so that most american planes flies longer with cooling damages, while planes from other countries drops from the skies almost instantly.
god bless the america.
-
Part of that is the high number of American planes that used the Pratt & Whitney RR Double Wasp series of radials. We have three american fighters in AH, and two of them use that engine. It was one of, if not the toughest engine in WWII, or so I've been told.
Kudos go to NathBDP for doing some tests. <S> Nath, that's the right way to procede. I agree that we need an explanation here. That is a big difference. Maybe the Pony had a really huge oil tank? I can't imagine it would be that much bigger...
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
-
P51 had a 11.5 Imp gallon oil tank.
[This message has been edited by Nashwan (edited 12-03-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Nashwan:
P51 had a 11.5 Imp gallon fuel tank.
And it could go all that way on that?
Wow. That's what I call fuel economy (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Ok, my mistake. Now corrected (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I hope this gets fixed ASAP...
------------------
Nath_____
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
"It felt as if an angel was pushing..."
-Reponse of Gen. Adolf Galland after flying the fourth prototype Me 262 in May 1943.
-
Thanks nath. You just validated my whines about the P-51 oil leak thingy (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}
-
Woah up folks. Don't be asking for it to be "fixed" yet. We don't have enough data to know this is wrong yet.
You started well, but lets get some more facts before you attempt to "pass judgement". A bit of input from Pyro would be good too. 11.5 gallons is a LOT of oil, but we still don't know how much the G10 had. We need some more info.
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
-
Originally posted by chisel:
109G10- 11 gallon oil tank.
P51d -12 gallon oil tank.
.
Now you know it.
Fix it.
-
Now let's get into location, amount of ducting, amount of oil in the engine, ducting, and tank when running, oil pump running capacity, PSI, and any auxillarys systems such as pumps, ducting, valves, etc.
As simple as you might want it to BE, it's not.
-
The size of the oil tank may not be the issue here, and it certainly isn't the only one.
Ram. That kind of attitude isn't going to get you anywhere. Nothing will get fixed because you demand it. Posts like that just illustrate what kind of a fellow you really are. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
[This message has been edited by Lephturn (edited 12-03-2000).]
-
Jigster, you that this data of 10 times longer before engine failure for 109 is correct? I dont see how it possibly could be...
it really IS that simple, unless the p51 had self sealing oil lines (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
i tend to think the 109 is too short, not the pony too long.. if there *was* a leak, it would probably takke 30 seconds to loose oil pressure, then the engine could probably operate another 2 minutes or so just on the oil already in the engine.
just #s but the speed with which the engines cut out is kinda funy..
be nice to have partial engine power after damage, i know the r2800 could have cyylinders shot off that would cause reduced power but it would still run
anyways damage is pretty porked as is IMHO, i think too many deaths are from control surface/wingtip loss and not NEARLY enough engine/fuel fires.
-
Just thinking out loud here:
Oil cooled and liquid cooled engines have one thing in common. They both use oil for LUBRICATION.
Now the oil cooled engine also uses the same oil for COOLING. The liquid cooled engine does not.
Now if you drill the oil tank on an oil COOLED engine you lose both the COOLING AND THE LUBRICATION, right? Sooner or later, anyway.
If you drill the oil tank ONLY on a liquid cooled engine, you have lost LUBRICATION only. Can this be a possible difference in the run time?
That's just one consideration, too. Now factor in the RPM demands being put on the engine (idle vs redline) and differences in the cooling systems on different planes (does the Spit IX have exactly the same liquid cooling capability as the P-51D?)
I'd like to see this line of research continue. I think there's a lot of testing to be done. Are leaks static time? Does a 109 lock up in the same amount of time at idle or redline?
Just saying the "oil tanks are the same size. Fix it." isn't going to get it done right. In fact, it's a pretty shallow approach to the problem, isn't it?
Let's try and work it out without the old "conspriacy theory" BS and then hand it to Pyro.
-
I have read a story where a p47 pilot flew home and when he landed he saw there was absolutely no oil in the engine and it got him home..i'll try to dig out book and find it.
However ive not read anything in any litrature about time for engines to run dry..surely this is guesswork?
I have no real problem with this just confirms my feelings whilst playing.
