spit1 vs 110

Discussion in 'Warbirds International' started by Mcloud, Feb 19, 2011.

  1. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,087
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    :confused: Let's not make it more difficult.
     
  2. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,087
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    That isn't a problem with WB with only two regimes. IRL They had normal/combat/emergency setting limitations because of real world man made design flaws which are not a factor here. I think 2 regimes is simple enough to resolve.

    Regime 1: (Military Power)Maximum RPM 100% (3,000)
    Regime 2: (Military Power)Maximum RPM 100% + WEP (3,000+WEP)

    I have the numbers for these settings. :dunno:

    What do you mean by, everything looks obvious enough? The numbers I found? Just want to make it fair where it is obvious. There is no reason I can see why these numbers cannot be implemented. ;)
     
  3. gil---

    gil--- FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Messages:
    1,977
    Hmm, but u compare speed for wb 100% without wep with IRL combat power there. And numbers for combat/normal are going to be implemented as wep/100% for p-38, because its combat was not unlimited.
    And what numbers do u offer as "military power+wep"?
    Or i just misunderstood u and you agree that p-38's combat should be modeled as wep?

    Yes, its because of design, materials and technology avail at that time, not because of poor production quality. So even perfectly assembled new plane had these limitations.
    Or we should give unlimited wep as common 100% to all planes without water/methanol injection systems: La5/7, 190A4/6, all spitties, etc :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2011
  4. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
    :eek:
     
  5. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
    Difficult is trying to get 3+ kills in a Spitfire Mk. I/II, Ki-43, MC.202, and some other planes like them that I forgot about because no one ever uses them. Introducing cooling system damage should make it easier for the pilots who like to fly those planes be more successful, and it also eliminates the idiocy of plinking a tempest once or twice and watching it fly away. Same for the 109/190. Besides, your P-38 has two engines. What do you have to worry about? :p
     
  6. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,087
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    Shut off an engine and try to climb or dogfight. Next, try to taxi down the runway with one engine on only. :rolleyes: Modeling is REALLY way off in these situations. The engine performance and function in the P-38 are not modeled properly at all.
     
  7. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,028
    Well.... Still I don't get it.

    Even the lowly Spit Mk1 should be more than a match for the Bf110.

    Historically the 110 did not do too well at the Battle of Brittan and mostly failed in its role of protecting German bombers.

    In fact wasn't it by 1942 all Bf-110s were sent to the eastern front?

    Other than night bomber interception the 110 were very poor in all other air combat roles.

    So the question is:

    Why is the Bf110 so much better than it really was?

    At least compared to the Spit.


    :dunno:
     
  8. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,087
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    Well, do you know what the reason was why "combat", or more correctly named, "military power" was limited? Engine over-heating at certain altitudes. This is the case with all the aircraft in WB. I think we know that many other "fighters" in WBFH right now are modeled at that very MAX performance and some are PAST that point of performance.
    IRL When the P-38 was tested for performance possibilities, there were limitations ONLY due to manifold pressures vs ambient temperature vs altitude vs cooling abilities vs exhaust temperatures vs carburetor/turbo temperatures. These issues are not present in WBFH. However, IRL, they did not set limitations saying, do not operate at 3,000 RPM for more than 5 minutes, otherwise it would be pointless in a dogfight. They had a real focus on fuel consumption at those RPMs though. Adding WEP was something used in an emergency situation while at 3,000 RPM to gain an advantage.

    So, what I mean to say is:

    1. military power, 3,000 RPM, should equal 100% throttle performance.
    2. 100% throttle with WEP applied should equal expected performance, which is 10mph more speed on all levels.

    Why is it a problem to properly model performance?
     
  9. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,028

    Well... way back in the SWOTL days, you ran the engines(s) at full throttle you would see the temp rise and if it stayed in the red too long ..BOOM.

    So I'm guessing they would have to put in some code that timed the WEP and raised the temp up to the point where you have no more WEP or no more engine.

    There would need to be some kind of bit map of time/temp/wep thing.

    Sounds simple enough but it could be a ton of work...

