Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: dirt911 on May 01, 2010, 08:19:07 PM
-
One thing i do not understand about the price on U4 is this.51D travels at 437 high alt F4U4 travels 446 at same alt as 51D,so my question being asked why such a perk price makes no sense i fly U4 and 51D almost always.
I wouldn't want to see the U4 as to common in ah just not such a high perk price.What is its purpose i just don't understand.
-
So you are looking for the main difference between U4 and Pony D?
Flaps. :)
-
May i ask how is that
-
LOL Lusche nice avatar.
-
May i ask how is that
in the 4-hog, the flaps have so much more surface area than the ones on the 51D, meaning that, in the hands of the experienced 4-hog pilot, they can make very sharp ACM's. also, the flaps in the 4-hog can extend at 400 mph
-
Oh i get it now yes that makes sense.But again why such a perk price.(Speed vs. 51)
-
May i ask how is that
(http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/5889/comparis.jpg)
Both are very fast planes, with the F4U-4 being actually considerable faster on deck. But as you can see by the charts, when the -4 gets her flaps out, it'S almost a different kind of plane.
To me, F4U's are like the Transformers of Aces High ;)
Oh i get it now yes that makes sense.But again why such a perk price.(Speed vs. 51)
Plane for plane, the -4 eats the pony alive.
-
Its a monster!
Its faster that the P51, will turn with a spit, climbs like a rocket.
Can give a spit 16 conniption fits with its combination of flaps/turn and climb.
It is exactly where it needs to be.
-
Yes ty for the charts Lusche good deal glad to see that.It is worth what it costs.But about that 51's initial ah speed. at 25,000 feet a 51D could do 437 easy, in AH i have trouble reaching that.Only time i reach that is when at 30-28k and no drop tanks or bombs/rockets.
In AH i believe at 30k is when you will get over 430 MPH usually at 30k 437
-
Also I'm doing the test flights on this thing in MA right now so i am sitting at 30k in a 51. and doing roughly 430,
-
Ok finally 437 at 30k took for ever but now im going to see if i can hit sound barrier. :rock
Well that stinks i only hit 650 :sad
-
Might want to get Htc on that 25k a 51D will reach 437 thats a plane performance issue.Hopefully im right may be worth research.However if my info is correct im hoping it can be fixed in this next version.
-
Ok finally 437 at 30k took for ever but now im going to see if i can hit sound barrier. :rock
Sounds to me like the P-51 is perfectly capable of hitting 437 already.
Keep in mind that the "book speed" was often set under very specific circumstances: Completely clean, (meaning all pylons removed. The P-51D has two pylons permanently fixed to the wings which add drag to the airframe) specific fuel loads, and often times with panel joints sealed or taped to further minimize drag. These test aircraft were very rarely the same as those actually deployed in combat so a performance discrepancy is not unusual.
-
(http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/5889/comparis.jpg)
Both are very fast planes, with the F4U-4 being actually considerable faster on deck. But as you can see by the charts, when the -4 gets her flaps out, it'S almost a different kind of plane.
To me, F4U's are like the Transformers of Aces High ;)
Plane for plane, the -4 eats the pony alive.
Not to mention lusche that you can up off of CVs which the Pony cant... Its all around better than the pony AND flies off CVs
-
Sounds to me like the P-51 is perfectly capable of hitting 437 already.
Keep in mind that the "book speed" was often set under very specific circumstances: Completely clean, (meaning all pylons removed. The P-51D has two pylons permanently fixed to the wings which add drag to the airframe) specific fuel loads, and often times with panel joints sealed or taped to further minimize drag. These test aircraft were very rarely the same as those actually deployed in combat so a performance discrepancy is not unusual.
Yes but what the info i acquired said was at 25k it does 437 i gained up 415 at 25k
-
Yes but what the info i acquired said was at 25k it does 437 i gained up 415 at 25k
Source?
Need specifics. Exact P-51 model, fuel load, etc, etc...
-
Book Called "American Fighter" all of it looks and seems accurate. Anyways Model Na-109,111,122,,124.It doesn't show what weight and fuel load out.However if you do find the book it is a good find, and good purchase.Its really Worth reading I haven't found very much that isn't accurate.
-
Like I said, dirt, it may be accurate but there's a VERY good possibility it may have been a test crate flying under conditions that no combat-deployed aircraft used:
1) Taped or sealed panels and gunports and the best possible finish on the airframe, as well as all unnecessary external (IE: the wing pylons) and internal (a LOT of tests were run with the aircraft stripped of armament and ammunition) to minimize drag and weight.
2) Special power settings
3) Fuel type will make a HUGE difference, especially if it was using the 150 octane gas. NONE of our planes are modeled with the 150 gas.
That's why we need the specifics of the condition the speed measurement was taken under. HTC won't accept it just because a book says "A P-51D was clocked at X speed and Y altitude."
-
Dirt Im sorry to have to tell you that is factory performance without any stores (no guns either).
-
Please. The -4 is perked because it's too sexy.
HONK!
Gooss
-
Dirt Im sorry to have to tell you that is factory performance without any stores (no guns either).
