Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Megalodon on January 26, 2012, 02:33:37 PM
-
DC-3
The first DC-3 flew on 17 December 1935, the 32nd anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first powered flight
Initial production versions of the DC-3 used Wright R-1820-G5 9-cyl Cyclone engines with 850hp (685 kW) each.
B-18 1935
The first DB-1 flew in April 1935, with 9 Cylinder 850hp Wright R-1820-G5 engines.
CW-21
The first example flew in September 1938 with an 850hp R-1820-G5 engine, and was demonstrated in China.
P-35
This then developed into the SEV-1XP, a single seat fighter powered by a Wright R-1829 radial engine. This aircraft was entered in the USAAF's 1935 Fighter competition. None of the entrants in this contest were awarded a contract. Seversky then re-engined the SEV-1XP with the 9-Cyl Pratt & Whitney R-1830 G-5 Twin Wasp engine, theoretically giving 850hp. Seversky then ripped this motor out of his P-35 prototype in 1939 because it blew up and was unreliable. The engine wasn't suited to the high-g stress of fighter combat, probably because of the way lubricating oil reached the cylinders in the early models. Oil leaks and oil starvation are a constant of the Brewster Buffalo story, even in the B-239 that did so well in Finnish service.
That is all,
:airplane:
-
In the Boomerang thread I told you my source. R-1820-G5 was 1000hp engine.
You, however, didn't manage to include a single source here.
The fact that you are this upset at me that I don't happen agree with the addition of the Boomerang, certainly makes me smile. :)
Gotten under your skin it seems. :lol
I might aswell stop your trolling right here:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Powersetting.jpg)
...from the source I mentioned previously.
-
In the Boomerang thread I told you my source. R-1820-G5 was 1000hp engine.
You, however, didn't manage to include a single source here.
The fact that you are this upset at me that I don't happen agree with the addition of the Boomerang, certainly makes me smile. :)
Gotten under your skin it seems. :lol
I might aswell stop your trolling right here:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Powersetting.jpg)
...from the source I mentioned previously.
I'm not upset with you Just moving your spaming of the brewster over here.
No trolling just facts a 1933 motor that keeps up with the best planes in the game :aok
Theoretically and Estimated sound the same to me.
I you say so, :)
-
I'm not upset with you Just moving your spaming of the brewster over here.
My spamming?? :huh I was already wondering in that thread why Boomerang advocates talk so much of the Brewster in a thread about the Boomerang. :D
I suggest you read that thread again from start to finish and think who actually started talking about the Brewster and who kept the topic on it especially in the end of that thread.
No trolling just facts a 1933 motor that keeps up with the best planes in the game :aok
The fact that the R-1820 was intially introduced in 1933 doesn't mean it was the same engine that powered the Brewster or the FM-2 later for that matter. The powersettings quoted in your posts are nominal settings, not the max. output.
It simply doesn't keep up with the "best planes" in the game. When looking at the whole altitude band, it is the slowest fighter in the game with the I-16.
-
My spamming?? :huh I was already wondering in that thread why Boomerang advocates talk so much of the Brewster in a thread about the Boomerang. :D
I suggest you read that thread again from start to finish and think who actually started talking about the Brewster and who kept the topic on it especially in the end of that thread.
Well, the thing is that it doesn't. When looking at the whole altitude band, it is the slowest fighter in the game with the I-16.
Well I moved it ...and its still a POS engine not meant to fly combat, made for civil flight, but it seemingly is the best thing since sliced bread and can hold its E in a uturn and catch a p-47 at going bye it at 400mph
:x :x
-
Well I moved it ...and its still a POS engine not meant to fly combat, made for civil flight, but it seemingly is the best thing since sliced bread and can hold its E in a uturn and catch a p-47 at going bye it at 400mph
:x :x
I think you need to fly it a bit before you make such absurd claims.
-
I think you need to fly it a bit before you make such absurd claims.
I think he got shot down by a Brewster in a Jug flying the Brewster's fight.
:cry
cheese
wrongway
-
Well I moved it ...and its still a POS engine not meant to fly combat, made for civil flight, but it seemingly is the best thing since sliced bread and can hold its E in a uturn and catch a p-47 at going bye it at 400mph
:x :x
Uhhh not sure where you are getting your information, but I fly the F4F, Brewster reguarly, you are not catching someone doing 400 tahts flying by you unless you get an idiot who doesn't climb up fast enough.
Generally speaking Both aircraft have very little acceleration and speed, given a brewster/f4f/boomerang with any energy it can pose a problem - simply use vertical fighting and both are worthless and want to do circles because it ran out of energy.
Only people you are going to kill in a Boomerang/F4F is unless you have 5k alt advantage, or someone is trying to turn fight (newbie).
Now there are some of us like me who regularly enjoy flying 25+ eny planes are for the disadvantages of flying it. I don't come screaming down from 15k, instead I generally fly between 6-10k depending alt of nearest base etc. Sometimes I do get someone that ups an A6m and wants to duel or I prefer a spitfire, majority of the time its someone warping past me doing 550 in a P51 trying for an easy pick.
However unless you have some serious Alt advantage, you won't be getting many to try to turn fight you, that and a lack of slow speed means you need to disengage and climb out.
-
Megalodon you are incorrect about the DC-3 using the Wright Cyclone 1820. Although there were 2 models the DC-3B and the DC-3S also known as the R4-D, most DC-3 variants used the Pratt and Whitney 1830. The Pratts were more reliable and had a longer TBO. I am at work so I can't get into all of my DC-3 material, but I assure you that the vast majority of the DC-3s that came off the lines had Pratts, and most of the DC-3s that are flying today are still behind Pratts, the sole R4-D that is flying is behind Wrights. Now that there is the conversion many of the Turbine DC-3s are still behind Pratts, just the PT-6 variants and not the 1830s. Although there are some conversion kits for the Allison turbine.
-
Megalodon you are incorrect about the DC-3 using the Wright Cyclone 1820.
He said that the initial versions of the DC-3 used R-1830-G5. And that is correct. Brewster Model 239's used refurbished engines which came from airline use, from DC-3s.
-
I did not see that he said initial, but their numbers were minuscule compared to the numbers using the Pratts. I don't remember the numbers exactly, but I think it was 16,000+ DC-3 variants built, most of them flew behind Pratts. Again I am not where I can get to my books, and don't quote me on numbers but I think only aront 500-600 were drug around behind Wrights. Again I missed that he said Initial. They went to the Pratt because of fuel usage, reliability, and TBO. So the reference to DC-3 using wrights is not a good point to use since Wrights were removed from them at an early stage in the development of the DC-3 family.
