Doughguy

Hi there, i´m tinkering around with the editor but ran up to some problems i can´t seem to overcome or even get my head around whats wrong. Very simple. 2 flights of p-51´s. the first is on the rdv early and circles, whats for the 2nd flight that is bit behind (supposed to be the players flight). the b-17 formation is spawned later (08:02). the flight of p-51´s escort the b17s. the 17s drop bombs etc. upto here its all working as expected but upon departure the p-51´s dont stop the escort despite ive limited each escort waypoint, or even tried setting the to be escorted a/c to "nothing". on top of that, the 2 other flights of b-17s seem to break formation early and head their own way, instead of heading out to see with the lead flight and circle there. i can´t really make out whats wrong here. any advice greatly appreciated. bomber_test.miz

cooling flaps open? cant view track atm.

not sure how to test this in dcs as even with breaks youd nose over past 35 mp and 3000 rpm.

i look it up. ive skimmed the manual yesterday eve and iirc it said something about amb temps if my eyes didnt deceive me. but it was more of a side note really.

there you go i can settle with that and am curious aswell. but just assuming things because they appear in a certain way w/o having the actual knowledge or just relying on warstories and here say simply arent hard facts. hard facts would either be a clear statement by a pilot or excerpts of manuals of any kind regarding that very matter. anything else is mere opinions i must say. wether its right or wrong now.

look all im sayin is you/we dont have the whole picture here. just because you and i read some accounts and played a sim doesnt make us experts. youve said it yourself that it appears unrealistic to you because youve not read it in any memoirs. again, those books wont capture the whole picture. no hard feelings here and no anymosities. its a simple thing of facts vs opinions.

me neither. and ive fairly broadly tried different settings on take off. cooler open/auto/closed etc. i do. temp is usually high on take off especially with loads but regulates itself if you gain speed. aswell the manual states that one should be cautious with amb temps above 25 °C. funny how everyone is experiencing different things on basic things. like people be talking about entirely different aircraft.

i dont have the manual at hand but i recall power on spins are mentioned in prohibited manouvers. again theres multiple things to take kn account. the power on spin alone and lack of airspeed and hence temperature rise from a climb. if you enter a power spin on its own, the manual has the procedure correctly. youve had enough airspeed beforehand, hence reducing throttle upon entering the spin is correct. if you howerevet are in a steep climb with airspeed already low and then enter a spin... well.. do the math. again: speed is cooling cooling is life. again. i guess the pilots were taught to keep limits. and whod take the flak for breaking an engine because of a silly mistake. theres simply things peope do not talk about. especially memoirs. personal image. as for the video i cant really watch it atm but with the hood taken off and coolers open i can imagine why it doesnt break... iirc ive read that on the ground youre supposed to have the coolers open anyway. as for sources: well come up with something that tells otherwise. one cant say things arent realistic without being able to back up claims. eventually the merlin manual will give clues if one can dig that up. i'm rather neutral here. the flight model might be indeed kinked but people simpl claiming things arent right based on "sim experience" not being a pilot nor flown that very aircraft let alone in anger is a rather poor argument aswell eh? @grafspee i cant really see say ive ever cooked the engine on take off. it was stated by ed that they work on a new cooling system for the warbirds. however this wont change general characteristics merely give 4 5 6 more seconds at its best. and i bet you a 10er people will crawl out their holes bitching about.

to be frank ive not flown any other aircraft so far in dcs apart from the öony and anton. youre literally comparing apples and oranges. each airplane has its very specific kinks. if its so merlin specific as you say, guess what, i guess it is? cause... its a very specificly build engine? and certainly not a radial engine and or a jumo. the prototype anton also had problems with temp as its cooling was ineffective. as for the lack of resources regarding the downside of the pony, well historical accounts of pilots should be taken with a grain of salt without smudgin their effort. they simply had the specs hammerd in and told not what to do that they did watch the instruments very closely. some sure will not and not live on to tell the story or maybe even simply not said theyve screwed the engine because they didnt pay attention. sure mightve had some consequences screwing government property. its with every other kinks of any other machine. not everything in the manual explicitly or alltogether cause if you can add 1 + 1 youll understand what "dont go below the temps red line" means. then again..again manual again might be "faulty", not takin in account some numbnut might not do the math... i think we can agree that high temps in an engine are bad. regardless of engine and plane. not cooled not working. its a commonality. specs just differ by each airframe. just as turn ratio and stall characteristics and the tendency to get ones wings ripped off. not everything of this is expressedly written in manuals.

