Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: hazed- on October 03, 2002, 06:05:23 AM
-
Im a little bit confused by a test i did on the lengh of wep vs its time for cooling.
i did 2 simple tests.First i took off in the 190d9 and applied wep.timed it, then when it overheated i timed how long it took before it was back to normal tempreture.
the reason i did this is because i always find it seems to take forever for 190s to cool down.
well i got 10 minutes of wep and then it took 18 minutes to cool again.
I then did the same for the P51D as it is a contemporary and got 5 minutes of wep and it took 9 minutes to cool down.
what is a little strange is that the tempreture for an overheat was the same.
so I was confused. It seems the cooling rate was the same for however much wep is used right?
but doesnt this negate the whole 190 extra boost? I thought it was more nitrous oxide that afforded it the extra wep and therefor cooling from the use of it should be roughly the same plus whatever the poor cooling system would cause (was the cooling on the doras inline engine bad?)
now im not sure here so im asking is this right and if so how are these times worked out?
if you look at the times i found: ie for 10 mins wep it takes 18 mins to cool and for 5 minutes it takes 9 minutes doesnt this mean both machines have the same amount of nitrous oxide? only the dora uses it all in 1 go but the p51 uses it in 2 bursts?
or is the system we have not calculated on nitrous at all?
if the cooling rate is the same then does this mean the 190d9 gets 2x hotter than the p51d and therefore takes 2x longer to cool?
seems a bit odd to me. do we have the water methonol cooling on the doras? the GM1? if not then what do we have?
The only thing the dora has really is 'longer' wep not 'more' at all?.is it only usefull in prolonged chases?.
-
All the Dora has in longer WEP. No MW50 or GM1. MW50 and GM1 would show up as BIG boosts on the charts.
Ta152 difference between military and WEP (MW50) is shown on the chart. However, somebody forgot to add the so crucial GM1 boost to the Ta152.
So all the Dora has, is normal but longer WEP.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
All the Dora has in longer WEP. No MW50 or GM1. MW50 and GM1 would show up as BIG boosts on the charts.
Ta152 difference between military and WEP (MW50) is shown on the chart. However, somebody forgot to add the so crucial GM1 boost to the Ta152.
So all the Dora has, is normal but longer WEP.
all planes in AH that have wep available have between
5 and 10 mins . LW planes are only 1s with 10mins wep.
AH wep is do so that, it takes 2x longer to cool down then
the wep length available. IE: P51, 5 mins wep/10 mins cool down,
D9, 10 mins wep/20 mins cool down.
basicly in AH wep is right now just added boost pressure, id like to see HT add the little water/MW/GM tanks to planes so that planes that had the special wep can have it. BUT with the addded tanks, once u run out, u have no more of it till u land and
rearm/replane, no unlimited supply of special wep like we got now. and also tie the special wep to fuel multiplier so u get the correct usaged time(supply amount not time length) vs fuel used
whels
-
In my Ta152 thread a while ago Pyro came in and said the Ta152 does have MW50, it can be seen by the very big increase on the charts. It doesn't have GM1 as it should though.
-
I think you two are missing the point here. essentially its another area where , if HTC modeled it like the real planes, the LW planes would have a big advantage but due to the fact its modelled the way it is the MW50/GM1 etc is effectively negated completely.
if its been set the way it is now to allow us all to enjoy wep a bit more, but not have to worry about having the true supplies etc can you answer this:
now instead of having 5 minutes of boost which cools in say 10 mins and LW 190s having 10 minutes boost which cools in 10 mins we have for some inexplicable reason have to wait 20 minutes?
isnt the extra length of boost supposed to represent the greater amount of nitrous etc the 190s had?
ie the allies had less and so should get less time?
as it stands now they have an equal amount just in 2 stage instead of 1.
I would think that if AH had the boost systems modeled correctly the 190s would have a huge advantage in situations like chasing down p51s or escaping etc.
handy that it isnt isnt it.
:rolleyes:
-
Hazed- the 190's do have an advantage- 10 min WEP vs. 5 min WEP. Let's take the 190 vs. the P-51 If you boosted both planes at the same time the 190 would have 5 more min of WEP vs. the P-51. Doesn't this reflect the greater amount of nitrous?
Something that could make a difference as well - So.. say if a P-51 uses WEP for 1 minute only, does it only take it 2 min to cool so that you have full 5 min WEP capability again? I haven't tested this. Curious if anyone else has.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
exactly thats what im not sure about
is how it works?:
190d9 and p51 use wep for 1 minute:
in 2 minutes the p51 is cool in 4 minutes the dora is cool.
or would the dora cool in 2 minutes also?
my point is the dora and the p51d both have wep(representing nitrous boost/GM1/turbo etc).HISTORICALLY the dora had more or longer capability and once used, it was used up until it was resupplied right?
so in a real situation the dora would have 2xthe boost/wep/whatever?
well my question is how is this represented if the p51d and dora are in this situation:
dora takes off and uses 10 minutes of boost to climb.
p51d takes off and uses 5 minutes of boost to climb
dora waits 18mins for total cooling making a total of 28 mins
P51 waits 9 mins and then re-applies boost for another 5 minutes then waits 9 mins for total cooling
result? both have used 28 minutes of maximum climb.the dora has gained absolutely no advantage whatsoever.
admittedly in a fight the 10 minutes constant wep is advantageous but by the time the dora runs out of wep the p51d is over half way to full cooling again(4 mins left)whereas the dora has still that 18 minutes.do you see what i mean?
Its an unlikely scenario for a chase or whatever to last that long but where is the overall advantage for the 190? seems to me the 190 should cool down in 10 minutes from maximum engine temp.
After all the gauge is the same temp.We could make it slightly longer if the 190d9 was indeed poor at cooling down historically, Id have no problem with that but should it really be 2x the length of time?
whels i totally agree with you on the use of an historical gm1 or nitrous level that runs out until a rearm.It would finally show the 190 has a great engine boost system rather than the present system that really overall shows very little advantage.Id also like to see what this would mean for the La7's! did they have a good supply? or indeed did they have nitrous at all? Id really like some info on the la7
-
admittedly in a fight the 10 minutes constant wep is advantageous but by the time the dora runs out of wep the p51d is over half way to full cooling again
the P51 should already be dead.
Just another bit of fun with the numbers:
P-51d has a 53 minute flight duration in the MA with 100% fuel. That gives it 4 complete WEP durations and 3 full cool downs.
Fw190d9 has a 32 minute flight duration in the MA with 100% fuel. That allows for 1 complete WEP cycle.
Of course it never actually works out like that, but thought I'd add it anyway.
F.
-
We should just probably go test it out. I'll do that tonight- take up a Dora and the Pony and see how the cooling works. I'll go WEP for 1 min and let them both cool for 2 minutes and then see how long I can WEP again until it runs out for both planes.
I do see what you mean about not having an advantage though I think the definition of advantage can start to get convoluted.
I'm pretty weak on understanding the detailed workings of aircraft powerplants so I'm looking to others to explain WEP and cooling etc.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Hazed is right, it doesn't make sense.
If the engines both reach the same tempature, one would expect them to cool down at about the same rate regardless of how long it took to get them that hot. E.g. they should both cool of in ~9 minutes.
-
a word from HTC would be appreciated :D
-
The WEP issue was discussed before in another from, but HTC never explained why they aren't capable of modelling historicaly correct WEP settings for all planes.
As Hazed gave the D9 as example, we could actually look at what the real one would be capable of with MW50.
It would have 115 liters W50 onboard, enough for a max of 40 mins MW50 usage.
MW50 could be used to a maximum of ten minutes. After that no form of WEP (D9 had 2 forms of WEP) was allowed for the next 5 mins. Than again WEP could be used.
Also the D9 had a second form of WEP that used increased boost pressure without anything else injected.
This setting could be used for 10 minutes, and there was no specified break when to reuse this WEP setting. I guess it had to be done by looking at the engine temperatur.
So it should be clear that the way HTC models WEP clearly penalizes the D9.
I think will be the same for all LW planes that use MW50.
-
CC Naudet, was same with all MW50 and GM1 planes. Not sure our D9 carries MW50 though, maybe it is.
-
so again we point out a failing and its ignored? of course we are just whining :D
-
punt ,
think ill just keep punting until we get some kind of explanaton.
funny theres no allied guys in this thread mouthing off about how wrong i am.
-
Hazed,
Am I not an Allied guy?
(Or at least seen as one?)
-
Sho-cho Karnak
27th Sentai, 3rd Chutai
-
Engine thermodynamics isn't a simple thing. While I understand your point, you're assuming that both the P51 and the Dora have the same radiating ability/rate which they obviously don't. Now I don't know which one, historically, should cool faster, but simply this added variable ruins the logic of the question. Not to mention that not all engines run at the same temperature when they are running "normally".
My guess is that engine cooling rates are not really modelled in AH realistically (I for one don't care--we could drown ourselves in minutiae if we wanted to) but that they use the aforementioned 1:2 ratio. However even if engine cooling in AH was based on RL that does NOT mean that any one plane and any other should cool at the same rate as you are falsly assuming.
-
FW's are porked, otherwise they would be too über :)
-
Originally posted by Fancy
Engine thermodynamics isn't a simple thing. While I understand your point, you're assuming that both the P51 and the Dora have the same radiating ability/rate which they obviously don't. Now I don't know which one, historically, should cool faster, but simply this added variable ruins the logic of the question. Not to mention that not all engines run at the same temperature when they are running "normally".
My guess is that engine cooling rates are not really modelled in AH realistically (I for one don't care--we could drown ourselves in minutiae if we wanted to) but that they use the aforementioned 1:2 ratio. However even if engine cooling in AH was based on RL that does NOT mean that any one plane and any other should cool at the same rate as you are falsly assuming.
er fancy its quite clear to me you havent read the thread at all.Otherwise you would have seen this:
Originally posted by Hazed
Its an unlikely scenario for a chase or whatever to last that long but where is the overall advantage for the 190? seems to me the 190 should cool down in 10 minutes from maximum engine temp.
After all the gauge is the same temp.We could make it slightly longer if the 190d9 was indeed poor at cooling down historically, Id have no problem with that but should it really be 2x the length of time?
so you can see Im quite willing to accept longer cooling for the dora and other 190s(older 190s did have cooling problems but the dora is an inline engine and is not as bad as the older radial aircooled 190s)What im not happy with is the cooling being 2x as long when it wouldnt be that way in real life.
consider this, the 190s are already muted in the roll to avoid warping, and as such are a LOT slower in the roll than they really were.Other aircraft have not been reduced in roll in proportion to this and as such the 190s have lost a lot of their greatest asset.This i can accept but i do think its wrong really.
Then we come to the wep system where the LW planes really did have much more boost and cooling ability with GM1 and MW50 and they had substantially more of it than most allied planes.In AH we have got a 'representation' of this by having the 10 min wep instead of 5 min BUT instead of having the same cooling time HTC has decided to DOUBLE it.So in fact negating the advantage considerably.
Then we have certain reports about the aircraft like the reports done by captain brown (RAF pilot no less) that dont seem to match up with the AH 190s.
heres a report from Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm for instance:
'all our dora 9's were fitted with the jumo 213A engine which ,with water methanol injection, developed 2,240hp.As an air superiority fighter and interceptor fighter the Fw190d9 handled better than the fw190a; it was faster and had superior rate of climb.During dogfights at altitudes of between 3000m(10,000ft) and 7,500m (24,000ft), usual when engaging the russians, I found that i could pull the fw190d9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage.In the Fw190a i had flown previously, during dogfights i had often to reduce to minimum flying speed in the turn.In the decent the dora-9 picked up speed much more quickly than the fw190a; in the dive it could leave the russian yak-3 and yak-9 fighters standing'
now if you've flown the dora you would know it loses a lot of speed in a tight turn just the same as the 190a's we have and you'd also know that the yaks do not get left behind at all in AH in dives.
I can accept 1 or 2 of these things not happening and im quite happywith the dora but it does seem to me theres rather too much missing from them.The cooling is the straw that breaks the camels back for me.I've lived with it and just try to ignore things like the report above because it just annoys.I cant prove one way or another if the flight model is wrong but i CAN look into this cooling issue and CLEARLY demonstrate its wrong.That is UNLESS someone out there can prove the dora would take 2X as long to cool as a p51.Its quite simple.If you cant then AH is WRONG and should be changed.Its only fair to do so.
Im sure HTC gets fed up with the constant 190 talk but I honestly think they have had severe restrictions imposed by their present set up(ie reduced roll and excessive cooling times).I can accept the roll and im not demanding anything concerning that but I would like something said/explained about the cooling.
-
Agree with everything Hazed says. And without trying to brake the discussion away from the cooling issue, I think as for acceleration, and E-retation it's something that I think, after testing etc, that is wrong in the whole FW airframe in AH. The cooling is quite obvious though.
-
I don't really thing you want a realistic engine modelling in AH ...
Because in this case HT will have no other choice than model reliabilty too ... and we will see lot of LW pilots in chute after having broke their engine ...
-
Hazed - explain again to me why the 190 should cool down at the same rate at the P-51 or any other plane, from any particular temperature.
-
Dowdwing, compare, say a P51D with a 190 D. The 190 has got 10 minutes of wep, this is too simulate their better WEP in R/L thanks to different coolinng systems.
The P51D has 5 minutes. Both engines get as warm when looking at the temperature gauge. Let's say 120 degrees (don't know how much they go to). Say both reach 120 degrees. Why would it take longer for the Dora engine to cool down to 100 degrees from 120 then it would take a P51 D to cool down to 100 degrees from 120???
Beats the hell out of me.
-
Straffo, I don't think realistic engine modelling etc is even considered by HTC. However, different WEP's should be, not just have one run longer then take twice the time to cool down from the same temperature.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Straffo, I don't think realistic engine modelling etc is even considered by HTC. However, different WEP's should be, not just have one run longer then take twice the time to cool down from the same temperature.
I agree Wilbus I just wanted to point (quite badly I admit) that if you want to have a real modeling of something without any simplification you have to model ALL the same way ...
In a word how can we have a real wep modeling without a real engine management ?
and if we have a real engine management you sould model reliability ...
Otherwise it's a "batardised" model :)
dunno if I'm clearer but at least I tried :p
-
Well, nothing is really realistic modelled so...
Well, what we want it the WEP to be more like R/L, IE, the 190's could run with MW50 for 10 minutes and 5 minutes cool down. Don't think our Dora has got MW50 though but teh Ta152 does. But as it is now they are run 10 minutes and cool down 18. That's a penealty cool down for 13 minutes.
-
straffo this isnt a request for true engine management.The way wep works is a fine compromise ie all aircraft with wep have roughly 5 minutes before they reach critical temprature of 130 degrees or what ever then they take 9 minutes to cool down and away you go again.
HTC decided it was fair, seeing as how LW 190s had twice the amount of fuel for their boost systems as the average Allied plane, that the 190 could have 10 minutes boost.
BUT they then decided for some inexplicable reason to double the length of time it takes for it to cool down.THUS making the fact that 190s had more fuel for boost pointless in some respects.
The problem i have with it is the 18 minutes it takes for my 190d9 to cool down when all other planes take 10 mins.
All the aircraft that have wep have VARIOUS cooling systems.The 190A's and F's I ACCEPT had fairly poor cooling and I could understand why they had a longer wait to cool (2x as long is a bit much though) BUT the 190D9 had a TOTALLY different engine with Liquid cooling system and it did not have heat problems.
So on this basis it has the SAME as all other wep aircraft for the purposes of AH (all aircraft are given same cooling time in AH)
So basically the 190D9 in WW2 had 2x or MORE wep capability than your average Allied aircraft and had a similar cooling capability.Therefor they should have the ten min wep but with 10 min cooling time the same as all the rest of the aircraft.