-
Yes, most of the DC-3/C-47 were powered by Twin Wasps, that is true. But (splitting hairs here) is the number of Cyclones miniscule when we talk about true, original DC-3s instead of C-47 converts. As the number of original DC-3s compared to the C-47 passenger converts is also miniscule. And he said "DC-3" and didn't mention C47 at all. ;)
-
Ok I will give you that one, since there were not many DC-3s built before the war, once the war started, the ones in production were converted to C-47, and variants. After the war, most of the DC-3s were C-47 that were converted back to DC-3s. I was revering to the DC-3 family as a general, including all the different variants.
-
[quote author=Wmaker link=topic=327730.msg4290834#msg4290834 date=1327613381
The fact that the R-1820 was intially introduced in 1933 doesn't mean it was the same engine that powered the Brewster or the FM-2 later for that matter.
[/quote]
So very true... The R-1820s fitted to our S-2s were rated at 1525 hp. Hang one of those on a Brewster and they'd have something to whine about!
-
What I read is that the 1000HP rating is only good for 5 minutes or so. If the AH Brewster has a 1000HP engine, then maybe the need to have a "WEP". Also, is that 200HP drop at 3,000 feet included. All things I do not know, Wmaker, whats the story?
Reasons why a Brester kicked your butt:
#1: You fought the Brewster on it's terms.
#2: You don't realize the Brester has a Drag C/D lower than many other Ac.
#3: You need to work on SA and ACM.
If you hold the cards and are patient, the Brewster is easy to hit, aim for the wings, they come right off. If you don't, then run for your life.
-
[quote author=Wmaker link=topic=327730.msg4290834#msg4290834 date=1327613381
The fact that the R-1820 was intially introduced in 1933 doesn't mean it was the same engine that powered the Brewster or the FM-2 later for that matter.
So very true... The R-1820s fitted to our S-2s were rated at 1525 hp. Hang one of those on a Brewster and they'd have something to whine about!
R-1820-82WA different engine with wep
[quote author=Wmaker link=topic=327730.msg4290834#msg4290834 date=1327613381
The fact that the R-1820 was intially introduced in 1933 doesn't mean it was the same engine that powered the Brewster or the FM-2 later for that matter.
So very true... The R-1820s fitted to our S-2s were rated at 1525 hp. Hang one of those on a Brewster and they'd have something to whine about!
Were are talking about the R-1820-G5 civlian motor in the b-239 not the 105 or 205
65% of these engines made had 1000HP or less
R-1820-04
700 hp (522 kW)
R-1820-1
575 hp (429 kW)
R-1820-4
770 hp (574 kW)
R-1820-19
675 hp (503 kW)
R-1820-22
950 hp (708 kW)
R-1820-25
675 hp (503 kW) , 750 hp (559 kW), 775 hp (578 kW)
R-1820-32
1,000 hp (750 kW)
XR-1820-32
800 hp (596 kW)
R-1820-33
775 hp (578 kW)
R-1820-34
940 hp (701 kW) , 950 hp (708 kW)
R-1820-34A
1,200 hp (895 kW)
R-1820-40
1,100 hp (820 kW), 1,200 hp (895 kW)
R-1820-41
850 hp (634 kW)
R-1820-45
800 hp (596 kW) , 930 hp (694 kW)
R-1820-50
850 hp (634 kW)
R-1820-52
1,000 hp (750 kW)
R-1820-53
930 hp (694 kW), 1,000 hp (750 kW)
R-1820-56
1,200 hp (895 kW), 1,350 hp (1,007 kW)
R-1820-57
1,060 hp (790 kW)
R-1820-60
1,200 hp (895 kW)
R-1820-62
1,350 hp (1,007 kW)
R-1820-66
1,200 hp (895 kW), 1,350 hp (1,007 kW)
R-1820-72W
1,350 hp (1,007 kW) , 1,425 hp (1,063 kW)
R-1820-74W
1,500 hp (1,118 kW)
R-1820-76A,B,C,D
1,425 hp (1,063 kW)
R-1820-78
700 hp (522 kW)
R-1820-80
700 hp (522 kW), 1,535 hp (1,145 kW)
R-1820-82WA
1,525 hp (1,137 kW)
R-1820-86
1,425 hp (1,063 kW)
R-1820-97
1,200 hp (895 kW), Fitted with turbosupercharger
R-1820-103
1,425 hp (1,063 kW)
SGR-1820-F3
710 hp (529 kW) , 720 hp (537 kW)
SGR-1820-F2
720 hp (537 kW)
R-1820-F53
770 hp (574 kW)
R-1820-F56
790 hp (589 kW)
GR-1820-G2
1,000 hp (750 kW)
R-1820-G3
840 hp (626 kW)
R-1820-G5
950 hp (708 kW)
R-1820-G101
1,100 hp (820 kW)
R-1820-G102
775 hp (578 kW)
GR-1820-G102A
1,100 hp (820 kW)
R-1820-G102A
1,100 hp (820 kW)
R-1820-G102A
1,100 hp (820 kW)
R-1820-G202A
1,200 hp (895 kW)
R-1820-G103
1,000 hp (750 kW)
R-1820-G105
1,000 hp (750 kW)
R-1820-G205A
1,200 hp (895 kW)
BTW your info says calculated as well as estimated. Mind showing the rest of the document? that has the engine # on it.
Just curious,
-
What I read is that the 1000HP rating is only good for 5 minutes or so. If the AH Brewster has a 1000HP engine, then maybe the need to have a "WEP". Also, is that 200HP drop at 3,000 feet included. All things I do not know, Wmaker, whats the story?
Yes, the 1000hp setting has a 5 minute limit in real life. Before Brewster was introduced, I also fully expected that it would be restricted to 5mins as a "WEP" setting. The key here seems to be HTC's modelling principal. The setting in Brewster's own docs is called either max. military or take off rating. It is my understanding that if the setting is called "war emergency setting" for American planes and "notleistung" for German planes for example and so on, then it is time limited in the game. For example F4F-4 in the game is in the same situation as Brewster, its' max. setting is called Military/Take-off setting and it is also limited to 5 minutes in real life but is not time limited in the game.
And yes, Brewster's power drop with altitude is modelled just like the power curves of other planes. ;) It's very evident when looking at the performance charts. The poor altitude performance is easily seen by the poor top speed at altitude and how sharply the climb rate drops off after 3000ft.
-
Is our current brewster rated at 1000HP continuous or only 800HP continuous?
-
What I read is that the 1000HP rating is only good for 5 minutes or so. If the AH Brewster has a 1000HP engine, then maybe the need to have a "WEP". Also, is that 200HP drop at 3,000 feet included. All things I do not know, Wmaker, whats the story?
