North American F-82E

[Naughty_17 69]

[SubRyan 5,556]

What are you basing the Military and WEP horsepower for the V-1710-143/145 from?

 

[spoiler]

 

[/spoiler]

 

Since you are very obviously using this climb data, why didn't you also move boost pressure for WEP and 3200 RPM to 74"? Right now you max out at 66" and 3200 RPM

 

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

 

Or are you modeling the F-82E before water injection was authorized?

 

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9-wA2CgkG4&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

 

Also how are you using the 22,000 lb climb data when the F-82E weighed 20,775 lbs with max internal fuel and ammunition?

Edited March 25, 2015 by SubRyan

[Krteq 1,052]

@Naughty_17: Where are those numbers from? Can't see any references/links.

[Danneskjold 3,088]

1700 HP is correct for 21000 feet, but 1600 HP is incorrect for sea level.  It should be 1930 HP.  http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p82_6.html

 

Furthermore, Military Power was 1600 HP at Sea Level, not 1100.  If these are the numbers you are using, the F-82 is still borked.

[SubRyan 5,556]

Shouldn't the F-82E be 39 ft 2inches in length? You are using the F-82G's length of 42 ft 5 inches instead

 

Edited March 25, 2015 by SubRyan

[Master_HEMAN 1,288]

@Naughty_17: Where are those numbers from? Can't see any references/links.

 

no you cannot becous all are maked in photosop...and they dont have any real datashets...

 

all datasheet you plucked those numbers out of the air, no real historical reference provided, no real data sheets provided no links nothing...

 

they are really professionals...

Edited March 25, 2015 by Master_HEMAN

[Sagro 3,365]

no you cannot becous all are maked in photosop...and they dont have any real datashets...

 

all datasheet you plucked those numbers out of the air, no real historical reference provided, no real data sheets provided no links nothing...

 

they are really professionals...

 

typical gaijin  it seems not a single source mentioned  and on the other hand if users write bug reports gaijin demands 2 independent sources to back up the report and routinely calls american or german sources " propaganda"  ( tiger and panther fibel for example) 

[_SKYWHALE_ 288]

oh man can they just let the player base find the datasheets please? or hire players to do this work for you? gaijin obviously doesn't care about planes anymore, and should just give the work to someone who DOES care about it.

 

eg: remember that massively multiplayer world war mode we were promised years ago with like 100kmx100km+ maps and variable front line lasting many days to complete? Idk maybe that's still coming...

Edited March 25, 2015 by _SKYWHALE_

[Danneskjold 3,088]

Just took the F-82E out for a spin.  At WEP it's hitting 2250 HP on the deck with each engine.  As far as I can tell, it should be hitting 1900 HP.  At WEP it's hitting 1700 HP at 21,000 feet, which is correct.

 

At Military Power, it's hitting 1600 HP on the deck with each engine.

 

 

And oddly enough, the plane has been modeled with a Turbocharger, for whatever stupid reason.  As best I can tell in Reality it had 2 Superchargers (as opposed to the normal of being 1 supercharger with 2-3 stages / speeds).  One was on all the time, and the other supercharger was kicked on as a booster at high altitudes.  For War Thunder's purposes, this means it should have a 2 Stage Supercharger.

 

 

In my ex-professional opinion, the F-82E may actually be Overperforming, and it's the Datasheet that's incorrectly transcribed.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Danneskjold

[MockingClone 3,061]

Just took the F-82E out for a spin.  At WEP it's hitting 2250 HP on the deck with each engine.  As far as I can tell, it should be hitting 1900 HP.  At WEP it's hitting 1700 HP at 21,000 feet, which is correct.
 
At Military Power, it's hitting 1600 HP on the deck with each engine.
 
 
And oddly enough, the plane has been modeled with a Turbocharger, for whatever stupid reason.  As best I can tell in Reality it had 2 Superchargers (as opposed to the normal of being 1 supercharger with 2-3 stages / speeds).  One was on all the time, and the other supercharger was kicked on as a booster at high altitudes.  For War Thunder's purposes, this means it should have a 2 Stage Supercharger.
 
 
In my ex-professional opinion, the F-82E may actually be Overperforming, and it's the Datasheet that's incorrectly transcribed.

Interesting. Now the real question is, is it worth flying, or does it still suck even when overperforming?

[Master_HEMAN 1,288]

holly ****** now right now im in 109K4 in full vs F82 i have no chance in 109, jesues F82 unbelivebe CLIMB rate, and TURN like 109 in vertilcals and horizontals, fast !!!!