Hazed LW (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Of course it's porked. There's no good reason why an engine would suddenly seize seconds after losing oil pressure.
First the engine would heat up dramaticly, along with power loss, and then a seizure. But that's not a modeled effect. (taking into account the engine was not hit either, but oil hits and non- "instant stop" engine damage seems to be one in the same.
That and some planes had emergency valve systems which allowed rerouting, such as bypassing the oil cooler (requiring reduced throttle) or the reserve tank, assuming that the oil doesn't catch on fire from the manifold.
Whether any of that makes a difference in AH, I dunno.
- Jig
-
Hi
The P47 is irellavant to this discussion. The best way to do this would be to make liquid cooled planes loose power after 30 seconds of oil damage. Unless there is real and factual data about 109 and 51 oil system differences to support the outrageus advantage of 51 in this area it shoud be changed in a patch or in version 105.
Toad, both 109 and P51 use glycol type radiators to cool the engine, they do not use engine oil for cooling. The oil coolers just cool the oil and are a completly independant system from the glycol radiator setup for engine cooling.
thanks GRUNHERZ
[This message has been edited by GRUNHERZ (edited 12-03-2000).]
-
Grun, you have to take into account that while the main radiator cooling system is the primary, oil cooling contributes substantially to what the temperature within the block will be. Especially under emergency power.
This isn't a P-51 vs 109 issue, it's a 109 vs the rest of the plane set issue. Nearly all other other planes have a longer endurance then the 109.
I'd think it best to reserve comment either someone presents reasonable proof for the difference or against, or Pyro comments on this.
It is kinda silly that this is getting twisted into another US vs LW scenario.
-
Btw the P-47 does have relevance to this, anything for a more complex engine damage system is worth stating (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
- Jig
-- "Hey Look, I've lost my auxillary oil cooler, 2 pistons, my reserve oil tank, two spark plugs, part of a crank shaft, 5 fuel lines, and a magneto! Shame I lost my wing too, I suppose dodging the rest of the attacks and nursing it home could of been fun"
(my anti-cannon speech for the month)
-
Originally posted by Jigster:
This isn't a P-51 vs 109 issue, it's a 109 vs the rest of the plane set issue. Nearly all other other planes have a longer endurance then the 109.
Actually those italian planes does have same problem and Typhoon..
Italians can be actually more feared of their engine - engine actually got killed before any other damage made when I tested it with funked.
not sure about spitfire anymore.. not many has shot down my super spittie (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(and it takes quite alot shots too before damage..)
-
This isn't a P-51 vs 109 issue, it's a 109 vs the rest of the plane set issue. Nearly all other other planes have a longer endurance then the 109.
You forgot the Yak9 wich is like the 109 ...
-
The Yak-9 damage tree is identical to the Me 109. Could it be that they share the same basic damage model?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
The P47 is irellavant to this discussion... Toad, both 109 and P51 use glycol type radiators to cool the engine, they do not use engine oil for cooling
[This message has been edited by GRUNHERZ (edited 12-03-2000).]
Grun,
It seems that we have a lot of variation even within similar engine types in the planeset. Therefore, discussions of air-cooled, oil lubricated radials is germane to this discussion, if you're using a "big picture" approach.
I'm looking at the engine oil/glycol cooling damage model overall, too, not for any one specific aircraft. It seems they should be similar.
Are they in the game? Are there RW design reasons that might explain it if they are not? Or are all the designs so similar in cooling ability that there should be essentially no difference? For example, does the Spit have any significant differences in cooling capacity/capability with respect to the -51? How do those then compare to the 109?
Or we could just ask Pyro how he did all the planes oil & cooling damage models I guess. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I just wonder how does one inflict "zero oil" damage? Is there a tap somewhere I'm not aware of?
-
Just for reference. I used to race stock cars with V8 chevies in them. Both use oil for lubrication only. However, we had two different types of oiling systems. Dry sump and wet sump. Wet sump is the normal type where the oil resevoir, pump, and all are built into the engine with the oil resevoir being the oil pan on the bottom of it. A dry sump is a much smaller oil pan with an external pumping system with an external oil tank of much larger capacity.
