F4u-4 and F8F

[pandacat]

Originally Posted by horseback

I've been flying Corsairs and Hellcats a lot lately, and I should make a few points about the FMs.

First, while the performance is there with full engine power (110% throttle), it often seems a bit sluggish if not downright weak at less than full power. It sometimes seems an all or nothing proposition with these two. I've found that changing supercharger stages appropriately (stage 1 from sea level to around 4500 ft/1500m, stage 2 from 4500 to 17500 ft, and stage 3 above 17500 ft) helps, keeping your cowl gills (radiator flaps) at 30%, and your prop pitch between 90 and 80% when you want to speed up without overheating are big helps. When you're cruising, drop your rpms to about 2250 and your manifold pressure to about 30-35 inches with your radiator at 30% at any altitude (and the higher you get, the better against the Japanese fighters).

Thanks for the tips. I have question on your PP usage. I read WD's writing on PP. He said it's ideal to always keep RPM with in the power band. For corsair, it's between 2700-2600. Within that band, you get highest thrust. If you drop PP down to between 80% to 90%, you will only get 2500 in level flight. With less thrust, how would you be able to go fast?

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by pandacat

Thanks for the tips. I have question on your PP usage. I read WD's writing on PP. He said it's ideal to always keep RPM with in the power band. For corsair, it's between 2700-2600. Within that band, you get highest thrust. If you drop PP down to between 80% to 90%, you will only get 2500 in level flight. With less thrust, how would you be able to go fast?

Not to put words in horseback's mouth... but I would assume he's talking about running the aircraft efficiently. So you can run at 100% pitch/throttle but you'll generate more heat. Either short bursts of top speed and then throttling back or longer sustained periods of almost top speed is faster overall.

[pandacat]

Oh, I see your point. But in terms of pure thrust and acceleration, higher RPM the better, right?

[horseback]

Originally Posted by pandacat

Thanks for the tips. I have question on your PP usage. I read WD's writing on PP. He said it's ideal to always keep RPM with in the power band. For corsair, it's between 2700-2600. Within that band, you get highest thrust. If you drop PP down to between 80% to 90%, you will only get 2500 in level flight. With less thrust, how would you be able to go fast?

I don't know who WD is, so I cannot comment on his figures. I simply find that once I level off after a zoom climb and roll out at speeds under 130 knots that gradually (but not slowly) dropping prop pitch from 95% or so down to 80-85% has a noticeable effect on my speedometer dial without having to resort to going over 100% throttle. It may be my imagination, but in-game, the R-2800 seems to pick up speed a bit quicker while you're moving down in prop pitch through that range (hey, it might be an 'exploit' for all I know).

Obviously, there is no 'feeling' of increasing acceleration, so the best impression you can get is from watching the speed indicator unwind. It goes clockwise pretty quickly when you smoothly move your prop pitch axis back that little bit. In fact, keeping an eye on the speed dial will help you gauge how fast to move that lever/dial.

In any case, it does keep your engine much cooler and allows you to crank it up in an emergency without fear of burning it up. The main thing is to start with some altitude and use your stored energy to maintain the initiative (and trim! Stay in trim as much as possible).

cheers

horseback

[pandacat]

Originally Posted by horseback

I don't know who WD is, so I cannot comment on his figures. I simply find that once I level off after a zoom climb and roll out at speeds under 130 knots that gradually (but not slowly) dropping prop pitch from 95% or so down to 80-85% has a noticeable effect on my speedometer dial without having to resort to going over 100% throttle. It may be my imagination, but in-game, the R-2800 seems to pick up speed a bit quicker while you're moving down in prop pitch through that range (hey, it might be an 'exploit' for all I know).

WD is whistlingDeath. Not sure if you know him. My PP control is +/- 5% increment. What about you? Btw, do you fly F4F? Does wildcat have similar powerbands?

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Laurwin

thx for the answer icefire.

Well, true enough, good teamwork works well enough with wildcats vs zekes, I hope it would work also with corsair vs george/frank (n1k2 ki84).

Also I'm not ranting, actually as a matter of fact I just had a great evening on skies of valor server, I had personal IL-2 record sofar there. By my own calculations on yesterday's game, I had 16:1 victory/defeat ratio + 3 damaged enemy ac. My aerial defeat came when I went strafing enemy base alone, I got bounced by two p-38s. I had two kills in the bag already though.


On one hand, I understand, that the game would become quite complicated to balance, if we went with completely historically accurate "circumstances"
(lack of spare parts, poor engine quality, poor fuel quality etc...)

On the other hand, aviation fuel quality was quite important technological factor to have in WW2. After all, all engines use fuel, even the best engine is simply an overengineered paperweight, unless supplied with dinosaur-remains, petrol products. Power comes from the chemical energy of the fuel, does it not?

I dunno how accurate this is but here's this web-article, Dr Peter W. Becker, University of South Carolina, for the significance of avgas quality in WW2 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...aug/becker.htm


Essentially, the site says, because of American high quality avgas, Allied airforces were able to field aircraft engines which had better power output. Substantial increases in aircraft speed, range, and ceiling would be made possible with high octane avgas.

These advantages Germany was unable to obtain until 1945 or so, claims the article. I would hazard a guess that the high octane fuel bottleneck prevented Luftwaffe from having properly functioning high altitude fighter aircraft, at an earlier time. Worse German fuel, compared to Allied fuel, would lead to bad compression ratio in German engines, meaning less power output.

Whole other can of worms you're opening there

The short version is that the original flight models for these aircraft were done with various choices in place and plenty of arguments and bickering on the old Oleg's Ready Room forum (Ubisoft Forums). Most aircraft were modelled with best possible performance numbers which may not have always been the best decision in my mind (I'd rather war typical performance levels).

I'd also wager that the best known performance data on the Japanese aircraft may have come from Allied sources rather than from Japan. The Allies tested Japanese aircraft extensively and often with better gas and maintenance than front line Japanese squadrons... at least this is what I've read. Which suggests the best sources we have on the rarer Japanese types are somewhat higher performing than they probably did in the field. By how much is also open to debate of course.

Again... all of that is a totally different can of worms. I'll stop before I tempt fate and we see a 30 pager