PDA

View Full Version : Overheat patched? Ki-84 overheats faster than Corsair



Doug_Thompson
10-20-2005, 10:20 AM
Early model Corsair. Gave it maximum power and went down to 450 meters. Flew straight and level and in trim.

Time to overheat warning: 00:03:14

Same thing with Ki-84 "Frank" 1b

00:02:53

Now, IIRC, weren't there a lot of complaints when Pacific Fighters came out that the big Pratt & Whitney radials overheated much faster than the Frank's?

Tater-SW-
10-20-2005, 10:43 AM
Maybe it's not used to the high-octane gas it has in PF that it virtually never got in RL? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<G,D,R>

tater

p1ngu666
10-20-2005, 10:54 AM
yeah, the american radials dont overheat like they did in past patches

Doug_Thompson
10-20-2005, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Maybe it's not used to the high-octane gas it has in PF that it virtually never got in RL? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<G,D,R>

tater

Fair enough, tater, but one could get the impression that many of my fellow Americans and fans of our airplanes will never be happy until all Japanese aircraft are forced to remain on the ground for lack of fuel and spare parts.

Tater-SW-
10-20-2005, 11:28 AM
Heheh. Stuck on the ground is already possible in the FMB, I see that as a mission builder's duty to set up a realistic scenario. OTOH, if the Frank (and others ) perform based upon US tests using US fuel, and they used different fuel operationally as SOP, then perhaps something needs to be done.

What would be really cool would be for planes to have a setting like "parachute" for each plane that would allow the performance of the engine to vary. Say a field where you enter a number that can drop the engine output by 0-20% or something. It could be used for any planes on any side to make things interesting. A campaign designer might well decide to make all Ki-84 planes -5% or something based upon research. he might also make some of the allied hanger queens have lower power due to being patched up so much. You get the idea.

tater

Doug_Thompson
10-20-2005, 11:49 AM
You'll never be a very popular designer if you insist on realism, however. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Most simmers seem a lot like my wife. They regard mechanical malfunction as an act of personal betrayal.

Seriously, however, the idea that you will hurt your engine over time if you don't take care of your machine is something that should be moddelled. People who run their engines at 110 percent all the time should have a career history and get worn-out machines next time they fly.

KIMURA
10-20-2005, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Heheh. Stuck on the ground is already possible in the FMB, I see that as a mission builder's duty to set up a realistic scenario. OTOH, if the Frank (and others ) perform based upon US tests using US fuel, and they used different fuel operationally as SOP, then perhaps something needs to be done.

What would be really cool would be for planes to have a setting like "parachute" for each plane that would allow the performance of the engine to vary. Say a field where you enter a number that can drop the engine output by 0-20% or something. It could be used for any planes on any side to make things interesting. A campaign designer might well decide to make all Ki-84 planes -5% or something based upon research. he might also make some of the allied hanger queens have lower power due to being patched up so much. You get the idea.
tater

Strange thing that Clark Field Trials on captured Japanese a/c are reffering to 92 octane and not to US-standard fuel. Any data sheet in the TAIC manual is quoting 92 octane.