    :dunno:
     
  10. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
    Single-engine combat maneuvers: Run, run, and run the fuck away are your options. If those don't seem to be working, bailing before you enter an unrecoverable spin is the next maneuver. As for taxi, single engine taxi just doesn't happen. I land and bring the plane to a stop and exit. I wouldn't taxi to the ramp at that point. That's what the ground crews are for.

    Now, I agree that there are issues with modeling single engine operations. I think what happens when you lose an engine is that the model reduces the power output 50%, so you're flying on 850 HP instead of the 1700 HP that you should be flying on. Don't quote me on that, because I haven't gone and extensively tested single engine flight on a P-38. The only thing I can say about it is a single engine P-38 is a helluva lot better than a single engine Bf-110. :D
     
  11. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,087
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    I don't think it would be that difficult, really. But, then again, I don't know what they can change in the settings. I would expect that once the engine overheats and kicks off the WEP in the game, that the engine would then be killed like when the oil runs out.
     
  12. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,087
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    Yeah, all aircraft with more than one engine suffer quite a bit. Never thought of that part, where the power is reduced from the remaining engine. Never thought about it that way. That would be way wrong if that's the case. That would explain the odd behaviors.
     
  13. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,028
    Overheating the motor does not automatically make the oil run out.

    Usually one checks the temps and opens the radiator/cooler flaps.

    I think in the later versions they are thermostatically controlled.

    So when you see the temp going into the red and your motor did blow yet, you throttle down and the temp drops, the bandits get closer, you add power and pull away, goes to red, you throttle back, etc.

    I would use the extra power and grab alt. then cool down as I leveled-off.

    Grabbing enough alt they could not keep-up. turbo- supercharger makes a difference from the crank driven supercharger... ;)

    usually one of the cylinderheads will blow and you lose coolant and oil.

    The supercharger can coke-up if the oil goes over temp/ turbine over heats and melts... causing a nasty fire...

    Never piss-off an angry motor or one in pain :nono:


    :D
     
  14. Red Ant

    Red Ant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,946
    Location:
    Germany
    Ok, now I'm a bit confused. Isn't that exactly what should happen? I mean half the engines gone == half the power gone, right?
     
  15. -al---

    -al--- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,848
    Location:
    PoznaƄ
    I think he is saying that the remaining engine's power is reduced by 50% compared to it's normal operation.

    both engines working: 100% + 100%
    1 engine dead: 0% + 50%
     
  16. Red Ant

    Red Ant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,946
    Location:
    Germany
    Ah ok. Hmm, I don't think that's true.
     
  17. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
    That means a 75% reduction in total power output during single engine operation, and a corresponding reduction in performance. 75% performance loss should be normal for SE ops, but not 75% power loss. What we don't know is if that reduction is being applied twice or not. Since I don't have a computer that will let me fly FH running right now, I need someone to provide data for the current top speed and single engine operation top speeds. Another piece of information I need is what power setting is required to maintain your single engine top speed with both engines in operation.

    My theory is that the total power with both engines running required to maintain the maximum SE speed should be reasonably close to the power output of one engine (i.e. adjusted for drag and the like). That, or we'll make a discovery about physics. I'm not really sure which will happen. :confused:
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2011
  18. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,087
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    Well, this is what I read and I think maybe mumble got confused and I mis-quoted?

    Each engine has a potential of 1,530 HP (P-38J) per engine, totalling 3,000+ HP so, it would be more like 1,530 HP remaining. But, in any event, the HP production is definitely lacking in single engine operation.
     
  19. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,087
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    I don't understand that. What's obvious to me is that one engine dead is producing no power but, that does not mean the remaining engine is putting out 50% of it's potential.
     
  20. Red Ant

    Red Ant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,946
    Location:
    Germany
    In my opinion, power output on 1 engine is ok. The problem is the WAY exaggerated torque, which makes the plane virtually uncontrollable at airspeeds below 200 mph. If I recall correctly, single-engine operation in the real P-38 was possible right down to really low speeds. Try that in Warbirds and your plane will spin out of control even if all you're trying to do is to fly straight and level.


    EDIT:


    http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-67869.html

    110 mph, that's completely impossible in the game.



    EDIT2: I just tried it in TA. At speeds below 140 mph the torque becomes so powerful that even if you apply full rudder in the opposite direction the plane will enter a spin anway
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2011