IF however HTC is to give aircraft their real supply of boost fuel you would STILL have 40 minutes of MW50 on the 190-d9 that historically could be run for about 10 minutes before it had to be shut down again and allowed to cool.
Now personally i dont know what type of fuel other aircraft used like the p51d but from what id gathered it isnt anywhere near 40 minutes supply.SO if we even had the real supply of boost fuel for all aircraft the dora would still come out on top(or near it).This was the whole reason HTC gave them 10 mins boost instead of 5.
Now dowding YOU explain to ME why the dora should then take 2x the length of time to cool when it NEVER got 2x as hot? :)
If you find some charts to prove the dora had a POOR cooling system compared to all the other aircraft in AH with wep then I'd accept a penalty in the cooling time.I have NO PROBLEM with that BUT I'd like to know why or on what basis it was decided it is 2x the length of time of any other engine. If say in real life the p51 took 20 mins to cool down and the dora had a poor system and took 30 minutes then it should take 1.5X the length of time right? (these are pure conjecture as i really am having trouble finding sources on the actual times the real aircraft took)
Im really glad you came dowding as i consider you quite the allied flyer and i REALLY would like to know what your explanation for it is.Im not trying to catch anyone out or flame or whatever those morons call it this week :rolleyes: , i just want to know whats going on.
I used to think that the 190s cooled down a bit slower than others because they did have notoriously bad cooling systems on the early models and pretty poor ones for later types too but until i tested it the other day I'd always asumed it was just a few minutes longer, NOT 2X the time.
The Dora has no such problems mentioned about overheating from reading all my books so i'd like to know why its modeled the same as the older A and F series?.
(btw i havent tested the 109s yet but i suspect the same method has been used for those? I do seem to remember the 109F4 cools very quickly though so im not sure it has.)
-
Actually hazed,I think all 190 A's and the F in AH cool down quite much faster then the Dora and Ta152, or if it's only the 109's that cool down faster which makes this even more weird. Remember first flying the Dora and Ta152 when they got in the game, hit me right away that they took long to cool.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Well, nothing is really realistic modelled so...
no :)
-
Originally posted by hazed-
straffo this isnt a request for true engine management.The way wep works is a fine compromise ie all aircraft with wep have roughly 5 minutes before they reach critical temprature of 130 degrees or what ever then they take 9 minutes to cool down and away you go again.
HTC decided it was fair, seeing as how LW 190s had twice the amount of fuel for their boost systems as the average Allied plane, that the 190 could have 10 minutes boost.
BUT they then decided for some inexplicable reason to double the length of time it takes for it to cool down.THUS making the fact that 190s had more fuel for boost pointless in some respects.
Perhaps the same rule is used for the increase and decrease of temperature ...
I need to test a bit to form my opinon on this
-
the P51 did not use "boost fuel" it had a throttle stop to limit manifold pressure, the stop could be overridden for WEP, the only limit on "WEP' for the P51 was eng temp , too much use of WEP would shorten time to next overhaul.
so when your dora ran out of "boost fuel ' the P51 would catch you and shoot you down as they did in real life.
-
Hazed,
My Understanding of WEP is Water Injection into the manifold and not Nitrous. Most engines will get about 20% more power with this.
As for Cooling, your comparing an Air Cooled engine (190) to a Water Cooled engine (P-51). Further, the Pony has an air duct directly under the wings that opens or closes depending on the current engine temperature.
The P-51 has a much more advanced cooling system, but pays for it in an extra vulnerability. It only takes one good hit to inspire a forced landing sometime soon, while the FW190 and P-47 can take a lot more punishment.
Try comparing the 190 to the Jug or Corsair and see what kind of cooling you get.
As for the Dora I don't know a thing about it.
See ya in the Skies, Mahaps the " 113th Lucky Strikes " Should double as test pilots? Would they name airfields after us if we Augered? :)
Dan / TBlayde.
-
First, the FW-190D-9 in AH is modeled as though it has MW50. Note that the AUX tank is unavailable for fuel (you can use it on the A-8), also it performs as though it has MW50. FYI.
On to my main issue:
What I have to wonder is how long till a 190D take to cool down in AH if you run its WEP for 5 minutes.
Will it cool down to "normal" temp in 10 minutes?
I haven't tested this, but I suspect the following:
I think WEP modeling in AH is fairly generic, made so that 1 minute of WEP usage requires 2 minutes cooldown time. Each plane also has a hard limit on WEP use time--5 minutes for most planes, 10 minutes for a few (like the D-9).
If this is indeed the case, this means that the planes that have the longer WEP time available have the advantage in that they don't need to worry as much about WEP running out in the middle of a fight. The drawback to doing this is longer cooldown times, but that is well worth it as opposed to not being able to use WEP when you really need it :)
Anyway, that is what I suspect. It might be reight, it might be wrong.
Realistic WEP modeling is undesirable in AH because of the fuel multiplier. Consider that in a real 190D-9, the MW50 allowed it for 40 minutes total WEP time......but in the AH MA, the D-9 only has 32 minutes flight time on 100% fuel TOTAL...and even less if you use WEP! And, if you applied fuel multiplier to the MW50, then you'd actually be REDUCING the amount of WEP available to the D-9 from what it already has!
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by TBlayde
The P-51 has a much more advanced cooling system, but pays for it in an extra vulnerability. It only takes one good hit to inspire a forced landing sometime soon, while the FW190 and P-47 can take a lot more punishment.
To begin TBlayde, Hazed is referring to the Fw-190 D-9, which was liquid cooled, like the P-51 (exept with an annular radiator instead of one under the fuselage), and not the Fw-190 A or F models, which were fan-assisted air cooled engines.
Fw-190 F-8 engine can be killed with a single hit inexplicably (and it's air cooled; Fw-190 A-5 and A-8 seems to be pretty vulnerable in the engine oil case, which my research has shown that it was armored. I know this from my own experiences flying these planes.
Now, as for the P-51D, I have heard reports from some people that it is difficult to get a hit on the radiator from the 6 'oclock position, but I can't verify this; I have hardly ever ran into a 51 before, anyways.
-
John, 190's could override their engines just like the normal WEP on the P51. The MW 50 gave it extra speed, more then normal WEP though and it was run 10 minute then 5 minute cool down.
-
Yes basically the 190D9 engine the Jumo 213A-1 liquid cooled 12 cylinder in-line engine is rated at 1,776HP for take off.With MW50 water methanol injection the engine rates 2,240HP.
this is from 'The luftwaffe fighter force: the view from the cockpit' Adolf galland et al edited by david C Isby and all info is taken from 'Air defence of the reich volume 2 the fighter arm (the jagdwaffe) Pamphlet series september 1944'
this is part of a training sect.Nr 1410/44 confidential report for trainees in 44.....
'Another method of raising engine performance is by water-methanol injection.This helps to cool the engine and brings about an incresed performance by greater manifold pressure.Methanol has a favourable influence on anti-knock properties.The increase in power is greatest at low altitudes.It has an increase of about 30 km/hour at all altitudes up to full boost altitudes(where the engine had its best performance).Used in periods of 2-20 minutes.'
so here you have an explanation. What it basically means is the p51 would run his engine at max boost until it overheated where as the water metanol actually PROTECTED the engine from damage while it was used.Also according to this book it ran for 20 minutes so again the dora has half what it had in real life.
I knew this before and have accepted the 10 minutes in AH as a 'representation' of the real times just as im sure the p51d runs at full manifold(wep) for more than 5 minutes right? Lets hope so eh? or we may have uncovered yet another strange discrepency.
So John9001 when you say "so when your dora ran out of "boost fuel ' the P51 would catch you and shoot you down as they did in real life." lets think about it for a second.You run full boost for too long you cause more damage to the engine than the dora would and the dora would STILL have normal wep after the methonol ran out.so the dora could go full boost for something like 20 minutes with methanol while you boost to top temp in half that time in p51 then probably after the water methanol is switched off the dora could then run quite a while without the water methanol and ignore the wear and tear to the engine (if hes chased) whereas your P51 by this time is rattling its pistons and melting! catch them at the end of a fight in your 51 and yes you would run them down but so would a dora that catches your overheated p51 if the situation was reversed :D
maybe this explains that report by kurt tank about how he opened the throttle on a ta152 and left 2 diving p51s behind? We all suspect its just idle boasting but then again who knows? :)
anyway back to the subject:
Dora should have 10 mins boost and then cool at the same rate as any other liquid cooled aircraft.The top temp is around 120 to 130 on all planes in AH's simplified wep so they should cool down in the same time. I really cant see any justification so far which explains the present system of 2X the wait for the dora.
-
US pilot report that the P51 and P47 (although different engines) could be run on WE (overboost) for 3-5 minutes depending on how you treated the engine. We obviously have the longer.
-
Hi Hazed,
>Yes basically the 190D9 engine the Jumo 213A-1 liquid cooled 12 cylinder in-line engine is rated at 1,776HP for take off.With MW50 water methanol injection the engine rates 2,240HP.
Actually, I don't think the Jumo 213A-1 was able to produce 2240 HP in the Dora. The fastest speeds I've seen are for the ca. 2100 HP rating (curve 3):
http://server3003.freeyellow.com/jagdhund/FW190D-9/D9speedGraphWeb.jpg
It seems like the AH Fw 190D-9 uses either curve 2 or curve 4:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/charts/190d9speed.gif
However, the data for the Focke-Wulf chart shows that the sea level speeds of these curves were achieved with around 1900 HP only:
http://server3003.freeyellow.com/jagdhund/FW190D-9/D9speedWeb_01.jpg
So the AH Fw 190D-9 appears not to be a fully developed, 2100 HP Dora, but an earlier version with just 1900 HP.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi again,
Correct link:
>It seems like the AH Fw 190D-9 uses either curve 2 or curve 4:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/models/190d9.html
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hohun, naudet did ALOT of research about the Dora and his conclusions were indeed that we have the 1900 Hp version, meaning that the Dora could very well go faster and climb faster.
-
Sounds like Hitech's got some explainin' to do on why the Dora's porked.
-
Wilbus, i never really was sure which version we have.
I am just sure that our D9 uses curve 4 (matches it closest) and so indicates that it should be a D9 using MW50.
Even after a long discussion with Henning, i can not say which one we really have.
Henning says its a 1900PS D9 and he has some exellent arguments.
What is especially interesting is this
http://server3003.freeyellow.com/jagdhund/FW190D-9/D9speedWeb_01.jpg
page.
It shows that with 1925PS 611 km/h IAS were achieved at SL. And as there is no difference at SL between IAS and TAS, if we look at the TAS curves in the speed chart, we will see that 611 km/h exatly match the SL point of curve 2 (Special WEP C3fuel)
And as curve 4 (Special WEP +MW50) is only 600km/h at SL, it must have less than 1925 PS.
So we should have a 1900PS D9, as AH's D9 matches curve 4.
My problem with that is, that i could not find any evidence that there was a special WEP boost setting using MW50, that gave 1900PS. In all sources and documents i found MW50 WEP is always noted with a power output of 2100-2240 PS.
-
I understand that they are different and the figures concerning this issue. But...
Hazed - so you don't actually have any evidence to contradict the current modelling?
There is no reason why the cooling dynamics of the P-51 engine compared to the 190 engine should be the same. Same goes for any other plane in the game.
Clearly HTC has some reason for creating a difference... it's entirely possible they have data that you don't have or have not seen and the difference is entirely justified.
-
there is lots of evidence that the MW50, when used in the Jumo 213 A and E, was run for 10 minutes then cooled for 5 minutes. This was kept up intull the fluid was gone whereafter normal overboosting could be used.
This is indeed proof that the cooling in AH is wrong.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I understand that they are different and the figures concerning this issue. But...
Hazed - so you don't actually have any evidence to contradict the current modelling?
er Im not asking for any change to the current model concerning HP etc and im ok with keeping 10 minutes boost.(thats naudet hijacking as usual ;))
this question is ENTIRELY about cooling times.
There is no reason why the cooling dynamics of the P-51 engine compared to the 190 engine should be the same. Same goes for any other plane in the game.
Er this is also a point i made earlier. if you'll check AH models all weps apart from 190s as 5 minutes wep for 10 minutes cooling as far as i can tell.
Only 190s have 10 minutes wep and 20 minutes cooling
Clearly HTC has some reason for creating a difference... it's entirely possible they have data that you don't have or have not seen and the difference is entirely justified.
again have you read this post? I have asked for exactly this information, whether HTC has something entirely different.A simple 'we have data that says different' and that would be an end to it.Why do we have this forum if not for precisely this reason? when people show HTC a document they have found and it disagrees with HTC's model they usually dont tell us where they get their information, Although we know they have told us where they got some from(those american reports,NASCA?? or something?) and possibly an explanation of some kind.(Although i have seen issues ignored )
-
Well... I think the 109G-10 might be different than the 190 then, cause I got 10 minutes of WEP, let it rest for 5 minutes, then got 5 more minutes of WEP.
I'd assume this means the 109G-10 gets 10 minutes of WEP, then it takes 10 minutes to cool down.
Incidentaly, that plane climbs like a damn rocketship lol. Went from 4,300 feet (takeoff) to 33,500 feet before WEP ran out. Course, the next 5 minutes off WEP and 5 minutes on it only got me to 38k lol. I'm sitting at 40k right now trying to see how fast it goes that high.
Lol... dove from 40k straight down. Hit 600 MPH or so (didnt film it, I guess I should have, ah well). Managed to PULL IT OUT at around 8k by trimming out of the dive. Ol 109 held together well to, some groaning but nothing came flying off. I guess 600mph-ish is the 'terminal velocity' for a 109, since I was doing 600 for about 15,000 feet lol.
-
190A5 is 10 minutes of WEP and 20 minutes of cooling.
That IS kind of odd. How come the 109 doesn't take 20 minutes to cool down?
-
All 190's have same. All 109's have same (shorter then 190). Different engines but don't think there was much difference in R/L
-
But it doesn't make any sense that the 190s take twice as long to cool down if the 109s dont.
I can see taking 10 minutes to cool down if you have 10 minutes of WEP, that seems to make sense. But I don't get why it takes 20 minutes for the 190s to cool down.
Of course, I also don't understand why the 109s and 190s get twice as much WEP as all the other planes do.
-
it makes sense anotherthing that might be considered is altitude at higher alt the temp is much cooler which would allow an increase in cooling rate. Also, speed the faster you go when you idle the most air cirsulates thus allowing a drop in cooling time.
-
Folks you all start to speculate again.
What we know through test is this:
FW190 has double WEP time, but also needs twice the time to cool down from the same temperature as all other planes.
Bf109 seems to have double WEP time, but cools as fast as all other planes down.
Now HTC has to step in and tell why that is so, as noone of us has any idea if there is any form of "cooling model" in AH and nnone knows which factors (i.e. radiator size, air temperatur etc.) has any effect on it.
-
Exactly naudet.
but unless HTC deems fit to throw us rabid dogs a bone we will forever be doing it! lol
The story so far:
190A/F 10 mins wep 20 mins cool
190DD9 10 mins wep 20 mins cool
P51D 5 mins wep 10 mins cool
109G10 10 mins wep 10 mins cool
anyone care to add some more?
EDIT:
added 109G2:
109g2 10 mins wep 10 mins cool
heres a different one:
Hurricane II C 5 mins wep 15 minutes cooling!
bang goes the 1min wep=2mins cooling theory
-
PUNT
-
so theres never going to be a reply from HTC?
at first i was curious but now im beginning to get pissed off with this.