Reasons why a Brester kicked your butt:
#1: You fought the Brewster on it's terms.
#2: You don't realize the Brester has a Drag C/D lower than many other Ac.
#3: You need to work on SA and ACM.
If you hold the cards and are patient, the Brewster is easy to hit, aim for the wings, they come right off. If you don't, then run for your life.
A 239 did not kick my butt and I can give most 239's all they need in a 109.
This came about by WMaker talking down the Boomerang in the Boomerang thread. Basically saying that the Boomerang didn't belong in the game. His criteria for not including it in the game are, it must have shot down an enemy plane to be included, that it is not as good as the 239, and would be a waste of resources.
So I thought I would point out what makes the 239 so awesome and that there were 5 times as many Boomerangs made as 239's. That the plane that is so super had a civilian engine and was not fit for military environment that Theoretically, is Estimated to or is Calculated to have 850hp has 1000hp 100% of the time.
Have you ever seen an engineer be right? :rofl
That is all,
-
So the reference to DC-3 using wrights is not a good point to use since Wrights were removed from them at an early stage in the development of the DC-3 family.
That is the point :aok
-
R-1820-82WA different engine with wep
The R-1820-82W does not have a WEP setting (nor water injection). It's rated at 1525 hp Takeoff, 1425 hp MIL power and 1275 hp Normal power, all based upon 115/145 avgas. Trust me... I've got almost 2,000 hours pushing these engines through the sky.
I'd still like to hang one on a Brewster... Should easily out climb a T-28 (typically 4,000+ fpm with 1425 hp).
-
I inject the points on being shot down by a brewster, as being the common ground as to why folks get into the "uberness of the Brewster". I am sincerely curious about which HP rating we see in the game, because I think if it were the correct HP rating in the 800 range, then we would not see brewsters matching (not slowing down considerably, all things considered) 109Ks in initial climb, CO E.
-
The R-1820-82W does not have a WEP setting (nor water injection). It's rated at 1525 hp Takeoff, 1425 hp MIL power and 1275 hp Normal power, all based upon 115/145 avgas. Trust me... I've got almost 2,000 hours pushing these engines through the sky.
I'd still like to hang one on a Brewster... Should easily out climb a T-28 (typically 4,000+ fpm with 1425 hp).
you are correct my mistake,
You would break your wings off <Poke your eye out> <G>
-
I inject the points on being shot down by a brewster, as being the common ground as to why folks get into the "uberness of the Brewster". I am sincerely curious about which HP rating we see in the game, because I think if it were the correct HP rating in the 800 range, then we would not see brewsters matching (not slowing down considerably, all things considered) 109Ks in initial climb, CO E.
I agree with you :aok
-
Mind showing the rest of the document? that has the engine # on it.
To be quite honest, I don't think I'll bother. If you would have started this thread with an open mind and with an honest desire to learn something I might. But since you decided to go on a personal crusade against me just because I don't happen to agree with you on something, I don't have much desire to lift a finger really. I've already told you that the table comes from Brewster Corp's Specification document for the B239 and you know that the B239 was equipped with R-1820G-5. So please, try to put two and two together.
BTW your info says calculated as well as estimated.
Yes it does. People on this forum who have very little about the engineering aspect that's behind these planes usually tread the word "calculated" and seem to automatically assume that it means that the numbers don't correspond to real life and they also automatically think that they are optimistic when they could just as well be lower than what the real plane is capable of. For example, during the development of VL Pyörremyrsky fighter, it was found that the prototype was faster than what the initial calculations showed. As far as Brewster goes, the performance was verified by test flying four different B239s from the Finnish order, three were assembled and test flow in the US and BW-366 was test flown in Finland. As can be seen from the table I posted, the speed with continuous power (850hp) is 265mph at sea level. BW-366 had a measured top speed of 266mph at sea level with the same power setting. At the super charger's second critical altitude a speed of 298,3mph was achieved with BW-366 while the calculated speed in the specification document listed as 301mph. So the measuren in-flight speed performance matched Brewster Corp's calculations excellently.
Source: Pilot's Viewpoint II by Jukka Raunio
Is our current brewster rated at 1000HP continuous or only 800HP continuous?
It is 1000hp continuous as it should be given how HTC models the power settings for all planes. The fact that it's 1000hp can be verified by looking at the altitude where the climb rate starts to drop (3000ft), the same altitude is listed as the limit to which the 1000hp can be obtained in the document I posted.
I inject the points on being shot down by a brewster, as being the common ground as to why folks get into the "uberness of the Brewster". I am sincerely curious about which HP rating we see in the game, because I think if it were the correct HP rating in the 800 range, then we would not see brewsters matching (not slowing down considerably, all things considered) 109Ks in initial climb, CO E.
It isn't even remotely matching the intial climb rate of a K-4. Not in game, nor in real life. The reason why people get this idea is the climb rate of a .50cal projectile and the initial climb rate of that one greatly exceeds the initial climb rate of any plane in AH. The correct HP rating for the Brewster is 1000hp as I've already demonstrated.
-
This came about by WMaker talking down the Boomerang in the Boomerang thread. Basically saying that the Boomerang didn't belong in the game. His criteria for not including it in the game are, it must have shot down an enemy plane to be included, that it is not as good as the 239, and would be a waste of resources.
The above is utterly untrue as anyone who reads the Boomerang thread can see.
Here's the link to the page: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,321264.60.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,321264.60.html)
The whole thing started because I questioned the use of HTC's rescourses on something that saw little use compared to the true work horse aircraft like Pe-2 and Ki-43. Megalodon obviously take my opinion and set off on this silly crusade against me.
-
Wmaker, I know the ROC are no where near each other. I am illustrating the illusion that many have. The Brewster simply bleeds E slower than the K4. It would bleed E faster if it had less HP. That is all. I will try to that with the brewster today and see what happens. <S>
Just tried it. ROC of Brewster decreases by 300 FPM at 3000ft.
-
Sounds like both the F4F and Brewster could use a WEP setting for their 5 minute limited "MIL" setting. After all, that is all that WEP on Merlin powered aircraft is, just under a different label.
-
Sounds like both the F4F and Brewster could use a WEP setting for their 5 minute limited "MIL" setting. After all, that is all that WEP on Merlin powered aircraft is, just under a different label.
Well that brings a new problem to the table IMO. As most planes have time limitations with their lower power settings aswell. It would need more or less a total rework. I'm fine with any system as long as it is consistent towards all aircraft.
-
I am illustrating the illusion that many have. The Brewster simply bleeds E slower than the K4. It would bleed E faster if it had less HP. That is all.
