Hi guys i just need some clarification on "Kommandogerat".
I hope you guys can follow me here, i will probably sound like i real dork now
..But anyway do "Kommandogerat" work as it should here in IL2?
couse all the experten says that they only fly the 190 with "Manual settings", but what i have read about the 190 it was never flown in this way.
The only time it was flown in "manual" where in emergencys when Kommandogerat where out of function...right?
But still people fly the 190 in manual pitch in this game, so was this true IRL to?.. did the pilots or the more experienced ones flew the 190 in "manual"?
I know for sure that a car with a automatic transmission will preform much less favourably against a car with a manual one, so is that comparable with "manual settings" vs "Kommandogerat"?
So..where "Kommandogerat" only used for reduceing the workload for the inexperianced pilots and "manual" by the experianced ones to gain extra power?
Or was "Kommandogerat" better then the "manual settings", did it squeeze all the power from the BMW engine like that i read?
I get so much varying answers on this one so please can some real Experten clear this out for me?
In Bf/Me109 it seems that it does the job well although one of the patches virtually disabled usage of manual in the 109.Currently the Kommandogerat does not let 109 pilots overrev the engine in exchange for very short engine life.But anyway do "Kommandogerat" work as it should here in IL2?
When you needed the additional 2m/s climbrate over your enemy you normally switched to manual and went to 2850RPM but you had a minute maybe two.After that either reducing RPM to 2500 or engine blows.Not possible now as the engine blows 80% of the time.
In FW190A since 4.071 it seems to perform much better although power outages are still present in some cases.Probably due to Kommandogerat unable to catchup for some reason.
Manual is not safe in diving as it was before.
Nope,it was almost always auto.It was the main advantage in plane systems usage over VVS and RAF pilots but ingame it is not.But still people fly the 190 in manual pitch in this game, so was this true IRL to?.. did the pilots or the more experienced ones flew the 190 in "manual"?
Much less?Up to 1L/100km and about 2seconds in acceleration.I know for sure that a car with a automatic transmission will preform much less favourably against a car with a manual one, so is that comparable with "manual settings" vs "Kommandogerat"?
If cars were used to DF in 3D environment I guess the analogy would be ok.But the lack of that 3rd dimension somewhat changes things in favor of manual.
But changing prop pitch manually was also much more dangerous and troublesome to do.
Yes,it was used by experten to gain more power BUT it was also EXPLOITED by gamers seeking exploits.Hence Oleg was pressed to remove the realistic possibility for experten as people assumed bad faith of all blue players flying German planes.So..where "Kommandogerat" only used for reduceing the workload for the inexperianced pilots and "manual" by the experianced ones to gain extra power?
Still,the Kommandogerat does a job in reducing the workload in DF but the need to get away by risking blowing the engine has been removed completely.
No,Kommandogerat always left a margin that gave safety of engine usage by running on lower RPM than it would be able to.But it also was a very complicated device that maintained optimal power and proved to be very succesful.In this game it works like it was constructed by someone who wasn`t really good at his proffession.Or was "Kommandogerat" better then the "manual settings", did it squeeze all the power from the BMW engine like that i read?
Comparing prop pitch to the gearing in a car is a poor analogy. A better one is to imagine that your tires have infinite life and a control that allows the driver to set the amount of traction the drive wheels have.
The manual setting for prop pitch was ˜limp home' mode, as I understand it.
In addition, the Kommandosgerat did more than adjust prop revs. It also controlled mixture, supercharger gear and spark advance. It meant that if a Fw 190 pilot wanted to dive, all he had to do was point the nose down and push the throttle forward. The KG did the rest. In a Spitfire, P-47 or P-51 the pilot would have to manually adjust his prop speed to avoid over revving, at the same time making sure that he doesn't inadvertently produce too high compression and break something...to say nothing of mixture control in the US planes or supercharger gear in the Spit.
It was a labour saver.
The USN pilots who flew the F6F and F4U against the captured Fw 190G felt that they got better performance from their manual controls than from the Fw 190's KG. They felt there was more scope for fine tuning than with the automatic control. However, when interviewed later one of those pilots said he probably suffered from young man's disease and over rated his own ability at the time.
Others argue that the KG wasn't working properly on that plane anyway, citing the fact that the engine cut out at 33,000 feet every time they tried to climb to its rated ceiling.
Regardless of which way you personally sway on this, there is room for doubt and argument either way.
What should the Spit have that it's missing in the game then? Auto Rad; prop pitch and blower? Spring cam adjusted spark timing?
How is a Spit IX pilot's work load higher than a Fw pilot's?
It should have a manual control for supercharger gear at least. The Packard Merlins were the first to introduce an automatic gear control.
The prop in the Spit was a constant speed prop, with the same limitations as the ones in the US and other types. Going rapidly into a dive, the engine could over rev before the mechanism reduced revs.
The comparison is between single-lever operation in the Fw, to dual-lever and blower control in the Spit. The Spitfire would be the simplest of the Allied types, too.
Whether you think that's significant is a matter of opinion, as I said above. There's room for argument.