[IceFire]

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

The link below is for Swiss and Icefire (and others interested). The methodology is simple; I load up 4.11, start the QMB on the Okinawa map, start in the TA 152 H1 at 1000m of height, and fly for exactly one minute (so that the random number generator of 4.11 does not start my engine hot or cold), and then slowly ramp up power from 90% to 110% (all this on auto prop pitch) and put it into a combat dive and then semi-steep climb. I achieve overheat on a brand new fresh engine in ~15 seconds. And I am no where close to the apex of the climb or stalling.

Sorry, WTF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did I just say 15 seconds. Wow !

Load it for yourself:

http://www.mediafire.com/?sy2wk0y2b2d71ca

Now Team A can quote their esoteric figures from historical manual C, while Team B quotes their figures from manual D, but in no manner, shape or form did the TA 152 (or the P51, or the FW or the, etc...) overheat a brand new engine in 15 seconds in a dive.

Now, repeat this simple test for yourselves with the Spits 25lbs. Ya know it is coming right..........

....wait for it.....

NO OVERHEAT in the apex climb portion. NONE. In fact I can do several loops in the Spit 25lbs with nada, nothing happening, while the P51 engine or TA engine is long gone. (they even removed the need in the spits to engage boost, you simply just push your throttle up past 100 percent, ... could it get any simpler for the open pit newbers ?)

And the P51 and late Spits have the same engine right ? The Merlin Rolls Royce thingy, correct? That is why, despite his sound testing in the very first post of this thread, JG27 Papa, did not capture the essential point, I am making: The combat climb portion of the overheat model, which is so essential to BnZ planes (but not to TnB ones) widens an already noticeable gap in favor of the UFO fliers and is by far inaccurately modeled (and incorrectly applied to two planes that use the same engine). Not only that, but the source code changes to the flight models of several FWs, and the TA show several reductions. In particular, the TA 152 has been downgraded, point blank. ...........Who did this patch once again ?

I watched your track and I repeated the same experiment. Basically the same overheat in the Ta152H-1. Mine took longer every time by several seconds but that may be random variability. I repeated the same experiment on some of the colder maps (i.e. Moscow) and it takes quite a bit longer to overheat... I also noticed that the Spitfire's auto radiator opened sooner than the Ta152H. Both overheated but the Spitfire did take longer and was at a much lower speed when it did overheat.

The Spitfire WEP modeling is now correct. It was incorrect before. There is no WEP button in a Spitfire...instead you push the throttle to 100%. After 100% you can engage WEP but it requires breaking a wire on the throttle to push it past that point. The Mustang throttle in IL-2 behaves the same way and always has...the inaccuracy was the Spitfire. It doesn't make it a UFO or a "noob machine". You need to stop talking like this as it reflects poorly on any legitimate points you're bringing up.

You are wrong that the Spitfire (I tested a few different models) does overheat in a climb just like the others. It takes a fair bit longer... that said...repeating the same test in a Ta152H-1 without MW50 boost (so normal WEP) and the Ta152H-1 was able to climb and maneuver without the overheat message much in the same way that the Spitfire did. I did some loops in a Ta152H-1 at 110% (non MW50) and it behaved just like the Spitfire did.

Only when pushing to the maximum and injecting MW50 does it increase the overheat. I also notice that the ATA is quite a bit higher and I wonder if going to 110% WEP in a Spitfire is really equivalent to 110% with MW50 boost. Someone else may know? Certainly on the speed charts the MW50 gives a bigger speed increase from 100% than 110% WEP on a Spitfire or Mustang.