I personally avoid using the term E-Bleed generally as it is a bit vague but generally the better power loading and the less drag an aircraft has the less E it loses over time and can generate it back faster. On the area I'm sure that the K-4 has a considerable advantage. I think it has more to do with the fact that Brewster, when following a K-4 in its rear hemisphere can simply cut a corner and gain angles on the K-4 and the .50s reach a long way. If the K-4 simply insists on staying above the Brewster and is patient there isn't much the Brewster can do about it.
-
Well that brings a new problem to the table IMO. As most planes have time limitations with their lower power settings aswell. It would need more or less a total rework. I'm fine with any system as long as it is consistent towards all aircraft.
IIRC (I am not home with my resources right now) the next power setting below WEP, what we use for MIL, on Merlins was a 30 minute limit. For most purposes in AH that is an unlimited duration. Spitfires, for example, need a drop tank to even reach that duration.
The problem with not treating the 5 minute power setting of the F4F and Brewster as WEP is that it is inconsistent with the limits placed on other aircraft and makes them disproportionately good performers. A Merlin could run WEP for 30 minutes, it would just need to be overhauled at an earlier time than the maintenance log scheduled it for. It would be much more consistent with the engine modeling in AH to simply model the 5 minute power settings on the F4F and Brewster as "WEP" than what we have now. I don't see a lack of consistency there.
-
I don't see a lack of consistency there.
The Steigh und Kampfleistung for DB605 (1.3ata) also had 30min limit. But American fighters like P-40N for example had a different setting for take off and WEP and both settings had relatively short time limits. This greates a situation where let's say a P-40N could run its 1200hp take off setting indefinately which in real life had 5min limit and the only limited setting would be WEP at 1360hp. The MIL for P-40N is 1125hp and I'm not sure about the time limits for that setting. Of course there could be a bigger jump for longer duration allowed setting to straight to WEP but I'm not sure if that would an ideal solution either. What I'm trying to say is that it isn't quite as simple as you put it IMO.
-
Not saying it is simple, just that it would be more consistent than what we have now. For the P-40N the easiest solution would be to remove the 1200hp take off setting and just go with the 1125hp setting for MIL, leaving WEP of 1360hp, which is what most people in game use for take off anyways.
-
The above is utterly untrue as anyone who reads the Boomerang thread can see.
Here's the link to the page: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,321264.60.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,321264.60.html)
The whole thing started because I questioned the use of HTC's rescourses on something that saw little use compared to the true work horse aircraft like B-239 and Ki-43. Megalodon obviously take my opinion and set off on this silly crusade against me.
No silly crusade.. at least no less crusade than you went on against the Boomerang... just pointing out the super engine R-1820-G5 that stunk so bad in real life that the DC3 got rid of it by 1936 the B18 got rid of it by 1937 the CW21, 1938, 72 sold to China to get rid of it and the Seversky P-35 used 1 in 1939 and got rid of it. All replaced this motor and got rid of it exactly because it did not make its rated power of 850hp. This all happened years before your little 239 was made, because it stunk!
So I thought I would put the focus on your little plane and it's super magnificent engine. Most engines are lucky to make 85% of there estimated, calculated or theorized max statistics. But... the R-1820-G5 in 239 goes well beyond that it can pull 1000hp below 3k indefinitely and 850hp up to 7000ft........BULLHOCKY.
You are the 1 who wouldn't let it go and kept hammering, what you consider, crappy stats and the time is not worth it. You were the callus one agreeing on how much you and the other folks were going to suffer if HTC put resources into making the Boomerang and adding another country to the fold of AH, it was just not worth the effort............. NO? ......do I have it backwards here?
That is all,
-
Megalodon,
The Boomerang is not nearly as significant as the Brewster. Even the briefest examinations of the service records of the two aircraft reveal that. The performance of the Brewster in AH matches the historically documented performance as well. There is, I think, a strong argument to limit the 1000hp output to 5 minutes as on Merlin and Allison engined aircraft, but while it has that 1000hp everything looks to be in line with what it should be.
Your statements such as "So I thought I would put the focus on your little plane and it's super magnificent engine" give lie to the claim that you are not on a vendetta. Wmaker's comments about the Boomerang are accurate. It was a complete non-factor in the war and while it meets the criteria to be added, there are many other aircraft of minor powers or major powers that were knocked out of the war early that should have higher priority.
-
Megalodon,
The Boomerang is not nearly as significant as the Brewster. Even the briefest examinations of the service records of the two aircraft reveal that. The performance of the Brewster in AH matches the historically documented performance as well. There is, I think, a strong argument to limit the 1000hp output to 5 minutes as on Merlin and Allison engined aircraft, but while it has that 1000hp everything looks to be in line with what it should be.
It was a complete non-factor in the war and while it meets the criteria to be added, there are many other aircraft of minor powers or major powers that were knocked out of the war early that should have higher priority.
I disagree
I'm just here to talk about the R-1820-G5 engine. I moved the conversation from the Boomerang thread because I felt it was hijacking and clearly wmaker wanted to continue.
:salute
Edit: Btw can you tell me the research you have done on the R-1820-G5 engine since, as you say, everything is in order?
-
I disagree
Then your bias is blinding you. One aircraft that shot down hundreds of aircraft compared to one that did light ground attack and target marking tasks does not make for an even evaluation.
Edit: Btw can you tell me the research you have done on the R-1820-G5 engine since, as you say, everything is in order?
Not the engine, the performance of the aircraft in question. If the aircraft produced those performance numbers on less power somehow, so be it, but it produced the modeled performance
-
Then your bias is blinding you. One aircraft that shot down hundreds of aircraft compared to one that did light ground attack and target marking tasks does not make for an even evaluation.
Not the engine, the performance of the aircraft in question. If the aircraft produced those performance numbers on less power somehow, so be it, but it produced the modeled performance
Your criteria for inclusion is blinding.
The engine makes the performance of the airplane.
About that research you have done on the R-1820-G5? and stop the hijack.
-
Your criteria for inclusion is blinding.
What the heck does that mean? The Boomerang meets the criteria, as I stated, it is just a low priority as it did very little.
The engine makes the performance of the airplane.
About that research you have done on the R-1820-G5? and stop the hijack.
If the aircraft climbed at X and had a max speed of Y and those are the numbers it hits in AH then it is modeled correctly. The power level the engine needs to provide that performance doesn't change that.
What you need to do is provide data that says the Finnish flight testing was faulty. Arguing about engine power doesn't accomplish that.
-
What the heck does that mean? The Boomerang meets the criteria, as I stated, it is just a low priority as it did very little.