Like I said, dirt, it may be accurate but there's a VERY good possibility it may have been a test crate flying under conditions that no combat-deployed aircraft used:
1) Taped or sealed panels and gunports and the best possible finish on the airframe, as well as all unnecessary external (IE: the wing pylons) and internal (a LOT of tests were run with the aircraft stripped of armament and ammunition) to minimize drag and weight.
2) Special power settings
3) Fuel type will make a HUGE difference, especially if it was using the 150 octane gas. NONE of our planes are modeled with the 150 gas.
That's why we need the specifics of the condition the speed measurement was taken under. HTC won't accept it just because a book says "A P-51D was clocked at X speed and Y altitude."
Yeah i guess you guy's have a point.Planes being tested would be tested for performance un-armed.
-
It was strictly the only difference from war delivery aircraft. The factory did not tape anything for instance and the engine was the same used in typical aircraft of the same series.
-
Yes but what the info i acquired said was at 25k it does 437 i gained up 415 at 25k
Speed is simply not the sole consideration for airplane perk/eny ratings. As said, pilots being close to equal, the -4 hog will eat a pony alive, and easily. One thing not mentioned is ammo load... -4 .. monstrous.
-
Speed is simply not the sole consideration for airplane perk/eny ratings. As said, pilots being close to equal, the -4 hog will eat a pony alive, and easily. One thing not mentioned is ammo load... -4 .. monstrous.
Geez i never would have looked at it that way.Ty
-
Please. The -4 is perked because it's too sexy.
HONK!
Gooss
If that was the case then the Lightning would have been perked as well because that is the most beautiful and sexiest aircraft ever designed and built by man.
ack-ack
-
If that was the case then the Lightning would have been perked as well...
ack-ack
What? You mean, just so it doesn't feel bad?
-
What? You mean, just so it doesn't feel bad?
Mercy perks?
-
If that was the case then the Lightning would have been perked as well because that is the most beautiful and sexiest aircraft ever designed and built by man.
Kool-aid drinker!
Obviously the most beautiful and sexiest plane ever (of all time) is the Seafire Mk 47.
-
Don't forget the -4's acceleration......
If I could only steal one of those 4 bladed props and stick it on my -1A......
:airplane:
-
The 1A has to be overmodeled I'm sure they never really performed like they do in AH.
-
The 1A has to be overmodeled I'm sure they never really performed like they do in AH.
Can you be more specific? What particular performance aspect has you doubting?
-
The 1A has to be overmodeled I'm sure they never really performed like they do in AH.
You should phone HTC and tell them, so they can change it quick!
-
:rofl
-
Your funny Lusche :lol
You should phone HTC and tell them, so they can change it quick!
-
The 1A has to be overmodeled I'm sure they never really performed like they do in AH.
Our 1A is a late-production 1A, with the R-2800-8(W) and three-blade paddle prop like was used on the 1D. She's a c. mid/late-1944 bird.
The only Corsair I would say there is a legitimate and clearly documentable argument for being over-modeled is the F4U-1 which did NOT have WEP. The -1 birdcages were all equipped with the R-2800-8, which did not include WEP (the (W) indicated the engine featured water-methanol injection, thus WEP). This wasn't added to the Corsairs until sometime AFTER the switch to the bubble-top design, at which point the 1A designation was later applied (it's tricky because at the time, but the -1 birdcage and -1A were identified as "-1," the 1A designation was created later and back-dated, however the dividing line is generally considered the addition of the bubble top). Although some of these -1 birdcages were later fit in the field with the 8(W) engine, NONE were produced that way.
I've posted requests a couple times in the Wishlist forum to have WEP removed from the -1 as it should be, but there's probably more important things on their plate, like adding new planes. And if they ever get around to stripping WEP from the -1, I'd like to reiterate my wish for a Goodyear-produced FG-1A without all the extra crap tacked on for carrier operations. Shave off about 500-1000 extra lbs....
-
I want FG-2A Goodyear
-
If you mean the F2G "Super Corsair," it won't happen. Never entered service, and it was plagued by SIGNIFICANT teething problems by the time it was canceled. If we were to get the aircraft as it existed at the time the project was canceled by the military we wouldn't get anything much better than the -4 we already have.
-
The only Corsair I would say there is a legitimate and clearly documentable argument for being over-modeled is the F4U-1 which did NOT have WEP. The -1 birdcages were all equipped with the R-2800-8, which did not include WEP (the (W) indicated the engine featured water-methanol injection, thus WEP).
WEP = War Emergency Power, the W does not stand for Water (although many aircraft used this method of boosting power.) It signifies excess power settings which could only be used for a limited time, not continuously.
Corsair R-2800-8 and -8Ws both had WEP in the form of 2700/54" excess power settings (limited to 5min FAA, 30mins USN.) From the 1A onwards (8W) they also had 5min water injection 2700/58-60" in addition to the limited excess power setting. essentially the 1 should have an excess power WEP setting, the 1A onwards should have 2 WEP settings - an excess power setting and 5mins water injection. interestingly the FAA were much more conservative with their limits than the USN for the same aircraft.
