[WhistlinggDeath]

Jumo and Papa - Quite busy since I have to host a visiting PI around La Jolla today. Beyond the limited scope at hand, I will kindly ask you this; Whose interpretation is the 'right one' ?

Whenever I pop into these type of forums, I am always greeted by the aviation book nuts. And they will pull up all types of esoteric diagrams and plots trying to argue that their view is the only and 'right' view, about how fast an airframe could fly, or how long, its boost could last, etc... Unlike engineering though (my profession), where the scientific method holds sway, there is no exact repeatable test (in 99.9999% of cases) since we dont have the unrestored warbird to give us the exact answer. In engineering we dont base our answers on what some shear test gave in 1944 gave for a certain sheet of metal, or hold that to be the one true answer. More deeply though, how certain are you that you have the definitive source when German aviation manual A says X and German aviation manual B says Y.

I am no aviation historian but I am always struck by the various accounts which often mutually disagree. One of the most interesting things (at least to me) in speaking with Capt. Holcomb on the phone, was when he indicated that the manuals they were required to know, should sometimes be disregarded, and that is something he learned later only as he got to his operational squadron. Further, I am not qualified to judge (to be honest, as I mentioned before, no developer for IL2 was a real WWII warbird pilot) who has the definitive 'right' flight model for a specific airframe. After looking at your (Papa's and Jumo's) data, I see strong points of overall historical accuracy, but also small differences. And this for me, is the wiggle room we appear to disagree over. While in broad strokes, I support new overheat models for IL2 (anything which adds realism to all the UFO planes, which for the past years I have had to duel is welcome), I do feel it is difficult to apply one or two simple algorithms to dozens of flyable airframes, and I still cannot find any evidence that planes on boost went into overheat in one combat climb.

So, to you Papa and Jumo, can you find direct evidence supporting the reduced flight model of the TA 152 H1 in 4.11 ?

When I do the quick flights on the Crimea map with auto pitch, I get:

Ta 152 H1 in 4.10.1

Top speed at sea level on full WEP at 110% = 570 kph

Ta 152 H1 in 4.11

Top speed " " " = 530 (and you cannot maintain that for long due to the overheat model)

You have resources (or know of) a great many aviation manuals (or so it would seem). Does the historical documentation support 4.11 or 4.10.1 ?