If the aircraft climbed at X and had a max speed of Y and those are the numbers it hits in AH then it is modeled correctly. The power level the engine needs to provide that performance doesn't change that.
What you need to do is provide data that says the Finnish flight testing was faulty. Arguing about engine power doesn't accomplish that.
It is a low priority for you
Okay :)
I'm sorry I was unaware that we used the Finish numbers for an American engine manufactured in USA.
I suppose we could use Australian numbers for the P-40E right?
-
It is a low priority for you
It is a low priority for anybody who has an honest appraisal of its role in history and to whom such things matter. I can understand that it matters more to you as a fan of the aircraft, but from a neutral standpoint it is a low priority.
I'm sorry I was unaware that we used the Finish numbers for an American engine manufactured in USA.
I suppose we could use Australian numbers for the P-40E right?
Once again, the engine is irrelevant if the aircraft hits the correct performance numbers. If it hit those on 850hp or 1000hp does not matter. The performance numbers that matter are the Finnish numbers as the aircraft is intended to be a Finnish Brewster, not a Marine F2A or an RAF B339E.
-
No silly crusade.. at least no less crusade than you went on against the Boomerang...
That's exactly what it is. You even admitted it yourself:
This came about by WMaker talking down the Boomerang in the Boomerang thread. Basically saying that the Boomerang didn't belong in the game. His criteria for not including it in the game are, it must have shot down an enemy plane to be included, that it is not as good as the 239, and would be a waste of resources.
In my argumentation regarding the Boomerang I've used facts, figures and sources, and unlike you, refrained from ad hominem type of argumentation. All I've really done is disagreed with you and argued my position. You were one of the people who brought the Brewster into the Boomerang discussion and I simply corrected the factual errors regarding the Brewster in that coversation.
just pointing out the super engine R-1820-G5 that stunk so bad in real life that the DC3 got rid of it by 1936 the B18 got rid of it by 1937 the CW21, 1938, 72 sold to China to get rid of it and the Seversky P-35 used 1 in 1939 and got rid of it. All replaced this motor and got rid of it exactly because it did not make its rated power of 850hp. This all happened years before your little 239 was made, because it stunk!
Regarding the power output I've provided primary source material (manufacturer's data) to you, which is something that HTC mostly uses when they model these aircraft) which clearly states that the G5 had an output of 1000hp. You keep saying that it only put out 850hp but you've failed to cite a single source yet. Basically you could have just as well pulled everything in the OP out of your own hat since you haven't cited a single source.
Wright constantly put out new versions of the Cyclone as the development advance just like any other firm with its engines at the time. The older versions were upgraded to newer ones and the older versions were exported as the country of origin (United States in this case) upgraded versions available, a luxury which Finland certainly didn't have. Cyclone was a product of its time just like other aircraft engines before and during WWII. Pulling it's problems out of the context of place and time and the problems with other engines just blows the problems out of proportion and all it really does is it reveals your obvious bias.
Brewsters fought from June of '41 until October of '44, flew 448 hours per plane on average and scored ~11 victories per airframe on average. Not too bad considering they had a useless engine. :D
Most engines are lucky to make 85% of there estimated, calculated or theorized max statistics.
Based on what exactly? Where's your source?
But... the R-1820-G5 in 239 goes well beyond that it can pull 1000hp below 3k indefinitely and 850hp up to 7000ft........BULLHOCKY.
It is no more "bullhocky" (whatever that means) than how HTC models the powersetting time limits on every single plane in the game.
You are the 1 who wouldn't let it go and kept hammering, what you consider, crappy stats
Like I said time and again, wheather or not I think if Boomerang is competetive or not has nothing to do on why I object its inclusion right now. I merely explained why it isnt going to run rings around the Brewster for example like people in the Boomerang thread led to believe, you included.
You were the callus one agreeing on how much you and the other folks were going to suffer if HTC put resources into making the Boomerang and adding another country to the fold of AH, it was just not worth the effort............. NO? ......do I have it backwards here?
Don't know what "callus" means but basically correct, yes. Instead of wasting time on obscure and relatively insignificant aircraft like the Boomerang, HTC's time should be put to better use like on modelling work horse aircarft like Ki-43 and Pe-2 which much much bigger impact on the course of the war than something like the Boomerang.
-
:rolleyes:
-
I personally avoid using the term E-Bleed generally as it is a bit vague but generally the better power loading and the less drag an aircraft has the less E it loses over time and can generate it back faster. On the area I'm sure that the K-4 has a considerable advantage. I think it has more to do with the fact that Brewster, when following a K-4 in its rear hemisphere can simply cut a corner and gain angles on the K-4 and the .50s reach a long way. If the K-4 simply insists on staying above the Brewster and is patient there isn't much the Brewster can do about it.
Wmaker, I also sincerely know so little about aero stuff, I am just calling it what I think everyone else might refer it to. I am a geological engineer. You want to talk resistivity, etc... I am your man. The crap here is vodoo.
-
Wmaker is correct, Megalodon you need to show some sources to your claim - I would dig through and find the information but Wmaker I know - has his material correct.
-
Wmaker, I also sincerely know so little about aero stuff, I am just calling it what I think everyone else might refer it to. I am a geological engineer. You want to talk resistivity, etc... I am your man. The crap here is vodoo.
LOLOLOL I can relate. I'm a mechanical engineer with 32 years of experience, but when I have to interface with cutting edge electronics, it's voodoo to me too.
-
Salute fellow man of the cloth.
-
a brewster fan saying that the boomerang has not enough importance to be included in AH...priceless :)
-
a brewster fan saying that the boomerang has not enough importance to be included in AH...priceless :)
The Boomerang is not nearly as significant as the Brewster. Even the briefest examinations of the service records of the two aircraft reveal that.
-
Brewster perma-WEP explains alot.
should be fixed as Karnack suggested (along with most of buffs) :aok
-
Brewster perma-WEP explains alot.
should be fixed as Karnack suggested (along with most of buffs) :aok
+1 fix it
-
Neither of the above posters seem to really even understand what they are suggesting and what it would take...in other words, business as usual on the Aces High Bulletin Board.
+1 fix it
There's nothing to "fix". There nothing "broken" in the way Brewster power settings are modelled, considering how HTC has chose to model power setting on all planes. If one wants to change the way it is modelled on Brewster then changes would have to be made on many AH planes, all WEPless planes for starters.
This obviously seems to be a bit too hard to grasp.
-
Neither of the above posters seem to really even understand what they are suggesting and what it would take...
I understand perfectly, hence my suggestion to fix the problem with some other versions of this engine in AH some 3 or 4 yrs ago.
-
I understand perfectly, hence my suggestion to fix the problem with some other versions of this engine in AH some 3 or 4 yrs ago.