Ive posted info in the past about the 190a8 not matching data and i was told that 'its not the same one as in AH'
I posted stuff about the 190a5 and im told 'its not the same 190a5'
now what? the dora we have 'is not the same' as the ones in all the books??????????
This is BS.Whenever something is brought up that cant be explained away by claiming the data or test is wrong anyone who USUALLY are the first to cry names at anyone questioning the LW planes ignore it and hope it just fades away!.
well this is one time im not going to let it drop.If i have to punt this thread for 5 years ill do it :D
HTC: why is it like it is please? I'd like an explanation.I dont need to see the figures, I just want to know if theres something on the dora which would make it cool down 2 times slower than a P51d?.
if the model is wrong then please just say you'll look into it.Its not asking much just to have a few words on the subject.Im becoming very disillusioned with this BB.whats the point in having it if threads are ignored?
-
Of course, I also don't understand why the 109s and 190s get twice as much WEP as all the other planes do.
All aircraft can be run at War Emergency Power (WEP) -- pushing the engine past its normal 'full power' setting at the expense of pushing the engine closer to overheating. The 109 and 190 both had tanks containing a fuel additive that further increased their engine power -- either water/methanol or GM1 nitrous. They could fly with either WEP or additive or both active. Rather than expend the time necessary to implement two separate functions for engine boost, HTC implemented the additional boost capability by doubling the standard WEP duration
-
And as you notice this fluid wasn't in use early in the war, thus 110 C and 109 E only have about 5 minutes, if even that.
-
so as mentioned why does it take twice as long to cool?
and any idea why hurricane IIC takes 15 minutes to cool?
Does anyone have any idea about this or do i have to wait for HTC to answer?
-
An argument about reality where none exist. Anyone have any idea what the temp is supose to be on the fw's? If you realy wish I can change the gauge to read higher on the fw so it looks like it's cooling the same rate as the p51. But in the end all that would change is the lable on the dash board.
The way the wep system works.
/*
** Update Eng Wep
*/
for(i=0;i{
if(Plane->Ctrl.EngWep.Value)
{
Engines.WepTempPer += Plane->UserSim->TimeSlice * Plane->PlaneModel.PlaneParams.WepHea tPerSec;
if(Engines.WepTempPer >= 1.0)
{
Engines.WepTempPer = 1.0;
svSetState(&Plane->Ctrl.EngWep,0);
Engines.TotalWepTime += Plane->UserSim->TimeSlice;
}
}
else
{
if(Engines.WepTempPer > 0)
{
Engines.WepTempPer -= Plane->UserSim->TimeSlice * Plane->PlaneModel.PlaneParams.WepCoo lPerSec;
if(Engines.WepTempPer < 0)
{
Engines.WepTempPer = 0;
}
}
}
Engines.WepTemp = Engines.WepTempPer * 0.25; // 0 - 0.25 Normal Temp 0 - .75
}
/*
** Flip wep off with pull back of throttle
*/
if(Plane->Ctrl.EngWep.Value)
{
if(Plane->ControlInput.ThrottleInput[0] < 0.95 ||
Engines[0].TotalWepTime >= Plane->PlaneModel.PlaneParams.MaxWep Time)
{
svSetState(&Plane->Ctrl.EngWep,0);
}
}
-
Think we just wanted to know WHY the 190 has slower cool down rate then all (almost) other planes Hitech, no need to give us your code, if you keep giving out the code like this I'll soon have all AH source code :D
-
Nice, now we know the code, but i still have no idea how it works. :rolleyes:
Btw here are the the colling data for the JUMO213 A.
Sorry no idea how fast it heated up or cooled down.
Oiltemperatur: maximum of 130°C
Coolant: 50% pure Water + 50% Glykol, the coolant system works with temperatures up to 100°C, it uses pressure so the coolant will not vaporize
Coolant-Exhaust-Temperature (not sure about the translation, but engine manual reads "Kühlstoff-Austritts-Temperatur)
at all altitudes up to 100°C
at start and rolling for short periods 120°C
Also the handbook states that usually there is a radiator flaps automatic control, that keeps the coolant-exhaust-temperature at 100°C, for the start this system is deactivated and so the coolant temperature can rise up to 120°C.
The the max allowed coolant temperature was 120°C.
This informations come from a handbook for the JUMO213A from July 1944.
-
Hi Hitech,
>If you realy wish I can change the gauge to read higher on the fw so it looks like it's cooling the same rate as the p51. But in the end all that would change is the lable on the dash board.
Actually, the problem seems to be that the Aces High Fw 190D-9's cooling behaviour does not match reality.
Whatever the temperatures, the real Fw 190D-9 could apply WEP for 10 min and cool down to the intial temperature in 5 min.
Accordingly, in terms of the Aces High code you posted, WepCoolPerSec has to be twice as high as WepHeatPerSec.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
thanks for the reply hitech.
so the lw 190 runs 2x as hot in real life? sorry but that's what i gathered from the reply.In AH the tempreture on the dial reads the same as a p51 would regardless of a dference in temprature?
im a bit confused but i guess thats the answer i have to take...
AH models a set rate of cooling, ie for every minute of wep the cooling takes 2 mins but for every degree that the 'individual' aircraft has as its maximum adds on cooling time (ie dora is 2x as hot therefore now takes 2x as long to cool)?
for instance the hurricane has 5 minutes wep but heats to 150% the engine temprature of a p51d?.So if p51d max temp peaks at 130 degrees, the hurricane in the same amount of 'time' ends up at a much higher level (around 192.25 degrees?) and therefore takes 150% longer to cool down again and the Dora would be the same temprature after 5 minutes but would, over the next 5 minutes continue to rise to 260 degrees?
ok im sorry but i didnt realise the 190d9 was so much different from other engines.I am guilty of assuming too much i guess.
EDIT
the figures above concerning maximum running temprrature of 190 is 130 degrees? what or how do they tie in? Im really surprised by this.
-
""""ok im sorry but i didnt realise the 190d9 was so much different from other engines"""""
of course it's different , thats why it's so UBER, the UBER LW would have won the war if not for the hitler guy and that fat man whatshisname
44UBERMAG
i really want to find some small thing to whine about , but i can't , i'm too easly pleased.
-
OK here we go:
Engines.WepTempPer += Plane->UserSim->TimeSlice * Plane->PlaneModel.PlaneParams.WepHea tPerSec;
Engines.WepTempPer -= Plane->UserSim->TimeSlice * Plane->PlaneModel.PlaneParams.WepCoo lPerSec;
Every plane seams to have three parameters:
WepHeatPerSec, WepCoolPerSec and MaxWepTime
If i read this thread correct and if my C knowledge is still there (this is doubtable) the parameter WepCoolPerSec is 0.55 (1/1.8 for 10 mins and 18mins) as high as WepHeatPerSec for the dora - of course i could be totally wrong here. Furtheron the parameter MaxWepTime is 2 times higher for the dora than the P51.
And ... there's no real simulation of GM1 or MW1, just these 3 parameters.
I guess thats what the codes say to us.
BTW really interesting would be to see all the values for each property of the Plane->PlaneModel.PlaneParams object for each plane, HiTech? ;) :D
-
ok im sorry but i didnt realise the 190d9 was so much different from other engines.I am guilty of assuming too much i guess.
It wasn't.
-
Hi Duedel,
>Furtheron the parameter MaxWepTime is 2 times higher for the dora than the P51.
Actually, the MaxWepTime parameter defines how much WEP you can accumulate during the entire flight, not for how long you can leave the engine at WEP without interruption.
For the Fw 190D-9, this should be determined by the size of the MW50 tank, which was 115 L. The Fw 190D-9 consumed 150 L/h of MW50 at 2100 HP so that MaxWepTime should be equivalent to 46 min (or maybe a bit more at just 1900 HP, which the Aces High Dora's maximum power seems to be).
The WEP "burst" length without interruptions is implied in WepHeatPerSec, which for the D-9 is equivalent to 0.17 %/s, while WepCoolPerSec is 0.09 %/s. For the P-51, both values are 0.33 %/s, and that's what the D-9's WepCoolPerSec should be, too.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
So currently, cooling down the engine has nothing to do with :
- the speed you fly at (airflow)
- the altitude you fly at (temperature)
- your power setting
good news for me, I can dive from 30k, rip my wings and still not to worry about shock-cooling the engine:D
-
I just think HTC has sucker-punched LW planes in this game. With exception of the 109G10 I don't recognize any of the characteristics I expected from them. All 190 fighter subtypes had MW50 or GM1, including the Dora. Why is that the only pony in the game is the D which only flew in 1945 (and has no perk-cost), while the latest 109 variant the G started its service life in 1942 (granted with late-war upgrades like the G10)? I would like to see the 109K, which was favored by the German aces, much more than I'd like to see the Ta-152H (why is it even in the game??? Only 10 flew before the war ended, and none saw action). The 190's are handicapped ... WHY? I don't see the ponies having any, nor the La7's, Spits or the Niki's which now reign dominant in the MA. If HTC do not want to model boost realistically, at least give the LW planes the superior hp boost they had (the late-war DB605 engine had typically approx. 1,500 hp dry, but 2000 hp with WEP! You would feel 500 extra horses!).
Just my two cents ...
-
If HTC do not want to model boost realistically, at least give the LW planes the superior hp boost they had (the late-war DB605 engine had typically approx. 1,500 hp dry, but 2000 hp with WEP! You would feel 500 extra horses!).
By mid 44, the RAF and USAAF were using 150 octane, and running much higher boost than is present in AH.
The Spit IX in AH has around 1600 HP, with 150 octane fuel that was 2000hp. Same for the P-51.
The Spit IX in AH does 320 mph at sea level. A typical 1944 Spit IX would be doing 360mph at sea level.
The AH Mustang does 365mph at sea level, the Spit XIV just under 360 mph. These are the figures for a real Spit XIV and P-51 from 1944:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14+25lbs.jpg
(Chart from MW's Spit site at http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html )
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
By mid 44, the RAF and USAAF were using 150 octane, and running much higher boost than is present in AH.
The Spit IX in AH has around 1600 HP, with 150 octane fuel that was 2000hp. Same for the P-51.
The Spit IX in AH does 320 mph at sea level. A typical 1944 Spit IX would be doing 360mph at sea level.
The AH Mustang does 365mph at sea level, the Spit XIV just under 360 mph. These are the figures for a real Spit XIV and P-51 from 1944:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14+25lbs.jpg
(Chart from MW's Spit site at http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html )
nash let me get this straight....the p51d is running in AH modelled with the highest octane fuel but all RAF planes apart from spt14 arent?
Well i did my best to point out the discrepency with the dora i think you'll agree its pretty obvious that its been hamstrung but it appears HT is quite happy with it that way , he certainly doesnt imply any intent to change anything.I think yet again it points me to a simple conclusion and i think you know what that is.
I giveing up trying to change things in this game, and to be honest i think these models for LW are really not modeled with any positive atitude toward them.Seems to me anything that points to the USAAF planes having better performance is included while anything that suggests LW improvements is ignored or modeled 'half-heartedly'.
presently we have 190s with extremely slow cooling, questionable climbs above 25k (even above 22k).Jabo planes with no extra armour modeled, poor loadout options(there were many many loadouts). GM1 and MW5(some 40 odd minutes in real life WITH extra cooling ability) pretty much turned into an extra 5 mins of boost with double the tempreture they actually would have got to.EXTREMELY poor acceleration(see other thread on 190a5 tests). poor zoom performance(none perform anything like capt browns descriptions), and shoot me if you have to but i feel the 20mm are less than perfect.
whiner? yeah maybe but its something that if you fly LW planes a lot , you will surely notice.Those that dont agree about it often hardly fly them.
dont know why we bother trying to test it all.
-
nash let me get this straight....the p51d is running in AH modelled with the highest octane fuel but all RAF planes apart from spt14 arent?
No, none of the allied planes are using 150 octane.
150 octane filled the same function for the western allies that MW50 did for the Germans; it allowed higher boost pressures without detonation.
It was produced by Britain in large quantities, around 30 - 40,000 tons per month throughout 1944. It was used by ADGB (formerly Fighter Command) from Spring 44, and by the fighters of the US 8th AF from summer 44. 2nd TAF used it from Jan 45.
It boosted the deck speed of Spits and Mustangs by nearly 40 mph. It isn't modelled in AH at all.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why is that the only pony in the game is the D which only flew in 1945 (and has no perk-cost),
The P-51D began to arrive in Europe in quantity in March of 1944. The 55th Fighter Group was the first to get the P-51D, and AH has the P-51B, but you wouldn't know that because you only fly LW.
44MAG
-
Then why is the P-51 faster than the 190? It sure was'nt in R/L.
-
Originally posted by john9001
The P-51D began to arrive in Europe in quantity in March of 1944. The 55th Fighter Group was the first to get the P-51D, and AH has the P-51B, but you wouldn't know that because you only fly LW.
44MAG
My bad, but I don't fly LW exclusively and I'm not in a LW sqd.
Do YOU actually think HTC has got LW planes right? Or are you just defending your beloved pony?
-
i fly what ever plane i feel like or what fits the situation or mission , i even flew with hazed in 190's once, in CAP i flew with the LW , right now i'm flying F6F allot but you can find me in GV's, bombers , attack planes, C47's etc.
as for how accurate AH models the planes, i don't worry about it, thats HT and pryo's job, if it's close it's ok with me, i just fly the planes.
44MAG
-
Fair enough ... I still think HTC sucker-punshed LW though ...
-
Scholz the Ta152H did see action do a search on the net if you don't want to buy a book and see although limited how much it did . It shot down several aircraft aswell.
-
Ta152 shot down quite a few planes, for the loss of 2 of its own, they were constantly outnumbered in fights but thanks the climb, speed, turn rate and acceleration they could dictate most fights they wanted to against all enemy planes they encountered.
-
Well I'm sitting here with my "Hitles's Luftwaffe" book by Philip de Ste. Croix published by Salamander Books. It's a comprehensive book detailing the history and organization of the LW from pre-war to post-war. It also has detailed specs on all LW aircraft including pre-war models and those that never made it beyond prototyping. It says here that only 10 Ta-152H's (the high-altitude sub-model modeled in AH) were made, and the only "action" mentioned was on a test flight made by Kurt Tank himself where he fled from the two P-51's he stumbled upon. The standard Ta-152 was made in some numbers (67, excluding development aircraft) and did well in the last months of the war. Btw. the standard Ta-152 is the same aircraft as the Dora, just after the renaming in Tank's honor.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Ta152 shot down quite a few planes, for the loss of 2 of its own, they were constantly outnumbered in fights but thanks the climb, speed, turn rate and acceleration they could dictate most fights they wanted to against all enemy planes they encountered.
just like the AH one eh wil? :rolleyes:
nashwan so if this fuel was commonly used why isnt it modeled? have HTC ever stated why they would or wouldnt model it ?
Btw anyone wh thinks i fly LW exclusively should check my stats.I fly all aircraft , especially any new ones introduced.I often 'feel' the LW planes are muted or hamstrung and i have often done tests, as in the 190a8 climb tests.These all showed enormous differences to quoted performance in capt. Browns tests but nothing was ever said other than 'it isnt the same aircraft' blah blah blah.
People showed a deck speed chart for 190a5 and again we were told 'its not the same plane'
seems every published figures we see are not the same aircrafts.SO what the hell have we got? heheheh
bahh Im of the same opinion as john. I TRY to just play and enjoy whats there in AH but ALWAYS in the back of my mind when i get shot down is things like this cooling issue.It makes the game very hard to play as totally LW and now after years of flying them i have given up on them PURELY because of the frustration.
