felixx75

What speed do you fly the final approach at?

I would like to ask again, what data prove that an FW190 D9 must be slower at sea level than an F4U-1D? These two videos don't prove anything, except that there is a bug.

On the basis of what data do you think that a FW-190 D-9 was not faster at sea level? "It doesn't seem correct to you" is unfortunately not a valid argument. (and this video is no proof either way)

That's the problem. There were 4 variants of the F4U-1: A, B (=british F4U-1A, C and D, with A and D having the largest numbers. But they certainly had different performance. As long as we can't prove it with documents, it's hard to say that something needs to be changed. "It was known for..." does not count. It would be really nice if someone had or could find reliable documents.

You weren't meant specifically. It was more directed at the general community.

I seriously doubt that... I say it's faster at any altitude.

This refers less to the F4U than to ED's AI. Behaviour and their use of weapons. That's why this is also under "DCS Core" and not under "Magnitude3 - F4U"...

That's exactly how it is. You can only pre-order on Steam once a release date has been set.

It doesn't matter what ED does. Some complain that they miss a date and act as if the world is now coming to an end and when a module is released on time, others complain that it was far too early, that too many systems are missing and have too many bugs and shouldn't have been released and therefore the world is now practically coming to an end because of it...

Since there was nothing for F4U in yesterday's patch (see patch notes), you're probably wrong about your observation since yesterday. If it was ok for you the day before yesterday, it still is now... But funnily enough, I've also seen people complaining here in the forum that it's too quiet... So it's probably just right

It's a mystery to me how you can get so angry about a rough release date. It's not about something important in life, it's just a game that also offers tonnes of alternatives and possibilities. I understand that people are looking forward to module XYZ, but if it comes out 1 or 2 (or even more) months later than expected, so what... I really don't understand the problem. Nothing in life depends on the release date of a module in DCS. And don't come at me with "but ED said that..."

Unfortunately, I have no information at all about this table. No information as to which variants participated or under what circumstances and conditions this data was obtained. For me, this serves more as a rough approximation of what could be achieved than as absolute proof of what must be.

Wrong, what counts is whether the real values of the F4U are achieved in the simulation or not. In order for us players to be able to compare this, we need this data and not "but we know that..." or "but it should be like this...". In another thread someone posted a small table from which you can see that an F4U should be able to reach about 314kt (TS) at 5000ft. This means that your Hercules, which according to your information is travelling at 338 kt (IAS) @6000ft, is too fast to be catched by any warbird... However, of course, I don't know how accurate this table actually is.

No, there is not even a small chance that 3500+ RPM is NOT a bug. Max RPM is 2700, maximum allowed RPM is 3060 for a short time during a dive. All my axis that have not a centre are "sliders". This doesn't really have anything to do with it, but should be standard so that such axis work properly (e.g. throttle, brakes, rotary control, etc.).

There is no reason to assume that water injection would not work. In the F4U, unlike the P-47, for example, there is no switch to activate the system. Water injection is activated by pushing the throttle lever all the way forward. This activates a microswitch, which switches on the water injection. This microswitch can be operated manually with a screwdriver, e.g. to fill the system for maintenance purposes (see the familiar manual). There is a safety wire at the throttle quadrant, which is unfortunately not animated in the simulation and is always cut (there is one in our P-51, for example). But there is an animated detent (like the afterburner detent in jets). You can observe this very well in the simulation. So if you move the throttle lever all the way forwards, beyond the detent (Throttle at the Detent = Mil. Power), WEP is activated (WEP = Mil. Power + Water Injection). You can see this by the fact that you then reach the corresponding MP values that we now know from the familiar table (also at the corresponding altitudes). If there were no water injection, we would not achieve these values either. In addition, several people have already reported that the 3-minute water warning was triggered for them. So I assume that if certain top speeds are not reached, this is either due to incorrect drag values, or the power of the engine is calculated incorrectly. But the basic behaviour of the engine clearly seems to be correct. But of course I can't rule out the possibility that the entire engine simulation is wrong. After all, I didn't programme it. I can only start from my observations and compare them with the known values. And from this I can see that the motor appears to be working correctly.

Great airplane, lots of fun!

That would be very good in any case, but the engine itself seems to be working properly, as all known values are achieved exactly the same way in the simulation. I rather think that something with the drag is not quite right

I would still very much like to see a detailed performace table for F4U-1D (and not a comparison table). No offense, but this small excerpt you posted is quite poor and says relatively little, as you have no data on the circumstances or similar. I am also sure that a FW 190-D9 was faster than a F4U-1D

...you don't have to convert anything. The TAS values are there... 316 kt (in the cockpit about 235 kt IAS) EDIT: Ah, now I see what you mean. The values in your table are definitely TAS and not IAS

How do you get to 100? Above it says: 343kt @20000 ft I had about: 316kt @18800ft Difference: 27kt

It's True Airspeed. You can switch between IAS and TS with STRG+Z (or CTRL+Y, depending on the keyboard layout). You can see above, that's about 235 kt IAS

The engine does what it is supposed to do and hits the values it is supposed to achieve very accurately. However, the speed is too low, at least according to the table posted above. I cannot judge whether this is correct or not, as too much information is missing from this table.

There are tables that show how many MP should be achieved, at which RPM and which blower level and at which altitude. So far, it all fits together. The only thing the video shows is that by taking advantage of the bug, you can fly faster. And that's no wonder when you look at the absurdly high values (MP/RPM) that can be achieved in this way.

...because all engine values fit together (apart from the temperatures, which are known to be still wip)

Do you have a link or a picture? Would be nice and would simplify many discussions.