Obviously you do not understand. It has nothing to do with how the powersettings of the Cyclones alone are modelled in AH. It has to do with ongoing modelling principal of powersettings of all engines in AH.
-
a few planes have PermaWEP®, like the brewster. most have time limited WEP. I get it.
-
a few planes have PermaWEP®, like the brewster. most have time limited WEP. I get it.
It isn't perma WEP, it is a military/take-off setting. There are different kind of time limits on many planes' power settings. I don't think it would be fair if planes that have combat power/wep setting could run indefinately on mil (if it was limited in real life) while planes with out combat power/wep settings would have their mil setting time limited.
This HTC's modelling scheme is admittedly somewhat generic but it certainly makes sense. Of course a different kind of scheme could be introduced but to make it fair, it would need more than one time limited powersetting. Personally, I think it would be smarter use their developmen time on something else than fixing on something that isn't really broken.
-
Buffalo I Pilot Notes (AP 1806A) R1820-G105A:
Setting RPM/MP Limit
Emergency 2,350/43.5" 5min
Climbing 2,300/35.5" 15min
Max Cruise 1,900/30" -
AH B-239 R1820-34
Setting RPM/MP Limit
Military 2,200/41" -
Normal 2,100/36" -
Cruise 1,850/26" -
If the brew were to modelled like almost every other fighter in AH it should plainly look like this:
Setting RPM/MP Limit
WEP 2,200/41" 5min
Military 2,100/36" -
Cruise 1,850/26" -
edit:
even the chart you posted earlier states that the "military" power setting was limited to 5mins ...
-
Buffalo I Pilot Notes (AP 1806A) R1820-G105A:
Setting RPM/MP Limit
Emergency 2,350/43.5" 5min
Climbing 2,300/35.5" 15min
Max Cruise 1,900/30" -
AH B-239 R1820-34
Setting RPM/MP Limit
Military 2,200/41" -
Normal 2,100/36" -
Cruise 1,850/26" -
If the brew were to modelled like almost every other fighter in AH it should plainly look like this:
Setting RPM/MP Limit
WEP 2,200/41" 5min
Military 2,100/36" -
Cruise 1,850/26" -
edit:
even the chart you posted earlier states that the "military" power setting was limited to 5mins ...
You simply aren't getting it. Gladly, HTC does get it. :)
First of all you post the data from an engine that isn't in the Brewster (see the title of this thread).
As I already tried to explain, there is host of different time limits depending on countries, services and planes/engines. For example, Allisons in the P-39Q and P-38J/L have a limit of 15min on the MIL-setting. It is not consistent to limit MIL-setting on one aircraft and not limit it on another. That would mean there would have to be at least two different time limits as those Allisons also have a 5min WEP limit.
If the brew were to modelled like almost every other fighter in AH it should plainly look like this:
Setting RPM/MP Limit
WEP 2,200/41" 5min
Military 2,100/36" -
Cruise 1,850/26" -
But the 41inHg setting isn't WEP it is Military setting. To obtain WEP setting on many aircraft you had to break a steel wire seal which told to the ground crew that the aircraft in question needed special attention. I can't see how they are comparable.
And if you want to forget take-off setting between mil and normal then the same would apply to other aircraft aswell, and there are plenty of those also in the WEP equipped aircraft.
-
I understand it perfectly, repeatedly saying I dont will not change that.
WEP in AH has nothing whatsoever to do with water injection, breaking wires, using the extra indent or whatever. It is merely the name used in AH to describe a modelled, single, maximum power setting which is time-limited.
most engines had multiple time-limited settings, and HT has generally done a sensible job of fitting these into their single setting model. the 1820s, merlins, allisons are all pretty easy to fit into this model. typical sorties in AH are short enough for the longer limits to be treated as continuous settings. if you want a really tricky engine to model with one time-limited setting have a look at the Ju88 pilot notes.
the point stands -
the Brewster could only use its maximum power setting for 5mins. in AH it is allowed to use this setting continuously.
the eg. Spitfire could only use its maximum power setting for 5mins. in AH it is allowed to use this setting for 5mins.
the brewster is not modelled consistently with almost every other fighter in AH.
dont get me started on buffs :bolt:
-
WEP in AH has nothing whatsoever to do with water injection, breaking wires, using the extra indent or whatever. It is merely the name used in AH to describe a modelled, single, maximum power setting which is time-limited.
A review on the settings on planes that have a time limit and those that don't verfies that the above is incorrect.
most engines had multiple time-limited settings, and HT has generally done a sensible job of fitting these into their single setting model. the 1820s, merlins, allisons are all pretty easy to fit into this model. typical sorties in AH are short enough for the longer limits to be treated as continuous settings. if you want a really tricky engine to model with one time-limited setting have a look at the Ju88 pilot notes.
If there are two planes which have the same designation (standardization) for a power setting then one shouldn't sure from a limitation which the other doesn't suffer. If one aircraft has its MIL power limited then all aircraft should have their MIL-settings (or similar) limited per their documentation respectively, and that automatically means more than one timelimit system.
the point stands -
the Brewster could only use its maximum power setting for 5mins. in AH it is allowed to use this setting continuously.
the eg. Spitfire could only use its maximum power setting for 5mins. in AH it is allowed to use this setting for 5mins.
the brewster is not modelled consistently with almost every other fighter in AH.
Another example,
The MIL on the Brewster is on all intents and purposes also a take-off setting (there are primary source documents where one document calls it mil and other calls it take-off). Don't know the time limit off hand but for example the 12lbs setting for the Spit XIV is take-off setting but in AH it can be run indefinately. If you want to limit planes to their real continuous limits (as you did with your Brewster example) then there have to reductions on the highest non-wep setting on several planes.
Just limiting the highest setting blindly and forgetting the rest leads into a lot more inconsistent situation than the current system. I'm sure that the HTC is aware of this aswell and that's the reason why it works the way it does.
-
oh I agree the Griffon isnt right, its continuous Military setting should be 2,600/+9 not 2,750/+12, but at least its WEP setting is limited to 5mins, unlike the Brewster. However all the merlin engines spits, the typhoon and tempest are modelled correctly.
finding an example which is also wrong does not make the brewster right. my point stands.
edit:
If you want to limit planes to their real continuous limits (as you did with your Brewster example) then there have to reductions on the highest non-wep setting on several planes.
agreed, although most of the fighters are already pretty consistent. I would be happy to see the XIV revised as above, even though it would reduce the performance of a plane that I fly, in the name of accuracy.
-
Just because the Finns labeled as MIL what the USAAF would label as WEP does not make it MIL by the USAAF's definition.