I guess it doesnt matter really, HTC seem unbothered by it but personally i feel it has spoiled AH for me.Where i used to think it was cool because it was so close to the real thing now i just consider it the same as any game out there.Battlefield1942 (new multiplayer WW2 game from EA)has rediculous behaviour for damage and quite silly FM but at least it doesnt 'claim' to be super accurate like most of the people on these BB's seem to claim AH is. I think LW squads add a lot to AH.For one thing if you like to fly spits and p51s you get a good enemy to fight.I prefer realistic matchups personally, so if i fly Allied stuff i like to face axis aircraft or visa versa. Seems to me if you want a less frustrating time you'd best stick to allied planes, its SO much easier. (nik,zero,ki67,ju88,109e aong a few others not included here, they seem to feel fine)
-
Scholz read up on an encounter Wilhelm Reshcke Had with a few (Edit:)RAF Tempests . There were a couple of pilots that achieved success while flying the Ta152 in the last days of the war. Among them were Josef Keil(achieved 5 victories while Flying the Tank), Walter Loos, and a fellow by the Surname Aufhammer, I always seem to forget his first name. :D
I'll find it and their ranks
Kacha's LW Page, here you can find a couple of those pilots I mentioned: http://www.luftwaffe.cz/index.html
-
Thanks Glasses! Good site!
Anyways ... Keil's bio mentioned 5 kills in a TA-152H, but Loos' only mentioned Ta-152's. Hmmmmm ... now I don't know what to believe.
Damn ... GS' not there... :(
-
AFAIK the 150 octane fuel didn't arrive in frontline units.
I think one of the RAF-addicted players (Karnak/Nashwan/funkedup) said that the 150 octane fuel was used in the V1 interceptor units, but not over germany.
That was some time back in the discusssion why we just have an +18lbs WEP Spitfire XIV.
-
Well I'm sitting here with my "Hitles's Luftwaffe" book by Philip de Ste. Croix published by Salamander Books. It's a comprehensive book detailing the history and organization of the LW from pre-war to post-war. It also has detailed specs on all LW aircraft including pre-war models and those that never made it beyond prototyping. It says here that only 10 Ta- 152H's (the high-altitude sub-model modeled in AH) were made, and the only "action" mentioned was on a test flight made by Kurt Tank himself where he fled from the two P-51's he stumbled upon. The standard Ta-152 was made in some numbers (67, excluding development aircraft) and did well in the last months of the war. Btw. the standard Ta-152 is the same aircraft as the Dora, just after the renaming in Tank's honor.
Without sounding rude Gscholz, you're wrong on all things there axecpt the numbers produced. ;)
First, the Ta152 H-0 and H-1 saw alot more action then the one time when Kurt Tank got jumped by two P51's over his field. They shot down Yak's and Tempests, aswell as P47's and others. Also, the Standard Ta152 was nothing like the Dora, they weren't anywhere near really. The Ta152 was named TA to honor him BUT no Ta152 was a Dora with another name. They were quite different, even the short winged Ta 152 versions.
If I were you, I'd scrap the pages about the Ta152 in that book, they seem to be all wrong about almost everything.
Best book you can find about the Ta152 is this one: 0-7643-0860-2
If you're interestead in the Ta152, I sugest you get it, quite expensive but worth it :)
-
just like the AH one eh wil?
Yeah hazed, exactly, it's so good that I wish they will undermodell it for gameplay issues, just can't have it as it is in the game now, everybody flies it! :rolleyes:
-
Thanks Wilbus!
This is not good. I’ve almost completely relied on this book for my LW facts. Do you know of, and vouch for, any other general LW books that are rather comprehensive? Do you have the title of the 152 book so I can do a Amazon search?
What can I say? … I stand corrected. :)
-
Focke-Wulf Ta 152: The Story of the Luftwaffe's Late-War, High-Altitude Fighter (Schiffer Military History) by Dietmar Hermann
Maybe this is the book Wil is referring to.
-
Hazed-, ive just re read all your post, you clame to have proved that the cool down time of the fw is wrong.
Hense claming we are wrong and refuse to change anything.
In all your posts I see you claming it's wrong, then trying to back it up with pure conjector.
Where in any thing you posted do you sight any documents concering the cool rate? You compare the FW to the P51, but then sight nothing about about the heating properties of either plane.
You are also looking at AH modling in a microcasam of the FW. There are a lot of planes in AH when look at in isolation should have unlimited wep.
You finaly take the final path of hey, if I don't get my way,and in this case get the cool down time for an Fw190D changed from 10 min to 5 mins, the entire game is porked.
Quite frankly I don't know which is correct,I'm not the research guy, but I do know you have no way made a case that your version of wep is more accurate than what it's currently set at.
If you wish to keep trying , feel free to, but how about you bring in some documented facts to the table.
HiTech
-
HiTech code in human language:
For each engine of the plane do the following:
If that engine has WEP ON, then add to its current temperature the elapsed time multiplied by the rate of temperature increase per second configured for that kind of plane. Also, verify that the current temperature has not reached the maximum (1.0), if so, cut off the wep and add the elapsed time to the total wep time used by that engine. (NOTE: That part is not clear for me. Why to add the elapsed time to the total wep time only when temperature reach the maximum allowed (1.0) and not every time WEP is ON?).
But If that engine has WEP OFF and there is any exceeding temperature due wep usage, then substract from that temperature the result of multiplying the rate of temperature decrease per second configured for that kind of plane and be sure that the resulting temperature is not below 0.
Then, verify that if WEP is ON and the throttle in not at 100% then WEP is turned OFF. Or If WEP is ON and total WEP time used is greater than maximum WEP time configured for that kind of plane then turn OFF the WEP.
Note: I cant see in that code any line reseting the "total wep time used" to 0.
So, each type of plane has:
- A maximum time of WEP usage.
- A rate of temperature increase per second when WEP is ON.
- A rate of temperature decrease per second when WEP is OFF.
-
Total wep time only resets at start of flight. It's purpose of for injection systems that run empty.
-
No offense sholz but you really dunno what you are talking about when you say lw planes in ah have "been sucker punched". Plane for plane the lw planeset is more then competitive with any other in ah.
4 of the top 10 k/d non-perk planes are consistantly lw planes. The d9 usually at the top.
The a5 a8 and g10 are the others. The fact you read a book(s) that claim a plane was capable of XXXX doesnt mean you can come into the game, jump in that plane and be successful. You still have to fly it.
All I fly is lw planes for over 2 years in AH. There are a few things that just dont seem right but I am no expert. I learned a while back that its more important to fly the plane how its modelled then on my pre-concieved idea on how any plane should perform based on a book of anecdotes.
We all want a real FM but there will always be some aspects that cant be reproduced. Making blancket statements like "ht hates lw planes" not only shows your own lack of understanding but helps perpetuate the stereotype that all lw pilots are whiners.
On topic, I have never payed attention to wep per se. I use wep only to extend, climb fast or run down some one. Normal a2a fights I rarely use wep at all.
edit
sholz if you need same help getting accostumed to lw oplanes in AH email me or contact anyone of my squadmates in the main.
Or follow Wilbuz around. :)
-
Perhaps all LW enthusiasts (i.e. all LW squadies and people who are generally fond of LW planes) should dive into their books and try to figure this out (not my book btw. ;) ) Test the flight characteristics of the LW planes in the game, and then send a POLITE and DOCUMENTED report to HTC with possible solutions? If enough people are genuinely unhappy with the way LW planes are portrayed in the game, HTC should do something about it. If not … they surly are admitting to being biased toward the LW planes.
Let’s make this like a petition. Any LW “old hands” out there that can take the lead on this?
-
HiTech,
Air cooled engines temperature depend a lot on air flow (speed) and air temperature.
So, IMO, Plane->PlaneModel.PlaneParams.WepCoo lPerSec and Plane->PlaneModel.PlaneParams.WepHea tPerSec should vary dinamically in each Plane->UserSim->TimeSlice depending on current altitude, speed and even time of the day (night colder than day).
BTW, how is coded the increase rate in temperature when "radiator" is damaged?
-
I hear you Wotan, and I’m not saying HTC hates LW planes, more like they’ve “toned” them down too much. The 190’s are more than just “a little” off performance wise. Remember AH is a game that claims realism when flight modeling is concerned. Frankly I don’t care how well the planes are balanced to the others, if we’re flying fictional WWII models HTC should say so, and name the planes Messerwulf 199 or Spitfighter Mk.V, and not connect the fictional models with their real-life counterparts. I joined this game because I thought I’d finally found a WWII massively-multiplayer sim that was modeled realistically by people who cared about realism and historical facts, and with players that wasn’t just looking for a quick “Nintendo” dogfight. I may be wrong, and flame me if you must, but I’m getting more and more distraught about this game. :(
Thanks Wotan, I might just take you up on that offer! :)
-
Originally posted by hitech
Quite frankly I don't know which is correct,I'm not the research guy
HiTech, a lot of people is researching and posting results, videos, pictures and documents just in an effort to help HTC to improve its product. IMO, their researching hours are worth some reply, if not yours then from Pyro.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I hear you Wotan, and I’m not saying HTC hates LW planes, more like they’ve “toned” them down too much. The 190’s are more than just “a little” off performance wise. Remember AH is a game that claims realism when flight modeling is concerned. Frankly I don’t care how well the planes are balanced to the others, if we’re flying fictional WWII models HTC should say so, and name the planes Messerwulf 199 or Spitfighter Mk.V, and not connect the fictional models with their real-life counterparts. I joined this game because I thought I’d finally found a WWII massively-multiplayer sim that was modeled realistically by people who cared about realism and historical facts, and with players that wasn’t just looking for a quick “Nintendo” dogfight. I may be wrong, and flame me if you must, but I’m getting more and more distraught about this game. :(
Thanks Wotan, I might just take you up on that offer! :)
Just read all the posts since 2 year and try to figure if the nintendo part of your post still apply :)
-
Mandoble, I would guess that WepTemp is a seperate attribute which is added to another attribute (call it Engine.Temp) to get the actual total temperature of the engine at any point. Radiator damage would then cause Temp to rise rather than WepTemp.
HT, there are a couple of issues with this modelling that come to mind if WepHeatPerSec and WepCoolPerSec are static. Please take these in the spirit they're offered, I consider it a privilege to have the chance :)
1) WepCoolPerSec should vary with IAS (use IAS to approximate for effect of decreasing air pressure) and altitude at the very least. The IAS curve could potentially approximate cooling flaps which could only be opened at lower speeds without a drag penalty (ie climb vs level run considerations). The alt curve simply reflects falling ambient temperature.
2) WepHeatPerSec should be based on WepCoolPerSec, plus a value based on the difference between the "mil" and "wep" power curves at the current height. Otherwise you get the rather bizarre situation where selecting wep increases temperature without giving a power increase above critical altitude.
-
The 190s are not toned down, The 190a8 is almost spot on. the d9 hits the mark as the 1900hp version the a5 may be a bit slow at sea level but theres a ton debate over that.
Unless you have a chart that shows differently then you are just plane wrong. No ones gonna flame you. If you need charts my squaddie heinkel has a data base full of stuff. So does wilbuz and Vermillion.
The biggest lw plane debate is about the 152.
The game is modelled on facts and charts and real data, not a feeling of how a plane should perform based on anecdotal evidence.
Again as shown in each tour the 190a5 190a8 and 190d9 almost always are in the top 10 k/d wise. My squaddie urchin went 104 and 2 in 190a5 at one point this tour.
The planes in ah arent without quirks but they hit the numbers. You are just plain wrong to think and claim otherwise.
Its up to you prove your claim, htc has a help file with charts for speed and climb at various alts for all the ac in ah. In the past when folks provided evidence where something is wrong it was corrected.
Again I mean no offense but the learning curve is pretty tough in ah. Any number of people are willing to work with you. It takes quite a bit of learning to get the most out any plane. You wanna see the lw kick some serious arse come fly in Saturdays Cap event with JG2. Check the Cap event forum for details. All you gotta do is show up and I will fill ya in.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Hazed-, ive just re read all your post, you clame to have proved that the cool down time of the fw is wrong.
Hense claming we are wrong and refuse to change anything.
In all your posts I see you claming it's wrong, then trying to back it up with pure conjector.
Where in any thing you posted do you sight any documents concering the cool rate? You compare the FW to the P51, but then sight nothing about about the heating properties of either plane.
You are also looking at AH modling in a microcasam of the FW. There are a lot of planes in AH when look at in isolation should have unlimited wep.
[/b]
HT i asked over and over if what i TESTED was correct.That was the whole point of the post.I was asking HTC to let us know if the timing was correct as i cannot find anything to describe the cooling times.
Now i know im only guessing but I would put money on the fact the Dora doesnt take 2x as long as the p51d which was my whole problem from the start.I used to think the dora was just a little longer on cooling in AH but after testing i found it was 2x as long.Now if you read my posts i did say if you/HTC came in here and told me that the dora does in fact take twice as long then id drop the whole thing. This post is here to question AH tests.
You finaly take the final path of hey, if I don't get my way,and in this case get the cool down time for an Fw190D changed from 10 min to 5 mins, the entire game is porked.
[/b]
er if its wrong then i would like it changed.whats wrong with that?
ok the actual times i tested were 18 minutes to cool the dora from 130degrees (thats what i have as info when i play and read the gauges)
and 9 minutes to cool the P51D from an indicated 130degrees.
entire game porked? er i didnt say that either. But if it turns out there is no evidence that shows the double cool time on doras is correct,(present setup), I certainly wont be happy about you basically having a go at me for asking.I dont think the physics of the game is porked(its a great engine i think) but as to some of the aircraft, they (mainly LW it seems) do seem to be worse than what many charts have shown on this BB.
you changed the durability of the p38 after it was questioned by customers,I saw no call for documented evidence to be shown.yet it was changed. whats the difference here? Im asking if its right not demanding change.I did several long tests, posted the results and asked why its like it is.
im sorry but 2x as long still just doesnt sound right to me.Of course it could well be twice as long and ill eat my hat ok?? :).I only started to get peeved when there was nothing said.Then you posted the code and it became even more confusing.
Quite frankly I don't know which is correct,I'm not the research guy, but I do know you have no way made a case that your version of wep is more accurate than what it's currently set at.
If you wish to keep trying , feel free to, but how about you bring in some documented facts to the table.
HiTech [/B]
you dont know whats correct? well neither do i hitech, again this is the whole point of me asking.
my version of wep? i didnt give one.??:confused:
I am trying my best HT but unfortunately i am not a historian.All i can do is do tests with your model and then see if they seem ok.
If i had found the dora to be 13 or 14 minutes and p51d 10 minutes i dont think i would have taken a blind bit of notice.It was only the fact it was twice as long that got me thinking.
I have read all i can about the dora and none of my books mention a poor cooling system.They do mention EARLY 190s having trouble when the nose cone was fitted and no air could get to the engines and that they removed it and found it didnt affect the performance too much but helped cooling.Later models DID have trouble with cooling or its mentioned that they did indeed run hot.but NOTHING is said about the dora.
It has water methonol which actually helps cool the engine if its injected at a lower manifold pressure (i think, im not entirely sure)
it has a pretty normal liquid cooling system very similar to other aircraft of the time ie p51s and the engine came from a bomber which i read a little about and it also mentions nothing about poor cooling.
So put yourself in my position for a minute HT.I have no access to the game code or the information you obviously have on the cooling times but i have played the game and found my favourite aircraft has horrendous cooling times.you then come in here and tell me :
An argument about reality where none exist. Anyone have any idea what the temp is supose to be on the fw's? If you realy wish I can change the gauge to read higher on the fw so it looks like it's cooling the same rate as the p51. But in the end all that would change is the lable on the dash board.
which i have to ask you , how on earth am i supposed to know the gauges i see in the cockpits are wrong?? this change in the gauge to make it look like it cools at same rate as p51d? I dont understand what you mean to be honest.
the gauge reads 130 but the engine runs a lot hotter on 190d9? in fact as your cooling times are set (i think??) and it takes 2x as long as p51d then it must run 2x as hot?
