Soo much Corsair goodness.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Hope so, but…

[Gambit21]

Relax about the Japanese planes.

ED has stated on more than one occasion that their PTO plans are extensive. Those extensive plans could hardly be absent of Japanese aircraft.

 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Gambit21

[Silver_Dragon]

On 1/7/2023 at 3:17 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

Planes of Fame might have some, as mentioned, they're building a massive collection of Japanese aircraft, and restoring them accurately would often involve access to docs. Moreover, experience during restoration itself might be useful. Some original research and modeling might be needed, too, trying to recreate lost data (or data which was never measured in first place) which would no doubt be appreciated by historians.

Ultimately, if you can get the internal layout, a full 3D scan of the aircraft, and its engine specs, you're good. Aerodynamic data can be derived from the shape for both props and airframe, and if you know how the engine and radiators are built (how many turns, how thick are the hoses), it's quite possible to calculate their performance.

Remember Nick Grey (ED CEO / enginier / pilot / restorer) and your company The Fighter Collection, making the same from 1985 with WW2 aircrafts.

[Dragon1-1]

Yup, I'm sure that he knows Planes of Fame and likely has friends there. I'm not worried about Japanese aircraft for PTO, I'm pretty sure we'll get enough to fill out a campaign.

[303_Kermit]

On 1/4/2023 at 8:20 PM, Gunfreak said:

I think the corsair was the 3rd most shown plane in the 2023 and beyond video.

That usually means it's quite close to release... 

Also was that a 2  engine japanese bomber the corsair was shooting down?

 

It was Ju-88. Now it's in 1440p visible.

My dream is 
P-47B + Spitfire MkV / LF MkV CW + Bf-109F2 + FW-190 A2/A4 + Hawker Typhoon MkI + P40B/C + B-17E (or B-25 or B-26 or ...)
and P-38 ... just anyone.
(Flyable of course)

... God I made such an off topic. Sorry

Edited January 9, 2023 by 303_Kermit

[Tengu]

@AG-51_Razor brings up some important real-world considerations when trying to fill in missing data by instrumenting warbirds.  To his comments, I'd add that owners and insurance companies might frown on us attempting to fill in missing compressibility limits, deliberately repeating high speed departures (from controlled flight), or generally poking around the extremes of the envelope with these irreplaceable airframes.  

Also, could a restored aircraft from today with an effectively blueprinted engine and clean modern fuel actually overperform a war-weary engine with contaminated in-theater fuel sources.  And what do we want in the game anyway?  The very best theoretical factory-fresh, ace crew-chief maintained, best-fuel, best-everything example or the average rank-and-file example?

I'd also recommend the YouTube channel Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles.  Greg is extremely thorough in breaking down the existing documentation and attempting to compare various aircraft.  My point in bringing Greg's channel up, besides sharing an awesome channel for any Warbirds fan, is that EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE THE CHARTS, understanding more about the circumstances of the test (eg it was wartime test of a captured example suspected to need an engine tune), determining what the test conditions were, understanding whether or how datapoints were corrected or calibrated, etc can be difficult and has a huge impact on making truly meaningful conclusions about an aircraft's performance. 

I'm amazed we get the flight model detail we do get.

 

[303_Kermit]

On 1/13/2023 at 2:39 AM, Tengu said:

modern fuel actually overperform a war-weary engine with contaminated in-theater fuel sources.

You're confabulating Sir. Alied planes enjoyed high quality 100-120 octane gasoline. Very rarely was it below 100 octane. Todays fuel is probably more ecologic, since in WWII a component of fuel was ... lead (PbO). In Eastern Europe Lead was a component of gasoline up to ~1990. For Engine built in old standards modern fuel may be to aggressive. PbO used in old fuel used to create a protective layer around Valve socket, and Valves. Without it, those element will be destroyed just in couple hours.

Modern fuel requires much more expensive materials for Valves and Valves Sockets. In thermodynamic sense modern fuel isn't any better than those in WW2.

Edited February 9, 2023 by 303_Kermit

[Mr_sukebe]

On 1/13/2023 at 1:39 AM, Tengu said:

@AG-51_Razor brings up some important real-world considerations when trying to fill in missing data by instrumenting warbirds.  To his comments, I'd add that owners and insurance companies might frown on us attempting to fill in missing compressibility limits, deliberately repeating high speed departures (from controlled flight), or generally poking around the extremes of the envelope with these irreplaceable airframes.  

Also, could a restored aircraft from today with an effectively blueprinted engine and clean modern fuel actually overperform a war-weary engine with contaminated in-theater fuel sources.  And what do we want in the game anyway?  The very best theoretical factory-fresh, ace crew-chief maintained, best-fuel, best-everything example or the average rank-and-file example?

I'd also recommend the YouTube channel Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles.  Greg is extremely thorough in breaking down the existing documentation and attempting to compare various aircraft.  My point in bringing Greg's channel up, besides sharing an awesome channel for any Warbirds fan, is that EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE THE CHARTS, understanding more about the circumstances of the test (eg it was wartime test of a captured example suspected to need an engine tune), determining what the test conditions were, understanding whether or how datapoints were corrected or calibrated, etc can be difficult and has a huge impact on making truly meaningful conclusions about an aircraft's performance. 

I'm amazed we get the flight model detail we do get.

 

Couldn’t agree more.

 I’ve watched loads of his vids, and whilst he takes his time, and sometimes sends me to sleep, they really are brilliantly researched.  Additionally, he does a great job of interpreting, analysing and extrapolating the data.

 

There’s a whole bunch of flight related info that I’ve learned, eg:

- instantaneous turn rate appears to be directly related to stall speed.  Very few aircraft (any??) can maintain that, but it’s useful to know

- whilst reciprocating engines have their best climb rate at fairly low speed (eg Spit and P51 are around 160-180knots), jets have their best climb rate at high speed, eg Mach .7 to .9.  That has massive implications in say a Korean War scenario

 

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Mr_sukebe

[Rudel_chw]

Great video of a restored Corsair:

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

On 2/9/2023 at 7:47 AM, 303_Kermit said:

Modern fuel requires much more expensive materials for Valves and Valves Sockets. In thermodynamic sense modern fuel isn't any better than those in WW2.

True, but this is why you can still buy leaded avgas for use in older (not just WWII, a 2000s Cessna will also require it) aircraft piston engines. In fact, 100LL (low lead, still leaded, but not as much) is still a very common avgas blend.

You're right about the Western Allied planes in late WWII. Brits had 87 octane early on, 100 octane variant was only authorized for all commands mid-1940, Battle of Britain was fought with a mix of squadrons using 87 and 100. The Soviet gasoline supply was of rather more variable quality. Standard was 70-75 octanes and the good stuff was 78, from which they made, the nominally 94 octane (actually 91-92 depending on the batch) version, by mixing in a lot of lead. 

On the flipside, late war US WWII fuel was actually better than modern 100LL avgas, with 150 octane gasoline being available. You can get the high octane stuff today, but it's pricey and typically only made in small batches. It's actually mostly the same as the WWII blend, because they use it in WWII engines for air races and such.