-
WEP = War Emergency Power, the W does not stand for Water (although many aircraft used this method of boosting power.) It signifies excess power settings which could only be used for a limited time, not continuously.
Corsair R-2800-8 and -8Ws both had WEP in the form of 2700/54" excess power settings (limited to 5min FAA, 30mins USN.) From the 1A onwards (8W) they also had 5min water injection 2700/58-60" in addition to the limited excess power setting. essentially the 1 should have an excess power WEP setting, the 1A onwards should have 2 WEP settings - an excess power setting and 5mins water injection. interestingly the FAA were much more conservative with their limits than the USN for the same aircraft.
Take a closer look at E6B on the F4Us:
Emergency Power: 2700RPM at 57.7" MP (if we're getting shorted on MP in the F4Us under WEP I'd like to petition HTC for a correction. You got a source that shows 60" on water injection?)
Military: 2700RPM at 54" MP
According to your numbers, the game ALREADY allows for this "dry WEP" in the F4U-1. WEP in our F4Us is therefore from the water injection system, which was not installed on the F4U-1.
-
numbers are from the UK Air Council pilots notes, and the US pilots handbook. dont have a link to them but I have the PDFs on another PC. I'll dig out the operating data numbers tomorrow when I can get to them :)
-
What the dials report doesn't have any direct bearing on performance in a sim. HTC could very well say "Oops, error in the instruments.", fix it without touching the flight model. The Mossie in AH has, for about 9 years, been reporting Merlin 21 or 23 boost numbers on the dial while having performance that matches the higher boost of Merlin 25s.
-
What the dials report doesn't have any direct bearing on performance in a sim. HTC could very well say "Oops, error in the instruments.", fix it without touching the flight model. The Mossie in AH has, for about 9 years, been reporting Merlin 21 or 23 boost numbers on the dial while having performance that matches the higher boost of Merlin 25s.
True, but there's also a possibility Hog drivers have indeed been getting shorted on their WEP settings. So if RT has documentation showing 60" MP was standard for WEP in the Hogs, whether it's an instrument error or not it doesn't hurt to ask HTC to check into it, right?
-
True, but there's also a possibility Hog drivers have indeed been getting shorted on their WEP settings. So if RT has documentation showing 60" MP was standard for WEP in the Hogs, whether it's an instrument error or not it doesn't hurt to ask HTC to check into it, right?
No doesn't hurt at all to ask.
-
Pilot's notes for Corsair I-IV (AP2351A,B,C&D)
R-2800-8 or 8W:
Combat Emergency* 2,700/60" 5min
Take-off 2,700/54" 5min
Combat 2,700/53" 5min
Climbing 2,550/49.5" 1h
Max Rich 2,550/44" continuous
Max Weak 2,200/34" continuous
*using water injection
Pilot's Handbook of Flight Operating Instructions (AN 01-45HA-1)
USN: F4U-1, F4U-1C, F4U-1D, F3A-1, F3A-1D, FG-1, FG-1D
FAA: Corsair I-IV
R-2800-8W:
War Emergency 2,700/59.5" 5min
Take-off 2,700/54" 5min
Military 2,700/53" 30min **
Normal 2,550/49.5" continuous
Max Cruise 2,150/34" continuous
edit: ** I'm dubious about this 30min, the scan isnt very clear but it does look like 30min. however, elsewhere in the manual WEP is referred to as "2700rpm (five minutes)".
later - "The rpm's and manifold pressures at a given supercharger control setting for take-off, military, and war emergency operation must never be exceeded; the five-minute time limit for each of these conditions must never be exceeded."
This is also consistent with the R-2800-21 used in P-47B/C/D/G - 2550rpm is max continuous, 2700rpm is limited to 5mins.
so ... the AH F4U-1 should look like this:
WEP 2700/53"
Military Power 2550/49.5"
Normal Power 2550/44"
Max Cruise 2150/34"
... the AH F4U-1A/C/D should look like this:
WEP 2700/60"
Military Power 2550/49.5"
Normal Power 2550/44"
Max Cruise 2150/34"
... but the current AH F4U-1/1A/C/D all look like this:
WEP 2700/57.5"
Military Power 2700/54"
Normal Power 2550/44"
Max Cruise 2150/36"
:bolt:
-
No doesn't hurt at all to ask.
be careful what you ask for, you just might get it :uhoh
-
Pilot's notes for Corsair I-IV (AP2351A,B,C&D)
R-2800-8 or 8W:
Combat Emergency* 2,700/60" 5min
Take-off 2,700/54" 5min
Combat 2,700/53" 5min
Climbing 2,550/49.5" 1h
Max Rich 2,550/44" continuous
Max Weak 2,200/34" continuous
*using water injection
Pilot's Handbook of Flight Operating Instructions (AN 01-45HA-1)
USN: F4U-1, F4U-1C, F4U-1D, F3A-1, F3A-1D, FG-1, FG-1D
FAA: Corsair I-IV
R-2800-8W:
War Emergency 2,700/59.5" 5min
Take-off 2,700/54" 5min
Military 2,700/53" 30min **
Normal 2,550/49.5" continuous
Max Cruise 2,150/34" continuous
edit: ** I'm dubious about this 30min, the scan isnt very clear but it does look like 30min. however, elsewhere in the manual WEP is referred to as "2700rpm (five minutes)".
later - "The rpm's and manifold pressures at a given supercharger control setting for take-off, military, and war emergency operation must never be exceeded; the five-minute time limit for each of these conditions must never be exceeded."