I have got annoyed in here and perhaps posted a few poor comments HT but I still find this a bit hard to accept.
If i had seen in one of my many books a mention of the dora running very hot or similar i wouldnt have asked.Like i said yes the fw190a's etc do mention this but the dora is a completely different engine with liquid cooling right?
anyone out there point me in a direction to check this sort of thing out? perhaps you could say where you got your info HT if it doesnt give away your sources too much? Id like to read about it if it is indeed so different to other liquid cooled planes.
-
The book is the one Gatt described.
Overall good Luftwaffe book (although some minor misstakes in it too) is "Warplanes of the Luftwaffe". Very good book with more or less all different planes that served with the Luftwaffe.
Hitech, WHY does the 190 D have longer cool down? We still haven't got an answer for this. There are quite much facts out there that state the, using MW50, the 190's could fly 10 minutes WEP (MW50) and cool down for 5 minutes, then fly 10 minutes WEP again. They could do this till they ran out of MW50 fluid (usually had enough for 30 minutes).
Allso, what Mandoble said, alot of us do research, lately I've posted ALOT of evidence that the Ta152 lacks the crucial GM1 boost (needed to make it climb right and go as fast as it should go above 35k). The Ta152 has it's max speed a 10k too low alt, which is a major fault and evidence have been posted.
I've also posted lots of test reports with the 190 A5 proving that it accelerates too slow and zoom/climb too bad.
Don't just disregard all threads you see about LW planes (not that you have as you're in this one), many of them are good and actually contain proof that some planes are wrong.
This thread, is more of a "why does the Dora cool down in the rate as it does" then a "the Dora is wrong" thread IMO.
-
I have 'wings of the luftwaffe' by captain eric brown but unfortunately it has every aircraft BUT the dora!! :D
ta152 and 190a8 but no dora.
I have also:
'axis aircraft of ww2'
'JG2 richthofen' john weal
'focke wulf fw190 in combat' alfred price
'The first and the last' A galland
'battle of the airfields:bodenplatte' norman franks
'Fw190 aces of western front' john weal
'fw190 aces of eastern front' john weal
'Last flight of the luftwaffe' adrian weir
'the luftwaffe fighter force a view from the cockpit' adolf galland et al (david isby)
i have a few others but they are not LW specific and rarely mention actual performances.Mor stories of the encounters.If i had 'Fw190d9: everything you need to know' i might be able to help but it hasnt been written yet !! :D
-
Originally posted by Bombjack
2) WepHeatPerSec should be based on WepCoolPerSec, plus a value based on the difference between the "mil" and "wep" power curves at the current height. Otherwise you get the rather bizarre situation where selecting wep increases temperature without giving a power increase above critical altitude.
Very good point.
In HiTech language ;) :
temp_cooling_rate = (something related to speed, altitude and engine);
temp_wep_rate = (something related to altitude and engine) * wep_is_on; /* Always 0 when wep is off */
currenttemp += (temp_wep_rate - temp_cooling_rate) * elapsed_time;
if (currenttemp >= MAXALLOWEDTEMP)
{
currenttemp = MAXALLOWEDTEMP;
CutWep();
}
else if (currenttemp < MINTEMP)
{
currenttemp = MINTEMP;
}
if (wep_is_on)
{
if ((Throttle < 0.95) || (wep_time_usage > max_wep_time))
{
CutWep();
}
else
{
wep_time_usage += elapsed_time;
}
}
-
I like Visual Basic :D
BTW i like those threads with foundet and interesting discussions. Nice work guys.
-
Alright Wotan, seeing you got two years seniority over my two months, I'll concede the point and thrust your judgment. Maybe I'm just not getting used to the new "feel" of AH as fast as I've done transitioning to other sims. I'm currently holding my own with a K/D of 1.3, but I'm used to higher values. Maybe you guys are just too good for that to happen here ;) Anyways ... I can't make it this Saturday, but I'll make a point of being there on the next (Oct. 26).
Just took a look on the Cap forum. YES, this looks like my kind of sim! Do I need to register somewhere? What's the timeslot? Will the Cap-arena show up in the "arena list"?
Thanks to Wilbus, Gatt and Hazed for your advice on literature. I used to read the "View from the cockpit" (I think that's it) series of articles by Cpt. Brown in Flight International a few years back. Loved them. I'll definitively get that book.
-
Heres cap info
More CAP event info
The new Saturday event "Combat Air Patrol" will attempt to simulate WW2 in a chronological order, starting with events in Europe and the Nordics 1940. The campaign will be constantly re-written to take advantage of new aircraft from HTC so each run through should be different.
CAP events will be at 6pm EST - 11pm GMT - 12am CET in the SEA. Please aim to be there early. The campaign will be starting Saturday the 14th of September.
The campaign
We have laid out the plans for 5 sections of the campaign, each simulating a year in game time. Each campaign section will be 4-8 frames in length depending on the branches so the entire war could take 40 frames. Scheduling for 3 weeks on, 1 week off as a break. We will also be pausing the event for future scenarios held on Saturdays, so it's possible that the entire war could take 1 year in real time to get through.
The missions
Each frame with lean more towards objective based gameplay than score based. The side COs will be given their objectives each week and it's up to them how they go about reaching them. We will not be setting any restrictions on gameplay other than the airframes available, anything goes. If your side CO wants to try an MA style furball then fine, but the side CO that plans patrols and organised strikes will probably win.
The Commanders
For each section of the campaign we want to have 1 pilot serving as country CO to provide some continuation. At the end of a section the CO deemed to be the loser will be relieved of command and replaced by another pilot. The winner will be kept on to lead his side through another year of war. It is possible we will introduce a second set of side COs when the Pacific theatre of operations opens up in late 1941, US and Japanese commanders.
The medals
The medal system worked out will reward pilots both for success and dedication in the CAP event. Each countries medal system is slightly different but sticks to the same general theme of 3 types of medals:
Bravery medals: Awards given for success in combat (i.e. kills)
Achievement medals: Awards given for reaching long term targets of numbers of kills, streaks without death, frames flown, etc.
Service medals: Awards given for long service as a pilot or CO and squadron unit citations.
Medals awarded are scripted, however, the CMs have the option to upgrade or downgrade an award depending on AARs of the event. For example, as a British pilot if you shot down 2 aircraft and landed safely you'd be awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal, if AARs indicated that during these engagements you were outnumbered 4:1, your wingy was calling for help and you went back to save him, the medal awarded would be upgraded to a
Distinguished Flying Medal.
At present we have medal systems for the RAF, Luftwaffe, USAAF, USN, USMC, Italian Air Force, Russian Air Force and IJN. Each system differs slightly, for example the Luftwaffe system awards an Iron Cross for pretty much anything but only one of each medal can be awarded, the USAAF system includes more unit situations and medals for being best something or other.
In order to be eligible for awards please register at:
http://www.webtreatz.com/medal/register.html
Registration is not compulsory, however you will need to register in order for medal awards to be automatically e-mailed to you. If you do not wish to register for the awards you don't have to, flying in the event itself is still open, you just wont earn any awards.
Respawn
Instead of 1 life per frame we will be re-opening fields every 30 minutes for 5 minutes. As the event will be under way there is a distinct possiblity of some vulching going on so choose your start field carefully. If you are vulched then take off again from another field, provided it's still within the 5 minute re-up window. We are also considering allowing vehicle spawns at any time but this still needs to be confirmed.
Squads
MA Squads are invited to fly on the side of their choice. Once the first country CO's have been recruited we request that squad CO's contact the country CO and let him know numbers so he can plan accordingly. For any imbalance in numbers the CMs will try to balance things out with walk on pilots, however, in the event that one side outnumbers another by a large margin we may request a squadron to move to the opposing side. Squadrons that are integral to the country COs planning stand a lesser chance of being requested to move. Hopefully squads will not be asked to move and we can fill gaps with walk on pilots.
The lw has won every frame so far.
-
AFAIK the 150 octane fuel didn't arrive in frontline units.
I think one of the RAF-addicted players (Karnak/Nashwan/funkedup) said that the 150 octane fuel was used in the V1 interceptor units, but not over germany.
That was some time back in the discusssion why we just have an +18lbs WEP Spitfire XIV.
It was always difficult to find info on 150 octane. Few books even mentioned it, and none went into much detail.
However, Neil Sterling, who sometimes posts here, has been researching the official documents in the UK public records office. You can read some of the info he's found in the following threads:
http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm31.showMessage?topicID=535.topic
http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm42.showMessage?topicID=274.topic
http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm42.showMessage?topicID=211.topic
http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm42.showMessage?topicID=92.topic
150 octane was used in almost all British based fighters from spring 44, all US 8th AF fighters from summer 44, and all British fighters based on the continent from Jan 45.
-
guys i know its tempting to go onto other issues but please stick with this cooling thing, I have to know one way or another if its right :D
-
Thanks again Wotan. I'll be there on the 26th.
-
just saw this web site on LA7: take a look at the max time for sustained 2600rpm and then tell me why it has 5 minutes of wep in AH? http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Engine.html
am i somehow missing something here???
so far we have been told in real life:
p51 had 3-5 mins sustainable wep
P47 had 3-5 mins sustainable wep
190d9 had 2-20 mins sustainable use MW50
La7 had 30 seconds sustained (2600rpm) ?
in AH
p51 has 5 mins
P47 has 5 mins
190 has 10 mins
La7 has 5 mins
so how are these worked out???
-
so far we have been told in real life:
p51 had 5 mins sustainable wep
P47 had 5 mins sustainable wep
190d9 had 2-20 mins sustainable use MW50
La7 had 30 seconds sustained (2600rpm) ?
Please can you point me to the references where we managed to establish these things as fact? In my limited experience, data as to actual WEP usage (rather than pilot's manual ratings, which are quite a different matter) are hard to come by.
You are aware that the P47 used water injection too, right?
-
Originally posted by Bombjack
Please can you point me to the references where we managed to establish these things as fact? In my limited experience, data as to actual WEP usage (rather than pilot's manual ratings, which are quite a different matter) are hard to come by.
You are aware that the P47 used water injection too, right?
bombjack this is the WHOLE POINT, jesus how many more times does it have to be said in here.thats why i said 'we have been told' rather than 'we know for a fact'........
I DONT know any of this for sure as I cant find information on it all but what i have got i have given you the references for.Thats why im ASKING HTC to tell me one way or another how they set it. Whether they have set it to conform to a chart they have or if its just a formula like the 1 min wep = 2 min cool etc
bombjack how about i say to you the p51 and p47 have 3-5 minutes in real life and ask YOU to prove otherwise? As all we have to go by is pilots manual ratings they are a damn sight more accurate than pure guesswork.If it ISNT pure guesswork then WHERE can we read about it. Its a simple request.
like i said UNTIL i see information that proves otherwise I do not believe the 190d9 takes 20 minutes to cool down from 10 minutes of boost/wep.
why? because every book i have states the 190s could use 10 minutes of wep before a cooling period of 5 minutes(GM1)up to some 40 odd minutes total fuel supply.Another book and its quoted earlier mentions MW50 could be run for periods of 2 to 20 minutes.Now FFS its pretty simple, I give you references to my info and if you disagree you are supposed to tell me why and where your info differs or comes from.
I post info showing what is written on German training manuals in 1944 and you then say prove it is correct?????
PROVE ITS INCORRECT. im sick of this crap.
you say im wrong well prove it yourself.Oh and i want original data charts verified by the actual hand that wrote the damn things out blah blah blah. no photocopies!! lol you guys are hilarious.
lets turn this around a bit further shall we? how about you prove to me the P51D or P47 could use 5 minutes of wep and then cool down in 9- 10 minutes. ANY reference you like, as long as its from a printed book or old copy of a test report.Not some web page written by some x-warbirds player who has just typed it out in his spare time. If you cant then how come you are so sure its correct?
-
I think you need to calm down for a moment. I asked for the references because you posted that we had information about RL wep times for four planes. I looked up the thread and could not see actual quoted references for them. There is no need to take this personally.
-
For the record I am not disagreeing with you about the apparent error in the D9's WEP modelling. Read that again, I do not disagree.
I called you on the other figures primarily because they were unsupported as far as I could see - and such a table of factoids can often gather the force of myth if not immediately questioned.
-
Bombjack, I think not so much you, but overall players who don't fly LW planes much always say, when an LW pilot show a chart that is dated to WW2 time, every time there are lots of players who come and claim it to be face or just made up by the author then they ask us to show some more proof etc etc. Getting tired of that BS.
Not directed at you, just explaining.
-
As for HT, he still haevn't givven us an answer, he comes in here and gives us some code. This doesn't in ANY way explain WHY the 190 takes longer to cool down.
If HT come in and say, "we decided to modell all planes with a 2 minute cool down, it may not be historical accurate but that's how we do it" that would be an OK answer.
-
Wilbus, it is not a matter of HiTech, he showed us how it is coded, but the values of wep temperature increase per second and no wep temperature decrease per second per plane is a matter only of Pyro.
-
Fair enough Wilbus. It's a fine line to walk in this sadly polarised community - on the one hand we want to exercise our diligence in getting to the 'truth' as far as it is available. On the other we have to temper that with openmindedness and the fact that many of the data we seek may not be available any more. With goodwill and honesty on all sides, I believe something like a fair resolution is always possible.
-
VV Bombjack.
And Mando aswell, I just want an answer from HTC "WHY?".
-
And now to something quite different... :D
Originally posted by hazed-
(...)
consider this, the 190s are already muted in the roll to avoid warping , and as such are a LOT slower in the roll than they really were.Other aircraft have not been reduced in roll in proportion to this and as such the 190s have lost a lot of their greatest asset.This i can accept but i do think its wrong really.
(...)
Is this true? Really?? Really true??? This can't be true. Tell me it's not true.
If it is true yet I want the turn ability of the spits being reduced to avoid warping! :p
-
Wilbus, why do you wan't to know why we choose those numbers?
I could be totaly incorect in my assumtion, but all I see is you searching for arguments to make the planes you like better. Both in mg151, and wep arguments. While this is not a bad thing, it does tend to slant all your views one side. It changes the type of research you do from wanting to understand, to looking for needles that show your plane should be better.
Wep is somthing that has many liberal modeling assumptions in it. Use of wep on many planes realy didn't have a per flight limit but was related much more to the long gevity of engines. We choose to limit these, not because the engine could not handle it, but because in a envorment where you get unlimited planes, they cost nothing, your crew chief won't jump down your throught, there has to be choices made to look at the big picture.
Just like your arguing for a change in Wep on the FW (and btw I belive it's not a quest for a more accurate model, but wrather wanting more of an edge for your plane), other people could make arguments just as valid that there planes should have unlimited wep.
There is no perfect answere to these type of questions, in the end we chose the numbers because it was resonable.
Unlike certain peoples assumtion, we realy are not biased towards any paticular planes, we just make the choice based on the information we have at hand.
HiTech
-
We choose to limit these, not because the engine could not handle it, but because in an environment where you get unlimited planes, they cost nothing, your crew chief won't jump down your throat, there has to be choices made to look at the big picture.
In other words, concessions to game play will be made regardless of information found in published sources.
This is of course both expected and good. But it also means that no amount of research will yield results unless one can argue that the application of that research will be beneficial to the overall gameplay.
-
Hey Hitech, thanks for the answer again :)
I could be totaly incorect in my assumtion, but all I see is you searching for arguments to make the planes you like better. Both in mg151, and wep arguments. While this is not a bad thing, it does tend to slant all your views one side. It changes the type of research you do from wanting to understand, to looking for needles that show your plane should be better.