I've had a wet sump system run for several minutes after being holed before losing oil pressure and even made a few laps before detonating. I've also has one blow itself to bits literally seconds after being holed. A dry sump system will depend on where you lose oil... the tank or the oil pan. If the engine gets hit or you lose the pump, you lose oil pressure instantly and the thing can seize in seconds if it's under load. If you get a tank hole with a dry sump motor you will still have pressure until all the oil runs out of the sump and you get a pressure loss in the engine. Run time after a leak will depend on engine load as well. You can idle an engine with no oil presure for quite a while, many minutes even. Try to run one under heavy load at full throttle and it will seize seconds after loss of oil pressure most times.
I'm just pointing out that there are lots of variables here. We need Pyro to tell us what variables he is modelling and how it feeds into the run time after a hit.
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
[This message has been edited by Lephturn (edited 12-04-2000).]
-
engine life during oil starvation would depend alot on power settings. Running MW50 on a 109 with the oil leaking out (which is usually the norm) would probably lead to a quick seize, but I've noticed it quits quickly no matter the RPM/MP.
Oh yeah, while on lubrication and pump types, we still don't have negative G effects on oil pressure. For an example, the F4U used a wet sump, which can lead to oil starvation (and engine damage) during prolonged negative G forces, taking into account that the plane has been running long enough to burn off some oil in the tank.
I would say that because of the relatively slow RPM of aircraft engines that they would be capable of surviving considerble lengths oil starvation, but not without damaging it to the point where it could not be used again. Case in point, the F4U, that in a spin condition over 20 seconds or so the engine would start losing power, and while still capable of running, the engine suffered a massive power loss and (sometimes) later seized.
The engine damage model is just too basic right now to expect much from historical characteristics.
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 12-04-2000).]
-
Here's something that may have relevance (and I think it corroborates something you are already aware of).
It's an excert from a Soviet book written in 1943 (translated from Russia this year).
"...it must be remembered that the Me-109 can only hold the maximum airspeed indicated above for no longer than 1 or 2 minutes in horizontal flight, as their engine overheats and causes the coolant to boil. Therefore, if a Me-109 encounters our Yak 1 or La 5 that have the altitude advantage, he would not be able to disengage just by using superior airspeed.
Wouldn't therefore any loss of oil have an immediate effect (due to the increased heat load on the coolant)? Sounds to me like 30 seconds is too LONG, not short.
As for the P51 - perhaps it dows run for too long with an oil leak. But if you change that, then perhaps the Bf 109 needs lose its engine 10 seconds into an oil leak.
-
Not saying anything about the lenght of time for anything on any plane, but a major difference between the Merlin and a DB-60x is that the DB-60x engines are inverted. And I cannot recall if that was a boon or a bust for the 109 as far as coolingand/or oil issues go.
In the Merlin the crankshaft and major bearings are down by the oil. I believe paddles splash the oil around those parts out of the sump. The oil is needed to be pumped up to the heads which if there was no oil the valve train would degrade and eventualy seize if it didn't grind into small metal peices first. Whereas the DB-60x engines also have the oil in the bottom, which is good for the heads and such, but the crankshaft and the major bearings are at the top, furthest from the oil. No oil flow = a very quick siezure by the DB-60x engines for sure.
-Westy
DB605:
(http://beadec1.ea.bs.dlr.de/Airfoils/images/db605cut.gif)
Merlin:
(http://beadec1.ea.bs.dlr.de/Airfoils/images/merlin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 12-04-2000).]
-
Have I ever mentioned that almost nothing in aviation is real simple? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Good posts in here, from top to bottom. Well, except for one typical one. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Btw the DB was suspect (as were all radials) to oil pooling beneath the pistons, (in the top of the cylinder, when the engine is turned up with the pistons pointing up, that is). Required a hand turn over for at least 1 revolution to ensure that the oil was not present, due to possibility of over-compression and cyclinder rupture.
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 12-04-2000).]
-
Just about anything with an inverted cylinder is a prospect for hydraulic lock.
You pull them through until all cylinders have had a chance to open and close the valves and drain the oil out of the head.
Or else be ready for a bent rod, minimum. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-05-2000).]
-
I hear that Wasp Major was almost impossible to turn over by hand, as was the Naiper-Saber even without being in a state hydraulic lock (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Interesting.