 

im using manual engine controls but i have no chance

 

who its responsible for the flight models in F82 ??? you really doo your job !!! great another OP american UFO planes !

 

if you work in main firm i imediately kick you ....

Edited March 26, 2015 by Master_HEMAN

[Danneskjold 3,088]

Currently the F-82 spawns with no WEP fuel.  So it's limited to Military Power only.

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

Currently the F-82 spawns with no WEP fuel.  So it's limited to Military Power only.

no ADI for a aircraft at IV. classic gaijin.

 

is joke plane so we make real slow and crappy.

 

turbosupercharger LOL. who researches this stuff. new FMs are reaching a whole new low. I wasn't sure if it was possible but well done.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Rumpullpus

[Dirt4k 654]

no ADI for a aircraft at IV. classic gaijin.

 

is joke plane so we make real slow and crappy.

 

turbosupercharger LOL. who researches this stuff. new FMs are reaching a whole new low. I wasn't sure if it was possible but well done.

The V-1710 143/145 had a Turbo compound system IE a turbosupercharger. Why are you being so picky about nomenclature?

Edited March 26, 2015 by Dirt4k

[Dirt4k 654]

http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2009/Presentations/SuperchargingAllison.pdf Page 24-25

[SubRyan 5,556]

The V-1710 143/145 had a Turbo compound system IE a turbosupercharger. Why are you being so picky about nomenclature?

 

A turbosupercharger was just the designation for a turbocharger in WWII

[_SKYWHALE_ 288]

A turbosupercharger was just the designation for a turbocharger in WWII

 

no a turbosupercharger is both a turbocharger and a supercharger. this is different just twin turbos or something as it involves both an engine driven supercharger for good power at low rpm with no lag, and a turbocharger driven by exhaust pressure. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twincharger

[Danneskjold 3,088]

no a turbosupercharger is both a turbocharger and a supercharger. this is different just twin turbos or something as it involves both an engine driven supercharger for good power at low rpm with no lag, and a turbocharger driven by exhaust pressure. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twincharger

 

The original name for the TurboCharger is "Turbosupercharger." 

 

 

But like I said, as best as I can tell, the F-82E did not have a Turbocharger.  It literally had 2 separate superchargers, as opposed to the normal 1 supercharger that had 2-3 speeds. 

 

What difference does it make, you ask?  If it was set up as a supercharger, there would be peak velocities.  As it stands, setting it up as a turbocharger means that there really aren't peaks, and at all the middle altitudes it is overperforming from what it should be doing.

[_SKYWHALE_ 288]

The original name for the TurboCharger is "Turbosupercharger." 

 

 

But like I said, as best as I can tell, the F-82E did not have a Turbocharger.  It literally had 2 separate superchargers, as opposed to the normal 1 supercharger that had 2-3 speeds. 

 

What difference does it make, you ask?  If it was set up as a supercharger, there would be peak velocities.  As it stands, setting it up as a turbocharger means that there really aren't peaks, and at all the middle altitudes it is overperforming from what it should be doing.

 

indeed thats true they all used to just be called superchargers long time ago

[Dirt4k 654]

The original name for the TurboCharger is "Turbosupercharger." 

 

 

But like I said, as best as I can tell, the F-82E did not have a Turbocharger.  It literally had 2 separate superchargers, as opposed to the normal 1 supercharger that had 2-3 speeds. 

 

What difference does it make, you ask?  If it was set up as a supercharger, there would be peak velocities.  As it stands, setting it up as a turbocharger means that there really aren't peaks, and at all the middle altitudes it is overperforming from what it should be doing.

It wasnt two superchargers though. it was a turbocharger powering a supercharger

[SlayerJesse 490]

so, teal deer version is that gaijin done goofed yet again?

[Danneskjold 3,088]

A variable speed Supercharger is not the same as a turbocharger.  Anyway...

 

 

They fixed the WEP on the F-82.

[SubRyan 5,556]

A variable speed Supercharger is not the same as a turbocharger.  Anyway...

 

 

They fixed the WEP on the F-82.

 

They fixed the WEP but the engines power outputs are still surging

[Speggn 2,526]

If I look at the localhost:8111 page it has about 2200 hp at takeoff using WEP with all upgrades installed. 

And it has 1600 hp at 100% throttle without WEP. 

Edited March 26, 2015 by Speggn

[SubRyan 5,556]

If I look at the localhost:8111 page it has about 2200 hp at takeoff using WEP with all upgrades installed. 

And it has 1600 hp at 100% throttle without WEP. 

 

Which is what it should be