You ARE wrong in that asumption :)
Sorry if I made you think that, it's not what I want AT ALL. I just want it accurate. Your new answer gave me the kind of answer I wanted and I understand why you choose to do this now and I agree with it, we don't have any bad engines etc.
Mg151, not whining about it at all, if you saw my new thread you'd understand that I don't try to say that it is undermodelled, i just wanted to know if my calculations were right, which they were except I used too much weight (which sort of threw off the whole thing). I know the Hispano has highr velocity and should be better. Don't think the Mg151 is undermodelled nor do I think that HTC have some kind of stupid thing against LW planes. Many players want to make YOU think LW players think conspiracy, most of us don't.
I am not at all looking for needles to change my planes, but some things are obvious when looking at WW2 charts (Ta152 35k+ speed, handeling and climb rate). I did have one sided views on these subject before, that was quite long ago however and I now argure both for and against all planes.
If I wanted, and needed an advantage in AH Hitech, I'd be flying a really great plane that gave me that advantage, a P51 comes to mind (NOT SAYING IT IS OVERMODELLED!!!). But I don't, I like it challenging, I like taking a 190 A8 into a furrball and turn with spits and P47's and P51's and La7's etc, it's fun, I like it hard, almost everything I do in life I do the hard way.
So YES, happy to say, you ARE totally incorrect on your asumption :)
However, there are some things that I think need looking into, you've answered the WEP question for me, and answered it good and made me happy.
One thing that I think is wrong, posted evidence of it, is Ta152 speed and climb rate over 35k, looks to me like the Gm1 isn't modelled at all or undermodelled. Quite easily seen when looking at WW2 charts.
I don't want it to be an uber plane that beats everything hands down, that's why we have the 262. I just want it to be right and match charts somewhat closer then the Ta152 does.
To finnish, if you've read my post, although long and boring, I have to make it clear once again that I don't want any uber LW planes, I don't want uber LW guns, I don't think LW planes were better then allied planes nor do I think LW guns were better then the allied guns.
I hope you understand what I mean with this post...
-
There is no perfect answere to these type of questions, in the end we chose the numbers because it was resonable.
Unlike certain peoples assumtion, we realy are not biased towards any paticular planes, we just make the choice based on the information we have at hand.
THAT IS The answer I wanted!
And mind you, I AM NOT one of those people who think you are biased towards any country in particular. I've argued both for and against different planes, I've argured for the Mossie and for the F4u lately etc.
-
Just like your arguing for a change in Wep on the FW (and btw I belive it's not a quest for a more accurate model, but wrather wanting more of an edge for your plane)
Not at all, don't think I am arguring for a better WEP either, all I wanted was a good answer which I got now. For all I care you can remove the WEP totally IF the 190's didn't have them (they did have them) as long as it is realistic.
I want realism, I am a realism freak, I fly in R/L and I've chosen AH over all other flight games thanks to the much superior FM.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Wilbus, why do you wan't to know why we choose those numbers?
er i realise this is directed at wilbuz, but i assume this is also in answer to my requests?.Personally my veiw on this subject is this: if HTC chose the 1 min wep 2 min cool ratio then fine im happy with it, although slightly dissapointed, as it is constantly claimed by many in here that everything in AH is based on data charts.At least every time i question something i am immediately accused of whining and asked to produce figures/data/hard facts.
If we have a situation where there is no hard facts(as in cooling?) and HTC are forced to make their best guesstimate or invent a ratio they deem fair then why on earth isnt this mentioned? If at the start of this thread that was said I would have dropped the subject because hey its your game and you make it how you want it to be.But at least we would know the reasons behind it.
I can only assume that there are no figures obtainable on the rates of cooling for (many?) WW2 fighters and so HTC were forced to choose a suitable alternative,ie what we have.I think the system we have works well but as ive tried to point out here in this thread i feel the dora (from anecdotal evidence i admit) seems to be rather punished by its long cool time BUT given an EXCELLENT representation (in terms of the system we have) of the wep capability they did have.As in 10 minutes of boost rather than 5 minutes.double the lentgh of time most have is absolutely fine with me.Even if it turns out they had 20 or 40 mins etc whilst others had 30 seconds to 5 minutes it would hardly fit in with the game if there were such huge differences.if they way it is is how HTC wants it? ok by me but please next time dont leave me hanging out there like ive had to in this thread for questioning something which seemed not to add up.
I could be totaly incorect in my assumtion, but all I see is you searching for arguments to make the planes you like better. Both in mg151, and wep arguments. While this is not a bad thing, it does tend to slant all your views one side. It changes the type of research you do from wanting to understand, to looking for needles that show your plane should be better.[/b]
Whilst you are right in that I would like to see the dora improved this isnt for some sort of personal gain in scores.I also fly almost every type of aircraft in the game but have flown the 190d9 because in the MA it is one of the few truelly survivable types ie perk rides or p51d,p38,la7,109g10. I dont want an easy time of it in anything i fly BUT I DO want the aircraft to be AS CLOSE a representation of the real thing as possible.
If the LW had the best wep systems during the war then I really dont see why you would object to me or anyone else asking for it.
You say our veiws are one sided and changes the type of research we do? I say its because we happen to have more books about the planes we LIKE to fly. I can swear to you here and now if i happened to fly spitfires in AH i would research them JUST as hard.I/we cant help what planes we like HT, and i feel its a little unfair of you to brand stuff we do as biased purely for the intent of making the game easier to win in.
Check our stats HT, see how many times ive flown P40E's in the last few tours.It also happens to be one of my favourite planes from WW2 but only because i bought a model of it as a kid.I can assure you i have also checked its performance vs the AH one.Sure i was hoping to find something to ADD to it but comon thats what its all about isnt it?
This is not to say i wouldnt post anything negative that i find that points to a mistake in AH modelling that may REDUCE the ability of some of my favourite rides.
I have to say though HT, if this comment above is aimed at me also, i do resent you thinking this of me.I want ALL planes to be close to their real counterparts as i fly ALL at one time or another.
Wep is somthing that has many liberal modeling assumptions in it. Use of wep on many planes realy didn't have a per flight limit but was related much more to the long gevity of engines. We choose to limit these, not because the engine could not handle it, but because in a envorment where you get unlimited planes, they cost nothing, your crew chief won't jump down your throught, there has to be choices made to look at the big picture.
[/b]
ok now you have said this i can accept there has to be either a compromise or no wep modelling at all right? I think you have made a good decision in putting it in in its current form.
(however i still feel you have been harsh with the dora :) , but its the way you want it and deem fair then so be it)
Just like your arguing for a change in Wep on the FW (and btw I belive it's not a quest for a more accurate model, but wrather wanting more of an edge for your plane), other people could make arguments just as valid that there planes should have unlimited wep.
[/b]
sorry but i have to assume this is also aimed at me as i did post the thread in the first place and i have to say i find it quite offensive that you assume Im NOT doing this in the quest for a 'more accurate model' but rather for a personal gain of some kind.well i am telling you here and now im certainly not, but if the dora was a better performer in real life than the model in AH then i for one would like to see it match it.If it makes it too good then perk it!.BUT at least we would see it for how it truelly was.if we fly a spitfire and fight a dora that doesnt quite fly like the real thing then how can we claim its a simulation?.I have often said that id be prepared to have the dora become a perk ride along with several of the other late war rides in order to see more of the lesser types flown (more often), and i FULLY supported the perk idea.Now does this point to me wanting an easy time of it in the dora? i dont think it does. Do i fly it solely? I certainly dont, sure, i fly it a lot but then I happen to like it and fighting LA7's,p51ds and other late war planes in the MA generally forces my hand into flying it.I do fly the other planes but when i start to lose too often i switch back to the dora so i survive the engagements a bit more.I really dont see how that makes me somehow greedy or biased or always wanting an easy time with what i fly or surely id fly nothing but the top 3 types right? my scores would be mostly La7s, P51ds, niks, doras, spits etc whereas if you check out my scores i fly many of the least survivable types (tour 30 i flew the p40e more than i did the dora)
(btw some tours i have gone for a pure score and tried to fly just the best types but i often get bored and desire a challenge in one of the rare early war planes)
There is no perfect answer to these type of questions, in the end we chose the numbers because it was resonable.
[/b]
so they arent based on any actual figures but rather what you think was fair and or better for the game?(or based as closely as you can to what you do have in data?).Well thats fair enough but
what id like to know is, do you think I as a customer/player cannot question your decision or post in the hope you would review your decision on those numbers? ie point out that the 190d9 was also water cooled the same as other planes?
After all if i hadnt asked about this in the first place and got an answer from you most of the people on this board would have called me handsomehunked names because i even dared questioned you guys.Well they arent too vocal in this thread are they?
Unlike certain peoples assumtion, we realy are not biased towards any paticular planes, we just make the choice based on the information we have at hand.
HiTech
I can only assume you mean me here HT but im sorry I cant say i have been persuaded that there isnt a slight bias personally.
Im quite happy to drop the subject or go through point by point why i feel the way i do.I leave this one to you guys.If you like private email me and ill explain my 'gripes' rather than do laundry in public which im sure you'll agree only lowers the tone of the BB's.I'll just say this, if you arent biased you should be aware that there are many parts of this game that make it 'appear' that you are.
If im wrong in my assumptions then i truelly do appologise but im only telling you what im feeling and id rather be honest and tell you than suck up and say i dont think it. sorry but im a bit of a stubborn person and once i get a notion in my head it tends to stay there.
anyhow like i said ill answer any emails you care to send and i hope this doesnt get me banned or anything :)
thanx for the answer and like i said the subject for me is closed(with slight reservations ;))
hazed
-
I can only second everything Hazed says.
As every quote he pointed out could also be aimed at me. :)
-
Originally posted by hitech
Wep is somthing that has many liberal modeling assumptions in it. Use of wep on many planes realy didn't have a per flight limit but was related much more to the long gevity of engines. We choose to limit these, not because the engine could not handle it, but because in a envorment where you get unlimited planes, they cost nothing, your crew chief won't jump down your throught, there has to be choices made to look at the big picture.
Just like your arguing for a change in Wep on the FW (and btw I belive it's not a quest for a more accurate model, but wrather wanting more of an edge for your plane), other people could make arguments just as valid that there planes should have unlimited wep.
There is no perfect answere to these type of questions, in the end we chose the numbers because it was resonable.
Magnific answer. Clear, informative and 100% understandable
Thanks, HT! :)
-
I second Hazed.
-
If we have a situation where there is no hard facts(as in cooling?) and HTC are forced to make their best guesstimate or invent a ratio they deem fair then why on earth isnt this mentioned? If at the start of this thread that was said I would have dropped the subject because hey its your game and you make it how you want it to be.But at least we would know the reasons behind it.
Reread this post in light of my 2nd.
An argument about reality where none exist. Anyone have any idea what the temp is supose to be on the fw's? If you realy wish I can change the gauge to read higher on the fw so it looks like it's cooling the same rate as the p51. But in the end all that would change is the lable on the dash board.
guess it doesnt matter really, HTC seem unbothered by it but personally i feel it has spoiled AH for me.Where i used to think it was cool because it was so close to the real thing now i just consider it the same as any game out there.Battlefield1942 (new multiplayer WW2 game from EA)has rediculous behaviour for damage and quite silly FM but at least it doesnt 'claim' to be super accurate like most of the people on these BB's seem to claim AH is.
In this post you have just called us a bunch of liers.
These type of post, are nothing about flight model spefics. These type of post are so ignorent of what it takes to model airplanes that it realy does cause any further questions to be taking in a totaly different light, and tend to get you ignored.
HiTech
-
HT, I know I'm ignorant, so you can call me ignorant and I won't be offended.
The 109G-10 has 10 minutes of WEP and then a 10 minute cool down. Shouldn't it be 10 minutes of WEP and 20 minutes to cool down like the 190s? Or should the 190s be 10 minutes of WEP and 10 minutes to cool down?
-
Since the G10 and D9 are completely different aircraft, there is no reason I can see to suppose that their WEP systems should be modelled identically. HT has said that the modelling is a necessarily compromised abstraction of reality, and this kind of analysis is therefore rather futile.
-
Originally posted by hitech
you realy wish I can change the gauge to read higher on the fw so it looks like it's cooling the same rate as the p51. But in the end all that would change is the lable on the dash board.
This is something I cant understand at all. If D9 is cooling down at the same rate as the P51, but it takes 20 mins to cool down and the P51 takes 5 mins, then D9 reach four times the temperature of the P51, but along 10 mins, so it increases its temperature twice the rate of P51 but cools down at the same rate.
It seems it is one or other:
1 - D9 heats up twice the rate of P51 and cools down at the same rate than P51. Also D9 reach twice the max temp of P51.
2 - P51 cools down twice the rate of D9.
-
originally posted by hazed:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we have a situation where there is no hard facts(as in cooling?) and HTC are forced to make their best guesstimate or invent a ratio they deem fair then why on earth isnt this mentioned? If at the start of this thread that was said I would have dropped the subject because hey its your game and you make it how you want it to be.But at least we would know the reasons behind it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hitech Reread this post in light of my 2nd.
An argument about reality where none exist. Anyone have any idea what the temp is supose to be on the fw's? If you realy wish I can change the gauge to read higher on the fw so it looks like it's cooling the same rate as the p51. But in the end all that would change is the lable on the dash board.
seems we must continue HT. This statement makes no sense at all UNLESS you have accurate data concerning the time it took for the 190d9 to cool down as well as accurate data concerning the cooling time of the p51d.If you are sitting in a position where you DO know the times/temprtuure then your arguement is justified.if Like us you DONT have data then i'll ask you on what basis have you decided the cooling times in your game?
From you answer(later) i was of the opinion you had made a guesstimate or decision for gameplays sake and like i said i can accept it as it is your game.I will not however be accused of making an 'arguement about reality where none exists' (whatever this means?) when the REALITY is i tested YOUR game and timed the cooling.As i posted it takes 10 minutes for a p51 to cool and 20 minutes for the 190 to cool.You made the game this way for a reason and i am merely trying to find out why.
now from your statement:
Originally posted by hitech 'I can change the gauge to read higher on the fw so it looks like it's cooling the same rate as the p51. But in the end all that would change is the lable on the dash board.
it can mean 1 of 3 things as far as i can make out:
1) you claim the cooling times ARE the same for both aircraft (ie 10 minutes) and the needle on the gauge is reading wrong
2) the cooling times of 10 min and 20 mins for the p51d and 190d9,respectively, are correct but the dora gauge only goes up to HALF the tempreture it really should and therefore has to move 2x as slow to make up the difference whilst cooling.
3)the dora has cooled off in 10 mins but still reads 'hot' and is therefore missleading us into thinking it is still hot when it is really ready for its next full boost time(ie ten mins)
as mandoble has said I also do not understand what on earth you mean here.but I might suggest if it is answer 1) you time the cooling yourself if you think they are the same.I did it with a stop watch and i assure you they are not.
IF you have set the game so that if a player uses 5 minutes of wep it takes 10 mins to cool or 10 minutes of wep would take 20 minutes to cool (therfore implying a 1:2 ratio on wep:cooling) then we are back to the ORIGINAL query.
has the GM1 and MW50 been represented in AH as an extra 5 minutes longevity of wep(10 rather than the standard 5 minutes) but causes twice the heat and therefore twice the cooling?
this causes me to ask why then is the 109g10 1:1 ratio? and the hurricaneC 1:1.5 ? (109 10 mins wep 10 mins cooling) (hurricane 5 mins wep 15 minutes cooling)
I can only think you have either missed my whole point or I (as well as others) have totally missed yours.
originally posted by hazed:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
guess it doesnt matter really, HTC seem unbothered by it but personally i feel it has spoiled AH for me.Where i used to think it was cool because it was so close to the real thing now i just consider it the same as any game out there.Battlefield1942 (new multiplayer WW2 game from EA)has rediculous behaviour for damage and quite silly FM but at least it doesnt 'claim' to be super accurate like most of the people on these BB's seem to claim AH is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hitech In this post you have just called us a bunch of liers.
