Author Topic: 100 octane? (Read 923 times)

DweebFire · « **on:** May 07, 2007, 07:13:27 PM »

Just wondering what grade the planes use in this game. Do they all use the same grade or do they use the grade that their respective countries mostly used?

If it's the latter, i'd like to take a peek at an F4U-4's performance with 100 octane.

Thanks!

Roscoroo · « **Reply #1 on:** May 07, 2007, 07:32:26 PM »

There Powered by some Brew HiTech makes out in the woods .

DweebFire · « **Reply #2 on:** May 07, 2007, 07:33:21 PM »

xD

Ain't that just dandy.

Blooz · « **Reply #3 on:** May 07, 2007, 07:34:03 PM »

I seem to recall they were talking about high octane fuel last year in the Aircraft and Vehicles forum.

As for performance, I think the aircraft are modelled on published wartime performance records.

DweebFire · « **Reply #4 on:** May 07, 2007, 08:44:26 PM »

I see. Well then methinks the F4U-4 may be a little undermodeled in climb. I looked it up www.spitfireperformance.com and the tests were based on an F4U-4 carrying '115 - 145 octane' whatever that means.

The tests showed that the maximum climb rate @ SL was 4770 fpm and the climb rate charts showed that it practically outclimbed even the Spitfire LF.IX (Merlin 66) at almost all heights, except at uber high altitudes. In fact, the tests show that the 4-hawg is actually passing 4,800 fpm as of 7,800 feet.

The 4-hawg in the game is outclimbed by the Merlin 61 Spitfire IX.

Anyone care to clarify?

Blooz · « **Reply #5 on:** May 07, 2007, 08:52:18 PM »

Well...

I guess they've had it wrong all these years.

Thanks for coming along and pointing out the error.

I'm sure they'll get somebody right on it and straighten this whole mess out.

Is it September yet??

DweebFire · « **Reply #6 on:** May 07, 2007, 09:22:51 PM »

LOL

Well just wondering. I mean... why do the tests seem so different from the Aces High performance?

Blooz · « **Reply #7 on:** May 07, 2007, 10:03:59 PM »

I'll type this as slowly as I can.

Put the words octane, fuel, climb, F4U4, Corsair, etc. into the search engine for the Aircraft and Vehicles forum on this BBS and it'll kick back enough info for you to study for years to come.

DweebFire · « **Reply #8 on:** May 07, 2007, 10:35:46 PM »

lol ok dude, i'm not very smart. you don't have to rub it in xD

Thanks though!

The Fugitive · « **Reply #9 on:** May 08, 2007, 06:23:40 AM »

also there are a bunch of site with the "correct" ratings, so anyone can quote facts to the contrary to pretty much any theory. HTC set his standards, and thats what we play by. If you want to compare aircraft in the game, use only info compiled in the game.

Engine · « **Reply #10 on:** May 08, 2007, 07:02:40 AM »

Don't worry Dweebfire, I thought it was a good post! Ignore these guys, most people around here know that all that matters is what I think.

Xasthur · « **Reply #11 on:** May 08, 2007, 09:47:46 AM »

Looked at the linked site from above.

I know little about engines, but I saw this and wondered.....

If the 109G has:

Quote

Radiator: 2 in wings,

Why does mine seem to lose its radiator (note: only one is listed on the damage chart) when I take a .50 cal round forward of the canopy?

morfiend · « **Reply #12 on:** May 08, 2007, 02:58:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Xasthur

If the 109G has:

Why does mine seem to lose its radiator (note: only one is listed on the damage chart) when I take a .50 cal round forward of the canopy? [/B]

Hmmm,maybe there are hoses and lines that run from rads to engine.
all likely to be damaged by rounds bouncing around the engine compartment.

But, to get back to the thread, there has been some talk about adding 150 octane fuel,in CT, which would allow for higher MP settings and more HP.
Also the variable octane ratings stated were because the different fuels used had slightly different octane levels.
I read that some companies had a problem with the lead additives,this cause no end of problems,engine misfires,burnt plugs,ect.

One other thing I might add is that no 2 planes had the exact same performance.Simply polishing an A/C could add to it's performance as drag has a huge effect.

SgtPappy · « **Reply #13 on:** May 08, 2007, 04:14:34 PM »

I think that those inlets under the wings are not the radiators. The inlet under the nose cowling is the radiator. Just what i think.

Morfiend, you are right about no a/c having the same performance. Not a single plane on the face of this earth (to my limited knowledge) ever had the exact same performance.

Also, about the fuel grades. Fuel grades didn't always create a super boost in performance. i.e. Some planes are only instructed to go above a certain boost level with only high levels of octane. For example the Spitfire LF IX was only allowed to have its pilot boost to + 25 lb. of boost IF he had 150 octane in the tank or better. If the fuel was even just 145, that wouldn't have been allowed, and performance probably wouldn't have changed (i think) in comparison with the performance figures of 100 octane.

Tigger29 · « **Reply #14 on:** May 08, 2007, 08:49:11 PM »

One more thing to keep in mind.. octane in Europe is calculated differently than octane in the U.S..

I don't remember the specifics, but there is a difference...