This is also consistent with the R-2800-21 used in P-47B/C/D/G - 2550rpm is max continuous, 2700rpm is limited to 5mins.
so ... the AH F4U-1 should look like this:
WEP 2700/53"
Military Power 2550/49.5"
Normal Power 2550/44"
Max Cruise 2150/34"
... the AH F4U-1A/C/D should look like this:
WEP 2700/60"
Military Power 2550/49.5"
Normal Power 2550/44"
Max Cruise 2150/34"
... but the current AH F4U-1/1A/C/D all look like this:
WEP 2700/57.5"
Military Power 2700/54"
Normal Power 2550/44"
Max Cruise 2150/36"
:bolt:
Like to know where you get a figure of 49.5" MP for Mil power, when the chart you referenced identifies this as CLIMBING and and gives 53-54" for MIL.... Based on your own charts, for the 1A/D/C and 4 it should be:
WEP: 2700/60"
MIL: 2700/53"
Normal: 2550/44"
Cruise: 2150/36"
If HTC is using WEP to represent water-methanol injection in the later Corsairs, then the F4U-1 should be:
MIL: 2700/53"
Normal: 2550/44"
Cruise: 2150/36"
Can post you scan these documents? Would be easier to argue request the change/fix (of either the power settings themselves OR the instrumentation) from HTC with scans of the originals.
-
The Brits, US and AH all use different naming conventions for their power settings, which can be confusing. AH's Military Power setting is the highest power setting that can be used continuously, this is not the same as the Combat (Brit) / Military (US) Power referenced in the charts which is limited to 5(30?)min.
The highest setting which can be used continously in both charts is 2550/49.5", although the Brits specify a limit of 1h. since hardly any sorties in AH last over an hour, I think its reasonable to allow this as a continuous setting.
US manual (http://www.lumbergh.aquiss.com/ah/ah_pics/f4u-1_us_manual.pdf)
Brit manual (http://www.lumbergh.aquiss.com/ah/ah_pics/corsairpilotsnotessmall.pdf)
-
... and before you ask, the same applies to the AH P-47Ds, B-17, B-24 and probably others too :uhoh
-
Let's not get into the debate on time limits at certain power settings. HTC isn't modeling operating procedures, they're modeling the documented power settings. Otherwise HTC would have to remodel ALL the power settings in the game to restrict full throttle to "highest continuous power setting" which would be even LESS realistic than the .0000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000001% chance of your engine blowing up in your face for running too long at MIL.
MIL is MIL. If the US states MIL as 53" MAP at 2700 RPM, then that's what it should be in the game.
Thanks for the scans, tho.
-
not so keen on remodelling the corsairs accurately now are we? :lol
so if you're happy with corsairs flying around continuously in AH with power settings that were limited IRL to 5min, presumably you wont mind if we remove the WEP setting from eg. Spit XVI and allow it to use 3000/+18lb continuously as Mil? :D
-
How is restricting max throttle to max continuous power--which was NOT max throttle IRL--more realistic? You're asking for an artificial limitation be imposed based on a PROCEDURAL rather than PHYSICAL limitation. Personally, I'd LOVE it if planes that used injection for WEP could run out permanently with no recharge (excluding rearms: ground techs refilling the tanks while they gas up your plane). Because that's a PHYSICAL limitation of the aircraft, not an arbitrary one based on what some technician decided "If you exceed this, your crew chief will tear you a new one while he strips down the engine to check for problems."
Incidentally, I checked the charts in the manual and WEP is altitude specific. It lists 57.3" at SL, 59" at 12,500ft, and 59.5" at 17,000ft. I tested offline and the F4U-1A does hit these marks at the indicated altitudes, so the E6B chart is a bit misleading as it doesn't account for current altitude.
-
be careful what you ask for, you just might get it :uhoh
Lol :eek:
-
yeah the manifold pressures depend on alt and blower settings, I just used the highest numbers from the charts (which are what I assume the E6B shows) to keep it as simple as possible.
The figures arent arbitrary, they all come from official documents, and are the safe, tested and certified limits "by the book".
I'd just like to see all the AH aircraft treated the same. As it is, some aircraft (eg. Spit IX) are limited to using the RL official power settings, whereas others (eg. F4U-1A) can fly for hours using settings which IRL were limited to 5mins. does that seem right to you?
-
I'm not sure if I'm reading wrong, but it seems as though both sources posted at the top of this page contradict each other.
Therefore, neither of you are wrong and neither of you are correct (yet). I assume there still needs to be more speculation on both sources before we can figure out what's the 'truth'.