These type of post, are nothing about flight model spefics. These type of post are so ignorent of what it takes to model airplanes that it realy does cause any further questions to be taking in a totaly different light, and tend to get you ignored.
Hitech
HT I have not called you a bunch of liars at all if you read it it is infact AIMED at the people on this board who often call me a whiner for questioning LW aircraft and demand chart after chart.But if you do want to take this as an insult to your game remember please that up until you gave me the answer :
Use of wep on many planes realy didn't have a per flight limit but was related much more to the long gevity of engines. We choose to limit these, not because the engine could not handle it, but because in a envorment where you get unlimited planes, they cost nothing, your crew chief won't jump down your throught, there has to be choices made to look at the big picture.
I was unaware you had done it this way.I was under the assumption that you used the figures for the maximum length of time an engine can be run on war emergency power and figures for the time it took them to cool down based on their individual cooling systems, factored in the MW50/GM1 of the LW planes and arrived at total and then ADJUSTED them in RATIO down to a suitable time to work in this game.Totally acceptable for me.
I ended up with the impression that you had given MW50 aircraft 10 minutes of boost(5 minutes for all other aircraft) to represent their affect but when i tested and found the cooling to be 20 minutes(2x as long as p51d,109s etc) i found it questionable so i posted it, you then proceeded to imply im ignorent because i dont understand your code which you post without explaining exactly what was going on.Well I took offence to it and reacted accordingly.But when i tested and found your times to be double the wep BUT also DOUBLE the cooling time I obviouslt questioned it.
WAS the dora really so poor at cooling? did the mw50 make the engine run twice as hot? etc etc THUS the question to HTC for verification. The only thing im guilty of is assuming EVERYTHING in the game is from charts/tables/data aquired from WW2.
This I'm afraid is solely down to the droves of VOCAL community members that state over and over again that nothing can be questioned without some form of hard evidence or data charts.
IF you do have the data for the cooling times then by all means post some and shut me up once and for all but from what ive gathered in this post and from what you have said (see your posts above) you have had to 'invent' a system because 'Use of wep on many planes realy didn't have a per flight limit but was related much more to the long gevity of engines' and im assuming this means some aircraft could run on wep indefinately? again something i had never heard of.
I asked a simple thing. why did the 190d9 take 20 minutes to cool down and i STILL have not received a clear answer other than you (htc) 'decided it was reasonable'. You have not said if you based your model of cooling on actual data or a system you had to invent. From what you did post i got the impression it was the later which i said i can accept.BUT as you have continued to have a go at me for asking it in the first place and have implied i have no idea about WW2 aircraft etc Im forced to keep asking arent I.If what you mean is no engine ever gets 'too hot' and basically will run untill it explodes (after many flights) and the high tempretures for this cannot be known then what made you decide that the 190d9 will take 20 mins to cool and the 109s will take 10 mins? average engine life? ok you set a limit for the games sake but then how did you arrive at what you deemed fair? the mere fact that various aircraft have differing rates of cooling suggests you took something into account when you decided it.
either its based on real data and performance charts or it isnt.
either im wrong for implying the model isnt totally based on real data or im right.
which is it?
if im right and it isnt based on data/charts then id like to know the reasons behind the present system so that i can understand what you are doing.
-
Hazed, at least, your point is crystal clear
-
thanks mandoble that helps
:D
(i was beginning to worry i was speaking some form of ancient celtic dialect ;))
Ive tried to say it as clear as i can.
-
I think the only plane we have in AH that is actually modelled with MW50 is the Ta152, Pyro said in a Ta152 thread it is Mw50 and it can also quite clearly be seen on the extra performance gained when you look at the AH charts. However, as it IS modelled in the Ta152, the Ta152 should have 10 minutes WEP and 5 minutes Cool down time HiTech, there is quite much eveidence of the MW50 being used like this, pilot reports aswell as other reports. Any way you can modell it like that?
As for the other planes we have, I don't think they are modelled with MW50. MW50 gave much better performance then just normal WEP and can be seen on the Charts. The Dora we have is most likely the 1900 HP version and not the MW50 equiped 2,200 hp.
I don't think the 1900 HP version used MW50.
-
Originally posted by Bombjack
Since the G10 and D9 are completely different aircraft, there is no reason I can see to suppose that their WEP systems should be modelled identically. HT has said that the modelling is a necessarily compromised abstraction of reality, and this kind of analysis is therefore rather futile.
er couldnt the same be said for :
P51d
P47s
P38s
spitfires
la7/la5s
Niks/zeros
all i believe 5 mins wep 10 mins cooling?, all with COMPLETELY different engines and cooling systems
among others! but i havent tested all but then it isnt really down to me to test every plane in the game is it?
seems to me bombjack you know nothing about this system either.You merely have taken offence to this post because it questions an aircraft you associate with Luftwaffe types.You havent read what ive posted or tried to grasp the reason behind the question.You have just 'stuck your oar in' and tried to have a bash at me.
as to the 'necessary compromise of reality' and it being futile you are completely wrong.The point here is this:
either the LW Mw50 has been modeled into the equation fairly or it hasnt.
If you read back and visit the site ive posted it says the La7s could run on wep for only 30 seconds
Someone else said the pilots handbook on p47s and p51s says it could run from 3 to 5 minutes on wep
German litrature says 2 to 20 minutes with MW50 (book quoted in this thread)and 10 minutes on with GM1 nitrous and 5 minutes cooling before it can be used again fro 10 minutes up to a total of 43(from memory) minutes using this on off method.
if all engines in emergencies could be run ntil they blew surely those with water methanol or liquid cooling would run longer if run indefinately at high explosive tempretures? the methoanol whilst it lasts would help protect the engines right?
so in a game where we have to decide on some form of limit surely all should run up to that limit and cool at basically the same rate?(air cooled should be less efficient of course and if we can find information on the efficiency differences between liquid cooled systems then by all means factor that in) only those with extra systems(water methanol/nitrous) should gain extra bonuses ie slightly longer wep.the cooling aspect is what is the most confusing part here.Seems to me the limit mentioned in these books is the one recommended because further use causes damage/wear and tear maybe seizing?.If we have to impose a limit for the games sake surely the damage/wear/seizing aspect would make more sense.
now you tell me now , IF these things are TRUE this would not affect combat in WW2?
I CANNOT confirm this information is true that appears in the many books you can read.and i suspect HTC had the same problem.
Thus being unable to confirm the running tempretures or actual time the MW50 etc really had?, having no charts etc ? maybe HTC were right to use the system we have BUT are we never to question it? is it to be ignored forever more until some data does turn up? we must ignore all the quotes from actual WW2 pilots and some manuals and handbooks in favour of HTCs best guesstimate?
i hope you too can now understand finally why this was asked.
I want to fly these planes in combat exactly as they were if it is at all possible.Thats the whole appeal of this sim for me personally, how about you?.
like i said before if it turns out thats the way it has to be because thats the way HTC wants it then ok fair enough i'll play it for how it is, but i'll no longer feel it it a totally accurate representation.Im sorry but i prefer to believe what was on the manuals over the best guess a person can make some 60 years later.I should not be insulted for saying this either.I think they wrote those things in their documents for a reason and they were probably wep times recommended to avoid engine damage.
seems to me all countries made pretty good engines so for the sake of a game we can assume they all have pretty much the same lifespan if used within 'recomended' limits otherwise why did they bother recomending limited times for wep use at all? I think they probably ran tests with wep on full and found the engines seized or became damaged and lost power or something and forced them to recommend only certain durations in order to keep the thing flying longer and keep pilots alive.If we now have the arguement that if a pilot really wanted to he could run on wep for an indefinate period then it applies to every aircraft and therefore doesnt need to be factored in at all.I think if its to be fair the only thing that should affect the length of wep is the 'aids' that boost the engines and allow longer use of wep without considerable damage and their limit on fuel/specialised fuels(ie nitrous) capacity.I dont see how anything else could be a factor.Longevity of an engine used within its limits is pretty much the same.If you dont think so explain why we still have so many working original warbirds today some 60 years later?.And as for overuse in emergencies meaning 'some' could wep indefinately 'so it can be argued a select few aircraft could run almost indefinately' then this must also apply to all engines pretty much.If you dont agree on that, what information would you base the arguement on? books that mention their reliability? or the ol' pilots hanbooks? you see? if theres charts then FINE fair enough but it appears there isnt.
something made HTC decide these times and all thats asked is what it was.
-
!!
Originally posted by Wilbus
As for the other planes we have, I don't think they are modelled with MW50. MW50 gave much better performance then just normal WEP and can be seen on the Charts. The Dora we have is most likely the 1900 HP version and not the MW50 equiped 2,200 hp.
I don't think the 1900 HP version used MW50.
now this is confusing, so why do LW planes have 10 minutes rather than 5 minutes wilbuz? did they have normal wep that was able to be run for 2x the length of other WW2 aircraft?
if not to 'factor in mw50' why do we have 10 minutes?
and also if it isnt 'factored into the model' WHY no mw50 on the dora / 109g10 /190a8 etc? its pretty clear they had them given that RAF tests state most of those captured examples had it?
this gets more even more confusing !!:confused: !!
-
check my post on the merlin eng , it used water/methenol injection also, ......soooo
44MAG
-
Originally posted by john9001
check my post on the merlin eng , it used water/methenol injection also, ......soooo
44MAG
well then thats another one to question. id check how much methanol it carried and see if it is the engine modeled in AH.
If it turns out it had quite a bit that might justify a similar amount to Lw planes maybe there is a basis to ask for an extended wep capability.
Unfortunately as i still dont really know why the times are set how they are,( most of my ideas on why they gave LW extra wep seem to be wrong if wilbuz is correct about no mw50 being modeled).I have to say it, i just dont get it.the basis for HTC's decision on the times they did choose may not have anything to do with water methanol at all it seems.I can understand that in real life a pilot could run an engine until it just blew which could make an arguement for unlimited wep but if this was the case for ALL aircraft why do we have differing times? doesnt make sense at all.
basically you got me john! I had no idea why its like it is and i stilll dont :)
btw could you do the tests for spits in AH?
so far just these ive retested properly offline to make sure i got it right:
190a5 10 mins 20 mins
190d9 10 mins 20 mins
p51d 5 mins 10 mins
hurri C 5 mins 15 mins
109g10 10 mins 10 mins
109g2 10 mins 10 mins
the spit with merlin 61, im guessing, is 5 mins wep on 10 mins cool as ive flown them a bit and thats what ive assumed but if like you say, it had methanol, who knows maybe it is already modeled with longer wep by HTC. I guess I will end up having to test all of them but id hoped others would do it too to save me the trouble (like them doing italian and japanese and russian planes etc.) its dull and time consuming though.
-
Hazed,
I fear it may be pointless trying to debate this subject with you, since you clearly reached your conclusions immediately and are now merely trying to work back to the proof.
I make no claims of special knowledge in this area, but I would suggest that, if anyone intends to continue this argument (although I would advise against it, since HT's intervention has made it moot), they first check that they understand the following related issues:
1) What is water/methanol-water injection? How exactly does it boost power, and how does that differ from other types of emergency power?
2) What was the purpose of the posted limit times on emergency power usage in pilot's notes? To what extent were they literal indicators of performance?
I doubt that you will take this as anything other than another personal attack, since you clearly see bias in anything I write.
John9001,
As far as I know, water-injection for Merlins was experimented with but not used during wartime. Certainly the planes currently in AH did not have it. N2O (GM-1 as the germans called it) was used operationally by Mosquitos (but not the FBVI afaik).
-
Folks you all are way way to far going into speculations.
You know i am the 1st to stand up and argue pro-LW and in the past i have supported my arguments most times with charts etc.
But in regard to cooling, there are no hard facts (OK i have posted the temperatures for a JUMO213, so HT could model a correct gauge, but hey, nowhere in the handbook the cooling times were mentioned) about engine cooling.
All WEP times we have are "cleared" WEP times. This means an institution (for LW the Rechlin Test Center) has test i.e. the MW50 injection on the D9 an cleared it for 10mins use at a time, cause test revealed that the engine would normaly survive that without damage.
But in the fight, noone actually had a limited WEP time, the limit was what the engine could take.
There are multiple stories from both sides, were a pilot in emergency ran the engine on WEP for much longer.
And cooling down is a similar thing, as most aircraft have different radiator flaps settings (at least FW190 has), this means the pilot could influence the cool down rate by ajusting the rad-flaps manually.
Wide open rad-flaps would cool the coolant much faster than close one.
But wide open rad-flaps would also bring more drag an cost a few mphs speed.
And as HT didn't model a complete engine physics model, he had to make gameplay consessions.
I can ensure that i am pretty pissed that this leads to an drawback for the D9 (from my viewpoint), as the WEP system the D9 had was one of its strength, that made it the exellent plane it was.
-
Good points Naudet. As an illustration of how tremendously complex this issue is, I am once more indebted to Mike Williams' site (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html) which contains this test report (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html) .
The test was conducted when the Merlin 45 in the Spitfire MkV was rerated from +12lb boost for emergency power to +16lb boost. This in itself raises one point: engines could be rated conservatively for emergency power when first introduced, and later rerated when they showed themselves capable of enduring greater stresses (and/or as in this case, the need was pressing).
You can see from the report that the proposed rated limit on the new wep was 3 minutes, this is what would appear in pilot's manuals. However the test itself ignored these limits, using full wep for over 10 minutes without exceeding normal operating temperatures for the northern european summer climate it was conducted in. It is unexplored whether any overheating at all would have occurred at the old rating of +12lb, but it seems doubtful.
So, from this single test report, we see that:
1) Engines could be conservatively rated initially then see rerating.
2) The climate and time of year of the flight were highly significant.
3) Pilot's manual ratings could have little relevance to the engine's actual capability on any one flight - they had more significance as an attempt to reduce maintenance requirements.
Now see the impossibility of finding this level of detail for every aircraft in the game, and consider HTC's problem in WEP modelling.
Perhaps all aircraft should have the same WEP limits, to remove this as a source of controversy?
-
Hi Hazed,
Quoting "Die deutsche Luftfahrt - Flugmotoren und Strahltriebwerke" by Kyrill von Gersdorff, Kurt Grasmann and Helmut Schubert (ISBN 3-7637-6107-1), p. 81:
"The Jumo 213A-1 had a normal take-off power of 1285 kW (1750 PS). By applying a conversion kit an emergency power of 1395 kW (1900 PS) could be generated by increased boost at altitudes of up to 5000 m. Another increase of power to 1540 kW (2100 PS) was possbible by the installation of a 'special substance system' for methanol-water injection (MW-50). The associated boost increase was +0.28 bar, the time of application was limited ot 10 minutes, then 5 minutes at normal power had to follow. The MW tank of the Fw 190D-9 had 115 L content and sufficed for 40 minutes of operation using 'special emergency power'."
(Original is German, my translation.)
In WW2, von Gersdorff was an engine specialist at the RLM. Grasmann was conducting engine tests at Rechlin. Karl Prestel worked at BMW and was involved in the development of the Kommandogerät and the BMW jet engines. After WW2, they all continued careers in the aero engine industry. (Schubert, who pursued a similar career, was born in 1935 and does not have the same direct experience with WW2 engines as the others.)