The fact and bottom line is that it is a 5 minute limited power rating. In reality could that be ignored at the expense of the engine's maintenance schedule? Yes, but that is also true of the 5 minute power limits on Merlin, Griffon and Allison engines as well. Likely on others too.
As I referenced on the P-40N, the take off setting should be eliminated in favor of the lower setting when a higher WEP setting is also available. It seems the Spitfire Mk XIV is also in need of that change.
-
Brewster doesn't have a WEP setting. It has a Military setting like I've said time and again. Brewster is modelled correctly considering HTC's modelling principle, as is Spit14 btw. If you have a problem with HTC's modelling principle, take it up with them. As I've also said many times, I completely understand why HTC models things the way it does, if you happen to disagree with their principal doesn't mean the Brewster is modelled wrongly.
You don't have a point which could "stand" to begin with. HTC's modelling principal is very clear at least in the aircraft I've looked at. If the setting is designated as Emergency/Combat/Uses ADI etc. in the aircraft's primary source documents, then it has a time limit. If it's named something more ordinary, it is unlimited.
If you want to see the general modelling changed start a thread on the wishlist.
-
WMAKER, while WEP may be a specific term in certain countries and in regards to certain planes, in Aces High it is simply the limited-duration max-power setting, often used in combat, but not exclusive to that condition. It is HTC's way of limiting output without having to model overheat and other problems.
If it's a 5-minute limited time power output, it applies to AH's "WEP toggle" function. It doesn't matter what the country in question called it. It doesn't need to be ADI based, or combat based... Even the Ki-84's "WEP" if I recall is more of a takeoff setting.
-
yeah I dont know why people get so hung up on the names used in the manuals for power settings. its the settings, time limits, and usage which are being modelled, not the label.
-
Just because the Finns labeled as MIL what the USAAF would label as WEP does not make it MIL by the USAAF's definition.
It isn't Finns who labeled it as 'MIL' but Curtiss-Wright, and Brewster Corp. used the same nomenlecture as the engine manufacturer, USAAF and USN.
-
If it's a 5-minute limited time power output, it applies to AH's "WEP toggle" function. It doesn't matter what the country in question called it. It doesn't need to be ADI based, or combat based... Even the Ki-84's "WEP" if I recall is more of a takeoff setting.
Based on how the planes are modelled in AH, what matters is how the engine/aircraft manufacturer calls it. Which is MIL in the case of the Brewster.
Everyone can disagree with me all they like, all I'm really saying is that is how they are modelled in AH and that Brewster is consistent with that principle. If you would like to see the setting modelled differently, take it up with HTC. I don't really care how the system works as long as it is consistent. But like I've said I think the energy that goes into fixing something that isn't really broked could be put to better use.
-
all I'm really saying is that is how they are modelled in AH and that Brewster is consistent with that principle.
the brewster is not consistent with the other fighters.
the Brewster could only use its maximum power setting for 5mins. in AH it is allowed to use this setting continuously.
the eg. Spitfire could only use its maximum power setting for 5mins. in AH it is allowed to use this setting for 5mins.
-
the brewster is not consistent with the other fighters.
It is totally consistent with other aircraft that have their highest power setting labeled as MIL/Take off. Spitfire has Combat Power/WEP setting which is something that Brewster doesn't have. Same goes with the F4F-4, P-40C and P-40E for example. They are intentionally modelled the way they are as is the Brewster.
-
forget the labelling, look at the settings, time limits and usage.
there is no getting around:
the Brewster could only use its maximum power setting for 5mins. in AH it is allowed to use this setting continuously.
the eg. Spitfire could only use its maximum power setting for 5mins. in AH it is allowed to use this setting for 5mins.
-
Wmaker,
There is no difference between the Brewster's MIL and the Spitfire's WEP. They both have a 5 minute limit, but could in reality be run until the engine died or ran out of fuel. One Spitfire V pilot ran his WEP for 30 minutes with no ill effect on the engine. AH doesn't allow that because the players would simply abuse the engine and always use WEP on Merlin engined aircraft, just like the Brewster is always using its 5 minute power setting.
-
there is no getting around:
the Brewster could only use its maximum power setting for 5mins. in AH it is allowed to use this setting continuously.
the eg. Spitfire could only use its maximum power setting for 5mins. in AH it is allowed to use this setting for 5mins.
You can repeat this as many times as you like, it doesn't change how HTC models these things, and in that context, Brewster is modelled exactly as it should. Again, if you have a problem with the general power setting modelling scheme, take it up to HTC. Zekes, P-40C/E, P-39D etc. are modelled similarly to Brewster because HTC wanted to model them that way. You can disagree with the general modelling principle all you like but saying that something is wrongly modelled is simply false.
This doesn't seem to sink in and I can't afford the needed diamond drill, so...
...if you want a change, write thread about it. I'm done with this particular issue.
-
Wmaker is correct, Megalodon you need to show some sources to your claim - I would dig through and find the information but Wmaker I know - has his material correct.
Go here pay your 12 bucks and do you own research there are 640 documents on the Wright R-1820 find the 1's you want, contact them and they will get the info for you.
http://www.enginehistory.org/ (http://www.enginehistory.org/)
Knock yourself out,
-
Go here pay your 12 bucks and do you own research there are 640 documents on the Wright R-1820 find the 1's you want, contact them and they will get the info for you.
http://www.enginehistory.org/ (http://www.enginehistory.org/)
Knock yourself out,
If you claim something it is your job to verify that claim, not anyone elses. You claimed that G-5 could only produce 850hp. I've posted primary source data which clearly states that R-1820G-5 is a 1000hp engine. Posting a single web page address which brings the reader to an opening page of the said web site isn't a source.
You still haven't posted single source to support your claim.
-
If you claim something it is your job to verify that claim, not anyone elses. You claimed that G-5 could only produce 850hp. I've posted primary source data which clearly states that R-1820G-5 is a 1000hp engine. Posting a single web page address which brings the reader to an opening page of the said web site isn't a source.
You still haven't posted single source to support your claim.
You posted #113a on page 4 of some document.
I'm not going to pay my money to get your answers.
You have already pointed out for us the the R-1820-G5 runs at 1000hp forever and is in need of a mil limit of 5 mins
Thanks,
-
You posted #113a on page 4 of some document.
I'm not going to pay my money to get your answers.