-
No, they don't contradict each other. RTHolmes is arguing that the Corsair should be restricted to Climbing Power (2550 RPM at 49.5" MP) at max throttle because the book says not to use Military Power for longer than 5mins continuous. Even though this was a procedure and not a physical limitation of the engine and airframe (whereas the 5min limit on WEP is because the Corsair only carried 5mins of injection water). He's trying to argue that the Spitfires have their WEP limited to 5mins even though they used Boost, so the Corsair shouldn't be able to fly for an hour at MIL. However the Corsair and Spit are NOT being treated any differently: Both can fly at MIL for as long as they want, and both have their power settings ABOVE MIL (as given by the SOP's--including the Merlin, which at least in the P-51 book I believe gives separate MIL and Boost settings) regulated with the same 5min timer.
I chose to extract myself from this discussion because it's heading RIGHT into the same sort of "But the BOOK says" circular argument of people trying to get HTC to arbitrarily enforce the SOP's power restrictions via engine overheats and failures.
-
The 5 minute limit on Merlin engined fighters is also a procedure and not a physical limitation. That is his point. If the F4U isn't limited by procedural restrictions, then why are the P-51s, Spitfires, Hurricanes or Mosquito? I don't think the Merlin should be able to ignore that.
-
Maybe the question here is "Why do the Brits have different limitations vs the USN?"
Or maybe that 'blur' of 30 mins is actually 5 mins :P
At any rate, how bad of a hit would the F4U take in combat rating performance even IF these lower figures are the correct ones?
-
Karnak,
Reread the pertinent parts of the thread:
R-2800-8W:
War Emergency 2,700/59.5" 5min
Take-off 2,700/54" 5min
Military 2,700/53" 5min
Normal 2,550/49.5" continuous
Max Cruise 2,150/34" continuous
... the AH F4U-1A/C/D should look like this:
WEP 2700/60"
Military Power 2550/49.5"
Normal Power 2550/44"
Max Cruise 2150/34"
(I've corrected the time limit in the SOP chart).
Like to know where you get a figure of 49.5" MP for Mil power....
The highest setting which can be used continously in both charts is 2550/49.5", although the Brits specify a limit of 1h. since hardly any sorties in AH last over an hour, I think its reasonable to allow this as a continuous setting.
Holmes is treating it like the F4U getting to run at MIL non-stop means it's not being treated in the same was as the Spitfire. Which is NOT the case. The Spit can run MIL non-stop, too, despite SOP restrictions (I'm not even getting INTO boost!). The reasoning he's giving is that, since the Spit's Boost is limited to 5mins because that's the procedure, the F4U's MIL time should be restricted as well, and that HTC should force the Corsair to max out on Normal Power and skip MIL entirely when engaging WEP.
He's not even TALKING about limiting WEP in the Corsairs (which already IS limited). He's saying "Spit doesn't have unlimited BOOST, so Corsair shouldn't get unlimited MIL." Even though BOTH AIRCRAFT get unlimited MIL in the game.
-
Saxman,
Based on the British chart, and AH mechanics, I'd say the unlimited setting would be 2,550/49.5" and the 5 minute WEP would be 2,700/59.5" and just ignore the 2,700/53" setting.
EDIT:
I am not an F4U expert and I don't know if the British charts are junk or not. I am just saying that if I was going off of that data and nothing else, that is how I would do it.
-
Karnak,
Take a closer look at the US vs. British charts. They're largely identical, only labeled slightly differently. Climbing Power for the UK is equivalent to Normal Power under the US. The 44" setting is NOT normal power for the British, they just note it as Max Rich. The US book doesn't note Max Rich or Lean, just Cruise, Normal, Mil and WEP.
And if you're going to remove MIL for the Corsair, then you sure as hell BETTER do it for ALL aircraft. Because that's EXACTLY what happens if you remove the 2700/53 setting from the Corsairs (this was MIL under US, combat under the British charts. NOT WEP). The SOP's of EVERY SHIP IN THE GAME would have "safety" notes restricting the use of MIL power.
Spit XVI? Restricted to 2650 at +7 Boost.
109G-6? 2300 at 1.15 ATA
La7? 2500RP at 35"
Restricting one plane to Normal Power at max throttle because of SOPs while leaving the rest of the plane set alone is FAR more unbalanced than the current HTC setup of allowing all planes to use MIL indiscriminately with limited WEP.
-
For the Mossie's Merlin 25s the handbook lists 2,850rpm at +9lbs as the 1 hour limit, 3,000rpm at +18lbs is the 5 minute limit.
It is academic in any case. I don't think making it take longer to get to the action is a good thing.
The one place I think it might be a good idea to review engine settings is if bombers are getting to use 5 minute limits as continuous settings.
-
saxman the merlin's "boost" is just the Brit term for manifold pressure, its not like hitting a switch for water injection or NOS. the merlin's 5min 3000/+18lb limit is what you would call a precedural limit, not a physical limit, just like the corsair's 2700/53"
the interesting thing for me is the difference between the the US 30min and Brit 5min limits for 2,700/53" on the corsair. Note the US charts show a 5min limit for 2700/52" on the jug's R-2800-21. I wonder if there are any other examples where the US limits are more generous than the Brit limits for the same aircraft?
also note that although I'm english and fly with a RAF squad whose squad aircraft (or the closest to it) is the Spit VIII, I spend alot more time in the D25 than anything with a merlin engine so any changes here would not work in my favour...
