Don't make performances secret this time

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by Furio

Originally posted by PE_thi



In my opinion, your calculation of drag should be revised a little, at least taking in account the drag produced by engine cooling, which is significant for piston engines. If really an I16 required 530 hp to just overcome its own parasite drag at 200 km/h, it would have been an airbrake, not an airplane, and I think it would have been incapable to reach 463 km/h top speed with the remaining 400 hp.
Anyway, I think we have bored enough everyone with math, so I stop here and left you the last word.
We agree, I think, on the most important thing: all planes are more or less over modelled in game. But I see the solution in a general downgrading of speed and climb rates, not in the contrary. All this said, IL2 remains by far the best sim around, and I’m sure SOW will be the best for years to come. And people will continue to complain asking for more performance for their favourite plane.


As for the Airacobra, in my opinion the real problem was not in performances at altitude. For what I know, air combat in the Pacific took place at altitudes generally comparable to Eastern Front: low to medium. American pilots were certainly as good as Russian ones, and Germans as good as Japanese. So, where it was the difference? In tactics, I think. Russians found the best tactics for a basically good machine. Accordingly to my sources, the P39 was at least 46 km/h slower than an FW190.

Well you really want precision We would then really be very boring, I suspect
Okay, taking the propeller efficiency of about 0.8, our I16 has about 750 HP left, minus 400; 350 are lost on the airframe, rest on the propeller )) Is it OK now?
The climb power calculation is quite correct; it s elementary physics. And I said parasite + induced drag

Air-sea battles in the Pacific, like everywhere else, did take part at low altitudes. Being no naval plane, Aircobra has mostly been used early in the Pacific war on the New Guinea theatre. With it's Owen Stanley range reaching over 4000m this was no low flying business.
The range had to be overflown by both sides in order to attack. The engine power started falling, from 2800 to 3500 m height, depending on the variant, but quite fast. The plane has been used with some success strafing ground targets on Guadalcanal. It was so hated by it's pilots that the cases of the deliberate plane destruction have been mentioned. USAAF pilots at the war begining often lacked experience, that is true. Soviets lighened their Cobras for about 300 kg, throwing out the wing armament and parts of armor. That certainly improved the overweight and undermotorised plane.

[II./JG1_Wilcke]

Regardless of what Oleg does with FM's and performance the same arguments that unfolded with IL-2 will arise with SOW. Its human nature. The complexities of realizing real flight in a sim is just daunting at this point in time. So again it will be an approximation and interpretation of what it was really like and the arguments will unfold as before.

[Al Schlageter]

With it's Owen Stanley range reaching over 4000m this was no low flying business.

I didn't know the Owen Stanley was like a fence with no breaks in it.

The Allison V-1710 was no different than the early versions of the Merlin.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

I didn't know the Owen Stanley was like a fence with no breaks in it.

The Allison V-1710 was no different than the early versions of the Merlin.

It was very different. Allison had only a single stage supercharger, and after reaching critical height as low as 2800-3500 m, the power fell like a stone. Take a look at the climb performance of the P39D-2 here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...7320-chart.jpg

The climb (a bit different from what we have in the game is a direct function of the engine power.

Regarding the New Guinea operations of the P39, and Owen Stanley take a look here:
http://yarchive.net/mil/p39.html

Or take a look at the terrain between Moresby and Buna in Google Maps- look at the satellite pic.

[Al Schlageter]

Agh, so did the early Merlins have a single stage supercharger.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Agh, so did the early Merlins have a single stage supercharger.

Single Stage, single speed supercharger

* Merlin I
* Merlin II
* Merlin 45/46

Single Stage, two speed supercharger

* Merlin X
* Merlin XX

Two Stage, two speed supercharger

* Merlin 61/64
* Merlin 66/67/76/85
* Merlin 100 series
* Merlin 130
* Merlin 140

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Agh, so did the early Merlins have a single stage supercharger.

Later Merlins had it, Allison never got it. And the single speed Merlins were much better at altitude than Allison.

[Furio]

In my opinion, talking of performances alone is somewhat misleading and, at least, incomplete. As different as different sources are, there is a general consensus that Mig3 was inferior than Bf109 at low altitude, but superior at high. In real world, pilots accepted favourable or unfavourable conditions depending on tactical needs. Mig pilots flew low even if their planes were not well suited for it, because they need to do that. On a server, in a game, it’s different. Two simmers flying those planes, at what altitude should meet? The 109 would stay low, the Mig 3 would stay high, and simply they never meet.
Tactical situations and mission objectives are as important as performances and more.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by II./JG1_Wilcke

Regardless of what Oleg does with FM's and performance the same arguments that unfolded with IL-2 will arise with SOW. Its human nature. The complexities of realizing real flight in a sim is just daunting at this point in time. So again it will be an approximation and interpretation of what it was really like and the arguments will unfold as before.

If I see the performances as reasonably accurate, I wouldn't certainly take part in any argument. Differencies of 50% and 100% again - well, regerdless of what Oleg does,)) i won't fly such a sim once more. Giving a russian plane 50% or 100% more climb ... certainly is the human nature ))