In short, the authors are top experts :-)
So, unless the Aces High Fw 190D-9 doesn't have MW50 at all, it certainly should cool down in half the time required to heat up, not vice-versa.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
bombjack im sorry but im getting tired of trying to explain to you what im asking.
I know what you are saying:
engines were rated at one level at one time and a higher level at other times right?
well my point would be this:
couldnt that be said for any WW2 engine?(doesnt this make it a pretty mute point?)
we have models in this game based on a certain performance chart for climb,turn,wep power etc right? so in those charts there is 'usually' a listing of the manifold pressure or boost level used during those tests.why arent these levels used as a basis for the levels in the game?? if they are then whats the point in pointing out what you are saying?
you've shown what i would have said is fairly good evidence that the spitfireIX merlin61 was run at 16 boost and wep at 18 for 3 minutes max. It would seem that is the model used in AH as ive just been to test it.Heres result:
SPITFIRE IX:
normal running boost full speed at sea level 16 boost
WEP power 18 boost
WEP duration 5 minutes
COOLING back to normal tempreture 15 minutes.
so we have revised list:
190d9 10 mins wep 20 mins cooling
109g2 10 mins wep 10 mins cooling
109g10 10 mins wep 10 mins cooling
HurIIC 5 mins wep 15 mins cooling
SpitIX 5 mins wep 15 mins cooling
P51d 5 mins wep 10 mins cooling
my theory was 190s and 109s got 10 mins because of the exceptional amount of fuel for mw50/gm1 they carried.190s taking longer to cool because they used to have heating trouble.I had assumed all others were 5 mins wep with 10 mins cooling (unless older aircooled types) but i was wrong.After the tests I merely asked so that i could understand exactly why they were the way they were.I knew the dora was liquid cooled inline and had assumed it would have cooled better than the aircooled radials of the 190A/F models.seems HTC doesnt.
now i guess the answer could be the gauges on the 190d9,spitfireIX,Hurricane etc are all reading wrong? perhaps HT could.. "change the gauge to read higher on the so it looks like it's cooling the same rate as the p51. But in the end all that would change is the lable on the dash board." but like ive said i cant understand quite what this means. maybe you do bombjack? Seems to me if they are just displaying wrong it still means it is making flying them and using the wep a rather awkward prostect doesnt it? Im sitting there waiting for it to cool when it already has? if they read right then my timings are correct.
anyway this is like beating my head against a brick wall and ive had enough of it.
this is the last time ill be in here to ask:
'why is cooling times set up in AH the way they are? on what basis were the times decided?'
thats it
-
Hazed,
First let me apologize if I repeat something already said.
Now, if you look at my first post in this thread you will see, I light of what HT has told us, that though I was posting tongue in cheek, I was pretty close to the answer to your question.
Each plane that has wep in the game has a specific amount of time that the wep will run per flight. I am assuming that the time limit is based on amount of anti-detonate carried or on some maintence schedule requirement devised by HTC.
No matter how you work the throttle, the total duration of wep per flight is going to be the same.
The engine cools at whatever rate is necessary to comply with limiting the wep to that specific amount of time.
It is not an issue of relative cooling performances between the aircraft.
....of course I could be entirely wrong, but this is the impression I get from HT's posts.
F.
-
Furious,
I agree that the WEP modelling in AH is clearly time-based. The only datapoints we have are duration (of continuous WEP) and delay (before engine cools to normal). Since these all hit fairly broad figures (5, 10, 15 minutes) it is obvious that these were the chosen datapoints, and that WepHeatPerSec and WepCoolPerSec (see HT's code, above) were chosen to match up with them.
Hazed,
I apologise if I have unintentionally frustrated you, or wound you up. I agree that the wep/cooling times seem a little arbitrary, but I think HT has already answered your question with "because it seemed reasonable". Not altogether satisfactory perhaps, but it is nonetheless an answer.
If we wanted now to go further and argue that one particular aircraft is being disadvantaged over others by the modelling as it stands (as it appeared, earlier, you wished to), that is when all the complexity and uncertainty I talked about before comes into effect. It is, in my view, very near impossible to find out where every aircraft stands in relation to every other in this respect. HTC seem basically to have taken an educated guess, and that is IMHO the best anyone can do.
That is the situation as I see it: a 'best guess' is all that's achievable. We can present all the data we can find and if HTC did not have it previously, maybe they will think a slight rejig is in order.
The other points you raised are more technical, and I'll add what I can:
engines were rated at one level at one time and a higher level at other times right?
well my point would be this:
couldnt that be said for any WW2 engine?(doesnt this make it a pretty mute point?)
That certain engines are known to have been rerated over their lifetime in no way implies that all engines were. This point was meant to illustrate the great uncertainty with using pilot's manual ratings as a basis for simulation, since such ratings address many competing concerns.
my theory was 190s and 109s got 10 mins because of the exceptional amount of fuel for mw50/gm1 they carried
I think that these aircraft have a higher duration limit directly because of their pilot's manual ratings. As I showed above this is a poor referent, but HTC may have found it compelling enough to put it in, perhaps simply for the purposes of making a distinction between types.
I do not intend to go into how water-injection or N2O works here, but I will say I think you have a false impression of how the various types of 'emergency power' relate to one another.
"change the gauge to read higher on the so it looks like it's cooling the same rate as the p51. But in the end all that would change is the lable on the dash board." but like ive said i cant understand quite what this means. maybe you do bombjack?[
No, I admit this one kind of had me stumped, too :)
-
bombjack my appologies for becoming a little defensive.force of habit im afraid.
as to what you summed up yes thats basically it.
but without HT defineing for us how they made their guesstimates we will never be in the position to question how the wep system works.
When i said earlier that there are certain aspects of AH that appear biased in favour/against certain aicraft i have to say this is one such area where i feel the setup in AH fares unfavourably toward the dora.
Of course i wasnt aware and i still dont know if its true that the mw50 hasnt been factored in or indeed modeled at all.
seems to me in every book ive read about the 190s the mw50 is mentioned again and again by the pilots who emote great praise for it.If we seem to be flying a game without it im severely dissapointed.
Like i said i was under the assumption that HTC had agreed the LW planes had great engine systems and had added 5 mins of wep as a compromise.And i do mean compromise as for all intents and purposes it would appear they had far more than a mere 5 minutes extra.But I was more than happy with it because i could appreciate their problem concerning modelling it.When i realised it takes twice as long to cool and not just a touch longer I was struck by the thought that 5 mins wep and 10 mins cooling or 10 mins wep and 20 mins cooling amounted to the same thing! I suddenly thought well where is the bonus in it? wheres the attempt to model the quite substantial amounts of (mw50/gm1) fuels they carried?
even worse as furious points out if you look at the total time of flight as the guide the dora fares even worse against the p51d:
MA flight time for aircraft with 100% fuel +DT:
190d9 = 51 minutes
P51D = 85 minutes
which means during a complete flight you can use wep/boost for a total of 20mins whereas the p51 gets to use its wep for nearly 30 minutes. it is a considerable advantage if you wish to stay at high alts for long periods which many do in AH.
the same thing could be said for the poor old spit9 pilot who fares even worse.with a full fuel load (56mins)a spitfire pilot can use his wep close to 3 times which works out 15mins total boost time in any one flight.(109g10 gets 20 mins wep total<43mins total flight time>). BTW im not sure how the extra consumption of fuel whilst wepping would affect these calculated times.
Whatever way its been worked out, and i might be wrong here, and if i am im sorry but it seems to favour the P51 or the planes with nice fuel loads which i dont really understand the reason behind it.If it was worked out that each aircaft had a proportionate amount to its total flight time i guess it could be argued it penalises the aircraft with greater endurance but as it stands it seems if you want to rule the high alts the p51 is the aircraft to use.
But without knowing the reasons its all conjecture i guess and i may as well give up but like i said to HT he should be aware certain areas of AH 'appear' to be biased.I could be totally wrong and falselt thinking this and i can honestly say id like HTC to show me ive got the total 'wrong end of the stick' :) but as they dont seem to want to give any explanation other than 'it was reasonable' im afraid ill make up my own mind on it.
Im going to stop posting in this thread now as it makes me more annoyed each time i read over it :) . its just not worth the time is it?
Thanks mandoble,wilbuz,naudet,ho hun,furious,john and bombjack for adding info etc and not turning this thread into the usual namecalling threads which bore me to death ;)
oh and HT , thanks for coming in here and trying to answer me but im afraid i didnt grasp all of what you meant.
-
the P51 was designed as a high alt long range A/C.
what was the fw190 d9 designed for?
-
High Alt Medium Range fighter,a stop gap for the Ta 152.
-
Hi Hazed,
>but without HT defineing for us how they made their guesstimates we will never be in the position to question how the wep system works.
I think HTC's definition of WEP times is meant to match the standard operation procedures from the manuals.
5 min of WEP is a typical value for "dry" WEP, i. e. without any injection system. You can find this value in the USAAF's P-51D manual, for example.
10 min is a typical value for "wet" WEP (called "special emergency power" in German terminology), i. e. using methanol-water or nitrous oxide injection. This is the value for the German Jumo 213A engine, for example.
However, some engines are rated differently. The FM-2 with water injection for example is rated for only 5 min of WEP. The Ta 152H-0 on the other hand is rated for a full 30 min of WEP despite not having any injection system. As an extreme example, the La-5 could only employ WEP at low altitudes and for 3 min due to problems with the cooling system.
HTC's cool-down times appear more or less random to me. The lion's share of the heat generated in the engine leaves through the exhaust, not through the cooling system, and the main benefit of MW50 is to increase this kind of heat transfer. (In fact, in German the MW50 system is often referred to as "internal cooling").
In short, an engine running under MW50 does not get any hotter than an engine running at dry WEP. After all, WEP is limited by the internal temperature of the engine.
In other words, while the WEP burst duration can vary considerably, it's reasonable to assume as a first approximation that all engines come back to normal operating temperatures in the same (short) period of time.
The Fw 190D-9 is the only aircraft for which I found a precise value given. It's 5 min and not 20 min like in Aces High.
In fact, for the simplistic way Aces High models cooling, I'd consider it a good idea to set the cool-down time for all aircraft to an equal 5 min.
The data you posted doesn't make too much sense:
>190d9 10 mins wep 20 mins cooling
Should be 10 min WEP, 5 min cooling according to hard data.
>109g2 10 mins wep 10 mins cooling
The Me 109G-2 didn't have MW50, so it should be 5 min WEP.
>109g10 10 mins wep 10 mins cooling
The Me 109G-10 had MW50, but why does it cool quicker than the Fw 190D-9? It shoudl be 10 min WEP, 5 min cooling too.
>P51d 5 mins wep 10 mins cooling
5 min WEP is in accordance with the USAAF manual.
>HurIIC 5 mins wep 15 mins cooling
>SpitIX 5 mins wep 15 mins cooling
Two more Merlin-engined aircraft, but they take 50% longer to cool down than the P-51D. I have no idea why. (And with a 1:3 ratio, they're hit even harder by the slow cool-down than the Fw 190D-9!)
5 min cooling for every aircraft and the WEP duration from the manual would appear as a consistent and realistic way to employ the current WEP timing system. The Fw 190D-9 is the first to catch the eye due to the very long cooling time, but in fact most other aircraft would benefit from an improvement as well.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
what was the fw190 d9 designed for?
High altitude medium range P51 killer :D
-
HoHun, Good post.
HiTech
-
...
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hazed,
>but without HT defineing for us how they made their guesstimates we will never be in the position to question how the wep system works.
I think HTC's definition of WEP times is meant to match the standard operation procedures from the manuals.
5 min of WEP is a typical value for "dry" WEP, i. e. without any injection system. You can find this value in the USAAF's P-51D manual, for example.
10 min is a typical value for "wet" WEP (called "special emergency power" in German terminology), i. e. using methanol-water or nitrous oxide injection. This is the value for the German Jumo 213A engine, for example.
However, some engines are rated differently. The FM-2 with water injection for example is rated for only 5 min of WEP. The Ta 152H-0 on the other hand is rated for a full 30 min of WEP despite not having any injection system. As an extreme example, the La-5 could only employ WEP at low altitudes and for 3 min due to problems with the cooling system.
HTC's cool-down times appear more or less random to me. The lion's share of the heat generated in the engine leaves through the exhaust, not through the cooling system, and the main benefit of MW50 is to increase this kind of heat transfer. (In fact, in German the MW50 system is often referred to as "internal cooling").
In short, an engine running under MW50 does not get any hotter than an engine running at dry WEP. After all, WEP is limited by the internal temperature of the engine.
In other words, while the WEP burst duration can vary considerably, it's reasonable to assume as a first approximation that all engines come back to normal operating temperatures in the same (short) period of time.
The Fw 190D-9 is the only aircraft for which I found a precise value given. It's 5 min and not 20 min like in Aces High.
In fact, for the simplistic way Aces High models cooling, I'd consider it a good idea to set the cool-down time for all aircraft to an equal 5 min.
The data you posted doesn't make too much sense:
>190d9 10 mins wep 20 mins cooling
Should be 10 min WEP, 5 min cooling according to hard data.
>109g2 10 mins wep 10 mins cooling
The Me 109G-2 didn't have MW50, so it should be 5 min WEP.
>109g10 10 mins wep 10 mins cooling
The Me 109G-10 had MW50, but why does it cool quicker than the Fw 190D-9? It shoudl be 10 min WEP, 5 min cooling too.
>P51d 5 mins wep 10 mins cooling
5 min WEP is in accordance with the USAAF manual.
>HurIIC 5 mins wep 15 mins cooling
>SpitIX 5 mins wep 15 mins cooling
Two more Merlin-engined aircraft, but they take 50% longer to cool down than the P-51D. I have no idea why. (And with a 1:3 ratio, they're hit even harder by the slow cool-down than the Fw 190D-9!)
5 min cooling for every aircraft and the WEP duration from the manual would appear as a consistent and realistic way to employ the current WEP timing system. The Fw 190D-9 is the first to catch the eye due to the very long cooling time, but in fact most other aircraft would benefit from an improvement as well.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
well this is precisely my thinking also ho hun, the way the cooling times are in AH makes little sense.the wep set to the same as the manuals is what i was hoping it was but I dont have access to manuals for all aircraft so i couldnt check.I had to assume it was a figure arrived at that took into account all the different cooling and wep aids on all the aircraft that made HT arrive at the 5/10 mins .
The only thing id add about cooling is maybe it would be acceptable to have air cooling taking a touch longer than liquid but as you said if its mainly based on exhaust cooling then EQUAL cooling times would be acceptablle but I said I cant work out why they are all so different.
mate thanks for adding that.
-
Originally posted by hitech
HoHun, Good post.
HiTech
wtf? hitech,hes agreed the cooling times seem wrong and you say good post but blast me for saying the same thing?
my first post in this thread asked this! and i quote:
'i did 2 simple tests.First i took off in the 190d9 and applied wep.timed it, then when it overheated i timed how long it took before it was back to normal tempreture.the reason i did this is because i always find it seems to take forever for 190s to cool down. well i got 10 minutes of wep and then it took 18 minutes to cool again. I then did the same for the P51D as it is a contemporary and got 5 minutes of wep and it took 9 minutes to cool down. what is a little strange is that the tempreture for an overheat was the same. so I was confused.'
and later I clearly stated i DIDNT want wep times increased or decreased JUST wanted to know why the cooling was different!??!?! im absolutely dumbfounded by your reply here HT
I give up with this place!!
-
Just what was that big scoop that is the mainstay of the "stang", gesigned for. If remember correctly it had a dual funtion besides looks.
Krotki, United we stand
3o8th Polish Squadron