The one place I think it might be a good idea to review engine settings is if bombers are getting to use 5 minute limits as continuous settings.
they certainly are, see: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,265122.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,265122.0.html)
-
saxman the merlin's "boost" is just the Brit term for manifold pressure, its not like hitting a switch for water injection or NOS. the merlin's 5min 3000/+18lb limit is what you would call a precedural limit, not a physical limit, just like the corsair's 2700/53"
Yes, I realize that "WEP" in the Merlin is merely higher throttle settings. However there are STILL certain settings in the SOP that were specified as being "emergency power" above regular MIL/Combat power (this is where the wire stop on the throttle I believe Widewing has discussed came into play). IE, settings I'm finding for the P-51B:
WEP: 3000/67"
MIL: 3000/61"
Normal: 2700/46"
The P-51 doesn't use injection but merely a higher throttle setting, but they still differentiate between WEP and MIL. So saying that Plane A should be restricted to its max continuous because Plane B can't fly around on WEP indefinitely REALLY sounds absurd.
-
Spit IX Pilot's Notes:
Combat 3000/+15 5min
Max Take-off 3000/+12 none stated, assume 15min
Max Climbing 2850/+12 1h
Max Continuous 2650/+7 continuous
AH Spit IX:
WEP 3000/+15 5min
MP 2850/+12 continuous
NP 2650/+7 continuous
MC 2400/+4 continuous
P-51B/C Pilot's Notes:
Combat 3000/67" 5min
Max Take-off 3000/61" 15min
Max Climbing 2700/46" continuous
Max Continuous 2700/46" continuous
AH P-51B:
WEP 3000/67" 5min
MP 3000/61" continuous
NP 2700/46" continuous
MC 2500/43" continuous
seems this modelling ... err ... discrepancy is more widespread than I thought ...
edit: I'll summarise the charts above.
IRL the P-51B could use 3000/61" for only 15min at a time. In AH it can fly an entire sortie at this setting.
IRL the Spit IX could use 3000/+12 for only 15min at a time. In AH it cannot fly an entire sortie at this setting.
-
It seems that since the Spitfire cannot use the maximum take-off RPM but can use the maximum throttle boost psi (non-WEP), then all HTC would really have to do is tweak the model so that the maximum RPM is achievable without actually using the WEP boost pressure.
For the other aircraft (seems like the UK ones so far), are there the same strange limitations apparent on BOTH boost and RPM or just RPM like the Spitfire IX example?
If the flaw is the latter, then perhaps the aircraft that suffer from a lack of proper max RPM like the Spitfire can be adjusted so that they can use the higher RPM. Increasing the RPM increases performance less than increasing boost pressure, which is something that Sax would probably like to hear. :D
EDIT:
Or maybe HTC can actually put these limitations perfectly in place. Using the F4U as an example, 2550 rpm/49.5" Hg for the F4U's continuous engine settings, 2700 rpm/54" Hg for 5 mins; re-useable after cool-down and 2700 rpm/60" Hg (currently it's 2700 rpm/57.5" Hg); non-reuseable after 5 mins total use.
But I suppose that's wishful thinking.
-
It seems that since the Spitfire cannot use the maximum take-off RPM but can use the maximum throttle boost psi (non-WEP), then all HTC would really have to do is tweak the model so that the maximum RPM is achievable without actually using the WEP boost pressure.
For the other aircraft (seems like the UK ones so far), are there the same strange limitations apparent on BOTH boost and RPM or just RPM like the Spitfire IX example?
If the flaw is the latter, then perhaps the aircraft that suffer from a lack of proper max RPM like the Spitfire can be adjusted so that they can use the higher RPM. Increasing the RPM increases performance less than increasing boost pressure, which is something that Sax would probably like to hear. :D
EDIT:
Or maybe HTC can actually put these limitations perfectly in place. Using the F4U as an example, 2550 rpm/49.5" Hg for the F4U's continuous engine settings, 2700 rpm/54" Hg for 5 mins; re-useable after cool-down and 2700 rpm/60" Hg (currently it's 2700 rpm/57.5" Hg); non-reuseable after 5 mins total use.
But I suppose that's wishful thinking.
Fixing the RPMs on the Spitfires is a very easy change that doesn't require DRASTICALLY redoing engine management into what you're proposing, which is effectively a two stage WEP. At this point, making ANY sort of change to WEP mechanics is going to require a virtually entirely new engine management system.
-
Yea, I thought that the '2-stage WEP' was wishful thinking indeed.
However, for example - changing the Spitfire's max continuous RPM to 3000 along with the already stated +12 lb. boost would work too. This way, the performance hasn't really been increased much at all. Also, it will allow the F4U and P-51 to keep their high-RPM/high-boost settings as continuous settings.
No uber-performance in Spits, no nerfed F4U's, and the same engine management as we have now. Everyone's happy.
EDIT: (again)
Oh and Sax, I remember you stating that the birdcage F4U-1 is not supposed to have WEP at all. Does this mean that the F4U-1A's before December 1943 that didn't have water-injection didn't have any sort of WEP either?