no you just dont get my point. neither did i dismiss valid historical sources. but it simply is not stated in the manual. period. just because something is not expressedly written in a manual, doesnt make it untrue. thats what you´re negating. How about this: videos and specs are very specific to the specs of a 51. you dont need to repeat bfm etc in every manual. Any manual gives cornerstones about the specific vehicle. Not general do´s n donts of any aircraft that will apply, which a steep climb and resulting engine temperature rise is. Aswell it wont state: dont do dives for too long or your wings will fall off. it talks about precise altitudes and dive speeds. Just as it states specific temperatures which should not be exceeded. That a stall will induce a lack of cooling, and hence temperature rise to a point itll fry the engine, is something indicated by that fact that the manual explicitly states how its coolin system works. Speed>Airflow>Cooling. The rest is a bit of common sense and an instructor tellin you so, so you´ll have it in the back of your mind.

Is that a manual? doesnt look like it. It´s a thing theyve worked out during war. Well i guess then the instructors mustve thought them young hot shots good on how to fly the pony eh? Well, just because you cant grasp or imagine something, doesnt make it untrue. What we can do here is to grasp a portion of what really was going on back then. We are no experts here. We´ve not been flying these planes under wartime conditions. This whole sim is an estimate.

Again, ive not had much problems with the engine aswell. So, the P-47 is realistic yes? Cause it serves your idea? I guess its something tought in basic flight training, applying to all aircraft at that time. The K4 does climbe better yes. Is its engine bombproof? No. P-51 isnt a K4. It´s a different engine.

Not seen this in any manual either. So on the otherhand itll mean, as its not stated in the manual, its neglegible?

As nine line said, it depends on the speed. Speed = Cooling. Speed = Life. If you manage to gain speed fast from a stall and not climbed for too long, the engine wont blow. If youre too slow, turn over or tumble, you cook the enigne. Why this was never stated in literature? Maybe pilots were taught what they mustnt do, in order to keep the engine running. If your life depends on it, you certainly dont want to mess with the very thing that keeps you alive. It is and was very well known, that the pony had a very delicate engine, especially the cooling. it was stated by pilots, that if the cooling went bonkers, you were out. So, as it was known, they surely will not risk a cooked engine and fly by parameters. And then again "but it causes irreversible damage too fast, I don't know." Exactly. You dont know. You assume.

Just noticed. Neither in the Viewer, nor ingame. I´m on latest stable.

No video unfortunately and track was jacked... followed a dora into a climb cause heck... stalled above me and i still had some speed, but not as much to explode.. instead collided, pushed it and gave it a good burst of 50cal up close.. lost a wing, recovered from the spin, and made a bellylanding on the shore. Hollywood right there.

Here we go again lol...

The ram air usually takes effect rather up high to be noticable. eg if you approach the 2nd supercharger stage our around 30k feet. if you go full speed on rpm and mp, the mp will never reach the red mark when approaching above stages. youll notice the mp will degrade with height. if you wiggle ram air back and forth youll notice that it does have an effect on the mp. this ghetto fix still might not work with keybuttons. i use the virtual levers.

Be advised that the vanilla lua was updated so you can use the an/ara homing radio and the detrola. overwriting the lua will render these unusable.

Its nice to see the pony got some new features working like the homing radar etc... but the carb controls still not being fixed...

Fixes.....

its seriously embarassing ed is not able or willing to fix this....

reflections are costly performancewise. cant check if theres a slider or so for reflections in the options but usually cranking up the settings does the trick. at the expense of performance of course.

hmm yeah i thought of something like that. so its a limitation of the sight then. havent thought about barrel ovetheating but that might explain it. tho i dont spray the targets hmm. the propwash does exactly that when im at convergance distance. pretty annoying when you pursue a bogey for few mins and creep up on his six and just as you are in shooting range your plane gets all shaken up and throws off your aim. an adjustable convergence distance would be nice in that respect.

not sure how dcs does calculate reflections but the if theyre 3d based reflection it would mean that the polygons covering the instrument board only face outwards and there are non on the inside. whilest technically correct it would cause shown odd reflections. if dcs uses cubemaps for reflections the baked cube map is wrong.