Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-15-2011, 12:39 PM
ZaltysZ's Avatar
ZaltysZ ZaltysZ is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lithuania
Posts: 426
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos View Post
PS. or can I do that without 6DOF as well?
If I recall correctly: middle mouse button + right mouse button gives you additional 2 DOF. Move head to right and leave it there. Should work with panning, but I am not sure about snap views.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-15-2011, 04:12 PM
TomcatViP TomcatViP is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,323
Default

ViP

1. I am referring to the XX as it top off the III perf. . The XX is a well known referenced eng with plenty of raw data available and introduced latter in the war as an improved eng. Draw your own conclusion but I doubt pilot will have been happy to see their eng changed for the "less powerful" XX when they were asked to fly across the channel to bring the fight to the enmy.

So as you say that "very few XX took part in BoB" you are right on what I am pointing out

2. we hve started from a 6.5lb with an emergency boost of 12lb on a 87 oct and we were discussing abt a 100oct at 12lb vs what I think is a Merlin 100oct topped a 9 (my Merlin argumentation based on the RR sources you know pretty well and based on Qualorific assumption (the amount of heat generated).
Now if I read you well we shld hve a 17lb 100oct ? Humm will I hev to fear reading in the upcoming weeks about the Jet eng being available during BoB (see spitperf.com and blablabla) ?

3. You are mixing your argumentation with a lot of data that many young reader can't understand and that hve no meaning here. Just let make it clears MS gear refer to the charger's impeler de-multiplication (the speed at witch it turn related to the main crankshaft) that had to be kept bellow a certain speed for the efficiency of the overall boosting process. There is no link with the SHAP but only with the fighter speed and the alt of this perf. giving that the supercharger was designed for fighters on the base of procurement policy (by the way I read that the twin speed supercharger was patented by Farman and hev a hard time figuring in witch Farman's plane he wanted this installed ). Pls don't smoke the debate. Logic is at the reach of everyone (pls make the V hand sign reading this).

4.you alrdy stated about installed eng power that match only what I have here as an eng not fitted with a supercharger (the 1.3k+HP data) - maybe shld you look at your references.

By the way ~S! and thx to forgive me for my bad English grammar & spelling


@MC
Yeah I am sure am taking the risk being half read with only our poor 109 and hurri being stuck with what I feel looks like more realistic flight-model.

However I am sure that 1c won't hve so heavily worked the FM regarding Il2 if they didn't pay much interest in this. Hence I am full of expectation

Nice too read you here. lking frwd to see you in CoD's skies

Last edited by TomcatViP; 06-15-2011 at 04:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-15-2011, 06:03 PM
Seadog Seadog is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post

2. we hve started from a 6.5lb with an emergency boost of 12lb on a 87 oct and we were discussing abt a 100oct at 12lb vs what I think is a Merlin 100oct topped a 9 (my Merlin argumentation based on the RR sources you know pretty well and based on Qualorific assumption (the amount of heat generated).
Now if I read you well we shld hve a 17lb 100oct ? Humm will I hev to fear reading in the upcoming weeks about the Jet eng being available during BoB (see spitperf.com and blablabla) ?
)
The Merlin XX was given official approval to use 12lb boost for combat in MS gear in Nov 1940, but the engine was cleared for 12lb boost/3000rpm for TO right from the beginning, and so was available to any pilot who cared to use it during combat.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...s-10june40.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...xx-15nov40.jpg

Approval for 14 and then 16lb boost was added later, along with the appropriate boost override modifications.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-15-2011, 06:21 PM
TomcatViP TomcatViP is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,323
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seadog View Post
The Merlin XX was given official approval to use 12lb boost for combat in MS gear in Nov 1940, but the engine was cleared for 12lb boost/3000rpm for TO right from the beginning, and so was available to any pilot who cared to use it during combat.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...s-10june40.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...xx-15nov40.jpg

Approval for 14 and then 16lb boost was added later, along with the appropriate boost override modifications.
T.O low speed no ram effect + Optimum Air flow in term of Mass of air to cool the supercharger (see above what two speed use is abt)

@VO101_Tom : Nice found but I am sry this argument is not valid. Any Army makes the circulation of Info a strategical issue : you are flying in a fighter -> you get all the info cleared for your security level regarding that type of fighter.