Also, did ALL birdcage F4U-1's lack the stall strip on the starboard wing? If this is the case, then the F4U-1 we have will need more tweaking than just WEP adjustment.
-
The F4U-1A we have is a late-block version with the paddle prop, so would still have WEP regardless of whether or not HTC removed it from the -1. The problem is because of how the 1/1A differentiation is handled makes a lot of things very confused. Like the US manual doesn't mention the 1A at ALL, (Even though it includes the 1D and 1C) because "1A" was a back-dated designation created later. If the 2700/59" setting was ONLY achieved due to the water-methanol injection, then it should not be present in the -1 birdcage, which was never factory-built with this equipment. This still leaves a question over whether the -1 could reach these settings without injection. Do any of our document gurus have clear, definitive information that can clarify this? I'd say a pilot manual dating from prior to December, 1943 that omits the 59" MP setting would be pretty conclusive.
As far as the stall strip, I'm not sure when Vought added it, and whether it was during the -1 Birdcage production or came after the switch to the bubble top.
-
I think its pretty clear from both the US and Brit manuals that 2700/53-54" was the max that could be pulled without water injection, and only for a limited time. one of them states that for the 8W this throttle position is about 3/4" short of the microswitch which activates the injection.
-
Sax,
Concerning the stall strip, I suppose I'll do more research to find that out.
Holmes,
A simple solution is to simply allow the other aircraft like the Spitfire to use higher RPMs (3000 RPM with +12lb boost) as a continuous setting as a continuous setting rather than nerfing both the max RPM and MAP of the F4U to 2550 RPM/49.5" Hg. This way, all the aircraft have their full range of throttle settings.
-
you could do that, and that would model eg the 51B and IX similarly. have a look at this though:
Spit XVI Pilot's Notes:
Combat 3000/+18 5min
Max Take-off 3000/+18 none stated, assume 15min
Max Climbing 2850/+12 1h
Max Continuous 2650/+7 continuous
model the XVI on the same basis and you effectively get full perma-WEP. However, it still wouldnt be as overmodelled as the F-4U1 currently is though, which already has perma-WEP as the MP setting and a higher 5min WEP setting which wasnt even possible without water injection.
sax and papy I agree when you both implied that the only way to model these settings properly is a 2-stage WEP which may just be a bit too complex for AH. I suspect 80% of the playerbase never even touch the rpm control as it is. the 1-stage WEP we have now is a playability compromise and the power settings modeling is a compromise the suit that. just seems that some aircraft get alot more benefit out of the compromise than others (eg. corsair vs spit), and some are just completely wrong (eg. B-24 vs Lanc).
-
So perhaps, like you said, our solution would be to lower the Corsair's maximum throttle setting?
I think the reason as to why there is no time limit stated for max take-off is because take-off isn't really going to take a significant amount of time to execute, thereby removing the necessity of implying a time limit on the take-off setting. But looking at all the figures you posted, it is indeed true that the P-51B, F4U's and probably some other planes are using higher MAPs and RPMs versus the Spitfires.
The strange thing is that the US manual states different times for which the F4U can use 2700 RPM/53" Hg. Regardless, I tested the F4U at sea level at ~ 2500 RPM/49" Hg (it's hard to get the extra 50 RPM/0.5") and it turns out that at this setting, the F4U-1A is 3 mph faster than a Spitfire VIII on WEP. Maybe Sax will be slightly comforted by that fact. I know I am!
EDIT: I just can't keep my head from thinking after I finished the post...
It seems that HTC has simply modeled each aircraft's engine based on the absolute max throttle settings. Let's disregard the normal, climb and cruise settngs for now. The absolute max throttle settings for the F4U-1A are 2700 RPM/57.5" Hg in this game. The charts say that the absolute max settings are 2700 RPM/60" Hg. Let's say that setting is equivalent to the 2700 RPM/57.5" Hg we have in-game. The only lower setting is that of the setting without WEP on the charts posted: 2700 RPM/~53-54" Hg. That becomes the maximum military power setting and is continuous.
In the case of the SPit XVI, we have 3000 RPM/+18 lb for absolute max. The take-off happens to be the same. Therefore, the engine settings that are immediately lower than this are 2850 RPM/+16 lb. That setting then becomes MIL and is continuous.
If my assumptions on this engne model is correct, all HTC would have to do is add the extra RPMs to the Spitfire IX's MIL/combat setting. I know this is not completely correct, but it seems as though HTC has tried to set up a compromise between what we would see as 2-stage WEP and a simple engine model by only applying a 5 min limit on the absolute max settings to engines of ALL planes.
-
Spit IX Pilot's Notes:
Combat 3000/+15 5min
Max Take-off 3000/+12 none stated, assume 15min
Max Climbing 2850/+12 1h
Max Continuous 2650/+7 continuous
Max Take-off to 1000ft.
So what ever time it takes to get to 1000ft.
-
Max Take-off to 1000ft.
So what ever time it takes to get to 1000ft.