In that configuration I would expect the DB to be a dry sump motor. I wonder if that's the pump on the bottom, or if it was external. In any case, a loss of oil pressure in the DB should kill it quicker with the bearings up high like that.
Can anybody point me to more detailed drawings and/or info on the DB engine?
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
-
Lephturn, I used www.lycos.com (http://www.lycos.com) and searched first for "Merlin engine" and then another for "Daimler Benz DB605". In all the hits that came back I could find only a few cutaway drawings of the Db60x engine (smalledt and most usable above) and none for the Merlin. The problem with the Merlin is that it is still a used engine for racing( aircraft and boating). so you get alot of unwanted responses too. Hmmm. If the DB605 was SOOOOOO good (<GGG> ) why wasn't it used after the war in racing? Hmmmm? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (obligatory tease)
Anyway. I also could not find any reference to why they inverted the engine. And it's been many, many years since I read the purpose behind it but there was some valid reasoning for doing so. Not validating the reason mind you. Oddly the DB motors were the only ones that were inverted while just about all other liquid cooled, inline engine equipped aircraft, made by other nations and companies, were done in the standard upright position - all that I can think of anway.
-Westy
-
The real secret here is the Allied miracle engine additive, Slick 50 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by Rooster:
The real secret here is the Allied miracle engine additive, Slick 50 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
It would make a great info commercial (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Great thread guys, great info. Would like to see AH's ideas on the subject. Heck, you guys are doing the R&D for them. Me thinks the 109's are a little fragile in many respects or the LW would rule the sky's just as they did early in the war before the odds/resources went against them. Then again I love 109's (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(http://www.twc-tampa.com/mdisalle/109gallant.jpg)
my 20th wedding anniversary present from the wife (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
Still waiting for the answer how the damage was done to lose all oil to conduct the test and why it was decided that only lack of oil was the actual damage to the respective engines.
On the subject of inverted vs "normal" configuration I think inverted should be "combat safer". If the oil tank and pump are undamaged the oil would continue to be pumped into the heads/sprayed onto crankshaft lubricating it until the oil in the tank runs out. Loss of oil would be lower than that of a "normal engine" where a hole in the sump means loss of all oil in seconds... Same reason why damaged radials "live longer"?
-
Originally posted by Westy:
Hmmm. If the DB605 was SOOOOOO good (<GGG> ) why wasn't it used after the war in racing? Hmmmm? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (obligatory tease)
How many factories built DB605 after the war?
or, how many wanted to buy german stuff?
also availability of merlin engine was far greater than DB605's.
well.. go compare the odds between brits and germans after '45 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Doesn't need much to figure outcome.
-
I think most of the engines use a remote oil tank, Lynx.
Generally, the oil is picked up at the bottom of the engine in a windage tray arrangement,runs through screens, dumped into a large tank, is picked up by the pump, is pushed through another screen or two, through an air cooler and then into the engine. That's pretty generic though, not specific.
Crank bearing clearances in air-cooled engines tend to be a bit looser than in liquid-cooled.
Don't know of any aircraft piston engines where running oil temp in the red isn't a serious problem to be fixed in short order.
Just food for thought.
-
What about the visual aspect? Hollywood is always showing the oil spurting all over the wind shield < - dunno correct term. What if when you got hit, your visibility slowly decreased as your canopy is covered in goo. Then it would not matter if your plane could stay in the air, if you could not see - you'd have to bail.. just more food for thought.
Eagler
-
Note the P-38 in this picture, it portrays an oil leak that did not ignite, and followed out of the engine nacelle untill the engine siezed.
Due to the general design of most fighters in WWII, if the oil wasn't ignited it generally came out the sides and bottom of the nacelle or fuselage, that's not absolute by any means though. It did tend to coat the whole side of the plane, and in that P-38 shot, has actually been carried by the slip stream and stuck to the bottom of the horizontal stabilizer.
- Jig
(http://bigdweeb.homestead.com/files/ohshit.jpg)
-
Looks like it's a problem with quite a few of the planes. It'll be fixed in the next version.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
w00t
thanks Pyro.
-
Cool (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
P51 had 12.5 U.S. gallons and Corsair had 24 U.S. gallons. I believe the 190 was around 18.
lazs