It does not mean that they all hve used the famous 100oct

But As I hve alry said : let's give them their Barracuda engines that years of stupid mods can get a justification (and spare my own free time)

@Kurf : this is a neat explanation with proof reasoning. I hve read it the first time you put it on the forum and still wait for any argumentation since

Last edited by TomcatViP; 06-15-2011 at 06:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-15-2011, 06:54 PM
VO101_Tom's Avatar
VO101_Tom VO101_Tom is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
@VO101_Tom : Nice found but I am sry this argument is not valid. Any Army makes the circulation of Info a strategical issue : you are flying in a fighter -> you get all the info cleared for your security level regarding that type of fighter.

It does not mean that they all hve used the famous 100oct

But As I hve alry said : let's give them their Barracuda engines that years of stupid mods can get a justification (and spare my own free time)
If was used continuously the 12lbs boost, and the engine was ruined continuously, it does not interest, if COD makes the same one.
If I misunderstood it, then excuse me, but the object of the debate in the other topic, that the 12 lbs were useful without the damaging of engine - from what it follows, that let COD not take it into consideration...
__________________
| AFBs of CloD 2[/URL] |www.pumaszallas.hu

i7 7700K 4.8GHz, 32GB Ram 3GHz, MSI GTX 1070 8GB, 27' 1920x1080, W10/64, TrackIR 4Pro, G940
Cliffs of Dover Bugtracker site: share and vote issues here
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-15-2011, 07:24 PM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Buzzsaw, apart from your usual tirades and various lies about my person,

A, can you produce even a single primary document saying all of Fighter Command using 100 octane fuel and 100 octane fuel only?
B, can you explain, that if FC would use only 100 octane fuel, why do 87 octane issues suddenly rise at the moment Fighter Command is flying more operational sorties?

Should you be able to do so, I may be able to take you seriously.
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org

Last edited by Kurfürst; 06-15-2011 at 07:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-15-2011, 07:42 PM
Seadog Seadog is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
B, can you explain, that if FC would use only 100 octane fuel, why do 87 octane issues suddenly rise at the moment Fighter Command is flying more operational sorties?
Because 87 octane is being used by Coastal Command, Bomber Command, RN, OTU and flight training units, all of whom will increase their activities during periods of good weather, which was when the Luftwaffe also increased it's activity over Britain.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-16-2011, 02:35 PM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
Buzzsaw, apart from your usual tirades and various lies about my person,

A, can you produce even a single primary document saying all of Fighter Command using 100 octane fuel and 100 octane fuel only?
B, can you explain, that if FC would use only 100 octane fuel, why do 87 octane issues suddenly rise at the moment Fighter Command is flying more operational sorties?

Should you be able to do so, I may be able to take you seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzsaw

....

I guess nobody here can take you seriously, then.
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-09-2011, 07:28 PM
Talisman Talisman is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 74
Default

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraf...n#cite_note-27

The above is a link to a source that has something to say under the heading of 100 octane fuel. Below is an extract. Is this seen as a reliable source?

A meeting was held on 16 March 1939 to consider the question of when the 100 octane fuel should be introduced to general use for all RAF aircraft, and what squadrons, number and type, were to be supplied. The decision taken was that there would be an initial delivery to 16 fighter and two twin-engined bomber squadrons by September 1940.[27] However, this was based on a pre-war assumption that US supplies would be denied to Britain in wartime, which would limit the numbers of front-line units able to use the fuel. On the outbreak of war this problem disappeared; production of the new fuel in the US, and in other parts of the world, increased more quickly than expected with the adoption of new refining techniques. As a result 100 octane fuel was able to be issued to all front-line Fighter Command aircraft from early 1940.[28] [nb 1]

Happy landings,

Talisman
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-15-2011, 07:26 PM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seadog View Post
The Merlin XX was given official approval to use 12lb boost for combat in MS gear in Nov 1940, but the engine was cleared for 12lb boost/3000rpm for TO right from the beginning, and so was available to any pilot who cared to use it during combat.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...s-10june40.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...xx-15nov40.jpg

Approval for 14 and then 16lb boost was added later, along with the appropriate boost override modifications.
GP! The bottomline though, the initial combat rating was clearly +9 (until november).
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.