Since the Spit XVI gets to 1000' in the blink of an eye, I guess that's not too much time spent on WEP.
Hopefully my post above is correct in terms of engine modeling then. It will keep things simple and will necessitate the minimum amount of adjustments to our current aircraft.
-
Did i just open a can of worms by posting this topic?
-
Did i just open a can of worms by posting this topic?
It doesn't take much around here to open a can of worms, or whip arse for that matter :lol
-
It doesn't take much around here to open a can of worms, or whip arse for that matter :lol
Hmm maybe i should just stop posting for a bit.Stop opening up things that are better well left alone.
-
Don't worry about it, Dirt.
Most of us have awesome debates when topics like this open up. Sometimes we may 'sound' a little angry but really, we're just trying to get points across. I think this topic brought up some interesting points. If you're curious and can't find the answer after doing a bit of looking around, feel free to ask questions :)
-
Don't worry about it, Dirt.
Most of us have awesome debates when topics like this open up. Sometimes we may 'sound' a little angry but really, we're just trying to get points across. I think this topic brought up some interesting points. If you're curious and can't find the answer after doing a bit of looking around, feel free to ask questions :)
Will do but got an idea when i posted this was goindd to start something like a debate.Or it would open a can of worms.
-
Sometimes you can't help but open a can of worms.
I know I'm fine with it provided it hasn't been beaten to death before. You can use the search button extensively before you start a new thread to avoid opening a can that has been opened before.
-
Sometimes you can't help but open a can of worms.
I know I'm fine with it provided it hasn't been beaten to death before. You can use the search button extensively before you start a new thread to avoid opening a can that has been opened before.
Yes but i tend to open them up all the time,i just have that effect I guess.
Oh,and here is an off-topic question does the FM2 or the F4F-4 have supercharged engines.
-
Yes but i tend to open them up all the time,i just have that effect I guess.
Oh,and here is an off-topic question does the FM2 or the F4F-4 have supercharged engines.
Is your (http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/images/srpr/logo1w.png) (http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en) broken?
wrongway
-
No just dont like vouching at accuracy of websites.
-
No just dont like vouching at accuracy of websites.
Look at more than one and compare. Find multiple sources that support each other.
It's called Research.
wrongway
-
Yes but i tend to open them up all the time,i just have that effect I guess.
Oh,and here is an off-topic question does the FM2 or the F4F-4 have supercharged engines.
Every American fighter in WWII had a supercharger, or turbo supercharger.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Every American fighter in WWII had a supercharger, or turbo supercharger.
My regards,
Widewing
You realise this will merely confuse the boy....?
wrongway
-
Not every fighter had a super or turbocharger.
Early P-39 and P-40's I'm pretty sure. I think the P51A also.... They had the Allison engine and were limited to around 15K' because performance above that was reeeeaaalllly bad......
Here's and idea that'll "highjack" the thread. Include the P-51A in the next new batch of planes and all the newbies that fly it won't be able to figure out why they keep getting killed at 20k' +.....
Just kidding about the highjack..the thread has wandered a little already but this has been a good one.
-
Not every fighter had a super or turbocharger.
Early P-39 and P-40's I'm pretty sure. I think the P51A also.... They had the Allison engine and were limited to around 15K' because performance above that was reeeeaaalllly bad......
Here's and idea that'll "highjack" the thread. Include the P-51A in the next new batch of planes and all the newbies that fly it won't be able to figure out why they keep getting killed at 20k' +.....
Just kidding about the highjack..the thread has wandered a little already but this has been a good one.
Every Allison V-1710 engine had a super charger.
"Supercharger Type Two stage engine driven supercharger, 10.25" engine impeller, 12.1875" auxiliary impeller"
http://www.thunderboats.org/history/history0323.html
and
http://www.outlawpulling.com/PDF/Allison%20Aircraft%20Engine.pdf
-
You realise this will merely confuse the boy....?
wrongway
Not every fighter had a super or turbocharger.
Early P-39 and P-40's I'm pretty sure. I think the P51A also.... They had the Allison engine and were limited to around 15K' because performance above that was reeeeaaalllly bad......
Here's and idea that'll "highjack" the thread. Include the P-51A in the next new batch of planes and all the newbies that fly it won't be able to figure out why they keep getting killed at 20k' +.....
Just kidding about the highjack..the thread has wandered a little already but this has been a good one.
See?
wrongway
-
:/ Im beginning to wonder why I even ask or bother to try.
-
I know I am confused after reading through his tread... :rolleyes:
What is MIL, if I may ask? :confused:
-
I know I am confused after reading through his tread... :rolleyes:
What is MIL, if I may ask? :confused:
MIL = Military Power: maximum allowed power settings for extended periods or that do not use consumable resources like water or methanol/water injection.
WEP = War Emergency Power: over boosting the engine for a short period limited in allowable duration or by consumable resources like water or methanol/water injection.
-
MIL = Military Power: maximum allowed power settings for extended periods or that do not use consumable resources like water or methanol/water injection.
WEP = War Emergency Power: over boosting the engine for a short period limited in allowable duration or by consumable resources like water or methanol/water injection.
Ah, thank you Karnak. :aok