You have already pointed out for us the the R-1840-G runs at 1000hp forever and is in need of a mil limit of 5 mins
Thanks,
When you post such utter nonsense that you did, of course people ask for sources. Well I know you don't have any because you basically made up everything you posted anyway. :) I already posted the source in the Boomerang thread but I'll repeat it: Brewster Aeronautical Corporation Report 350: Detail Specification for Model 239 Airplane Class VF
You don't have to pay me anything, but when you claim that G-5 only could put out 850hp you need to post a source. It is very simple. You don't have to provide me any documents, just cite one. All you did was typed "R-1820G-5" into google and hit enter. You foulnd some vague describtions from couple web sites and as you know they aren't any good against a primary source from the manufacturer. You simply keep dodging and avoiding the issue because you have no sources to support your claim.
Regarding the 5min limit, it is funny how this seems to be some kind of surprise to people since A6M5b and Yak-9U have been modelled similarly to Brewster for over 10 years already. There's nothing wrong with the way the power limits for the Brewster are modelled as they are completely inline with the planes modelled before the Brewster.
-
Gentlemen, this is really a silly argument...
Virtually every aircraft in this game has a recommended limit on MIL/Takeoff power. For example, real P-38s were restricted to 15 minutes max at MIL power. Aces High has no such restriction. You can find similar restrictions on every U.S. aircraft. Both Yaks can fly around at max power until the fuel is exhausted. Is that truly realistic? No. None of these restrictions are applied in the game. Why? Because the emphasis is not on systems management. The emphasis is on game play. So, you want more realistic systems management? There's other games that provide that, at the expense of game play and usually accompanied by piss-poor flight physics. Then again, in combat, a pilot will push everything forward and not even think about it until the danger is passed. Recommended time restrictions be damned.
Moreover, I don't understand why there is so much angst about the Brewster. Even without MIL power time limits, it's still among the slowest fighters in the game (if not THE slowest). If you're getting getting your butt kicked by Brewsters on a regular basis, a little introspective thinking is in order rather than whining about further limiting a bog-slow aircraft even more. In short, maybe you make poor decisions. Maybe your SA simply sucks. Maybe you lack the basic skills needed to avoid being eaten up by slow, but maneuverable aircraft. Whatever the reason, Unless HTC reviews every aircraft and adds more complication to engine management, what you see is what you will continue to get. I doubt that HTC will change this for the reasons I defined earlier.
-
When you post such utter nonsense that you did, of course people ask for sources. Well I know you don't have any because you basically made up everything you posted anyway. :) I already posted the source in the Boomerang thread but I'll repeat it: Brewster Aeronautical Corporation Report 350: Detail Specification for Model 239 Airplane Class VF
You don't have to pay me anything, but when you claim that G-5 only could put out 850hp you need to post a source. It is very simple. You don't have to provide me any documents, just cite one. All you did was typed "R-1820G-5" into google and hit enter. You foulnd some vague describtions from couple web sites and as you know they aren't any good against a primary source from the manufacturer. You simply keep dodging and avoiding the issue because you have no sources to support your claim.
Regarding the 5min limit, it is funny how this seems to be some kind of surprise to people since A6M5b and Yak-9U have been modelled similarly to Brewster for over 10 years already. There's nothing wrong with the way the power limits for the Brewster are modelled as they are completely inline with the planes modelled before the Brewster.
Like I said there are 640 documents on the R-1820 Engine you will need to join to see them it costs 12 bucks.
Figure out how to use the web site.
-
Pop this in here where it belongs.
R-1820-G5 ...AKA.... R-1820-22
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/9d8387f8163ad7d98525670e0065ae06/$FILE/ATTZCGXO/TC154.pdf (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/9d8387f8163ad7d98525670e0065ae06/$FILE/ATTZCGXO/TC154.pdf)
5 minutes max,
-
Heh, Megalodon, with all your googling you couldn't find it on your own. :)
Anyways...
"Military model R-1820-22 is identical to model GR-1820G-5."
(Link: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/9d8387f8163ad7d98525670e0065ae06/$FILE/ATTZCGXO/TC154.pdf (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/9d8387f8163ad7d98525670e0065ae06/$FILE/ATTZCGXO/TC154.pdf))
...versus...
its still a POS engine not meant to fly combat, made for civil flight, but it seemingly is the best thing since sliced bread and can hold its E in a uturn and catch a p-47 at going bye it at 400mph
LOL. :)
5 minutes max,
Megalodon,
As already been covered, it is the way power setting are modelled in general in AH. No amount of your boo hissing and leg stomping is going to change that. :)
-
Heh, Megalodon, with all your googling you couldn't find it on your own. :)
Anyways...
"Military model R-1820-22 is identical to model GR-1820G-5."
(Link: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/9d8387f8163ad7d98525670e0065ae06/$FILE/ATTZCGXO/TC154.pdf (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/9d8387f8163ad7d98525670e0065ae06/$FILE/ATTZCGXO/TC154.pdf))
...versus...
LOL. :)
Megalodon,
As already been covered, it is the way power setting are modelled in general in AH. No amount of your boo hissing and leg stomping is going to change that. :)
let me help you
http://www.enginehistory.org/narasc/allorgs_form.php (http://www.enginehistory.org/narasc/allorgs_form.php)
type in 1820 in the top line expand search to 800 hit search button :cheers:
Cad,
-
let me help you
http://www.enginehistory.org/narasc/allorgs_form.php (http://www.enginehistory.org/narasc/allorgs_form.php)
type in 1820 in the top line expand search to 800 hit search button :cheers:
Cad,
What does those documents have to do with anything. If you want to tell us something type it out and mention the source (the name of the document) that particular fact is from. Initially you claimed that G-5 is a 850hp engine and you still haven't provided any documentation which states so. And now, as I post the FAA spec sheet, you keep saying that the take off power (1000hp) had a 5 min limit, so are you admitting that G-5 produces 1000hp? As far as lack of take off limitations goes in AH, that applies for many many planes in the sim.
I must say that watching you grasping to straws for time and time again is pretty entertaining though. :)
-
I've been reading this thread since it started, and I have to say, its mind numbing to see you guys argue over this. Its obvious Mega isn't going to change his mind WMaker, so why even bother? Regardless of how right you are... Somebody have that "kicking a dead horse" picture to cap this off? Then maybe Skuzzy can lock it.
-
Its obvious Mega isn't going to change his mind WMaker, so why even bother? Regardless of how right you are...
You are right and yep, I should have stopped a while ago. The reason I'm doing it is to try to give some correct info on the matter so that it would be easy for a casual reader to see what is true and correct and what is BS. This board as the world, as unfortunate as it may be, is famous for the fact that if one screams loud and long enough about something or claim something it has a habit of becoming an accepted fact no mateer how big utter BS it is.
I understand how it may look a futile waste of time for someone like you who's "gotten" right away, and it probably is aswell. :)
-
:rolleyes:
-
<sigh>