Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[bongodriver]

apart from temperatures and increasing engine wear

which logic dictates are lesser in terms of level flight.........it has occurred to me that those limitations seem more geared toward RPM as opposed to boost, if 9lbs boost can be used for 30 mins then tchnically it is not limiting, usually a 5 min limit is the true factor, this is still a factorisation that applies today even in jets, TO thrust is a 5 min limit, anything below that is a MCT (max continuous thrust), I susspect the 30 min limit is really a limit in terms of oil cooling for the prop govenor system.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

which logic dictates are lesser in terms of level flight.

Yes. Which is why they let you use 3000 rpm instead of 2850 rpm in level flight with the same boost.

Like I said, the names were somewhat arbitrary, iirc in British manuals 'climb' rating was previously referred to as 'normal' (or the other way around?).

Back on new 100 octane models, the two things I wonder about:

1, What will be the new FM's be based on? There's not a single flight tests for +12 lbs performance. How are climb, turn etc. times are derieved - will they be estimated?

2, How will aircraft with a cooling system designed for ca. 900-1000 HP (+6.25) will cope with thermal loads occuring at 1100-1300 HP (+12 lbs). I would expect that temperature management will be more challanging at higher boost and power. Are there any radiator suitability figures available for the Spit/Hurri I?

[SlipBall]

2850 level seems an very extreme high number to me, but I have not flown that model much to have any real practical knowledge in game...