ok, funny, confirmed from an already FB flying squad mate:

the PZL11C has a constant speed propeller, you can set the prop pitch manualy- so its in the Game.

hmmmmmmm, im realy no PZL expert, but i have a painting in front of me, that says it had a fix 2blade-wooden-prop- NO pitch control at all !

am i wrong ??

pls, any experts for that plane?

Not expert here, but it sure looks the same as TB-3 fixed props.


-jippo

I found a source (Raunio Jukka, Lentäjän Näkökulma IV, Forssan Kirjapaino) that says that Pe-2 propellor governor couldn't take fully vertical dives, but it stopped working and prop overspeeded if the dive angle exceeded 85 degrees!

Quote page 192:
"According to Siltavuori(test pilot A. SIltavuori, my remark) Pe-212 couldn't be tried in vertical dives as the propellor governor stopped working at 85 degree angle."

Interestingly enough the angle is exactly the same as in the LaGG test (LG-1) mentioned by Ugly earlier. Now if we could establish the make of the governor on these two planes, we could propably say that such behaviour was typical for it.

Also then it raises the question if the LaGG prop governor could hand inverted(neg G) flight or not, as the one in Pe-2 really couldn't do that.

Raunio quotes Siltavuori page 191:
"Loop, Immelman turn, and slow roll performed with the plane. Starting speed in loop and Immelmann was 500km/h and in slow roll 330km/h. While inverted in the slow roll propellors ran to overspeed. Moves can be technically performed normally, but the plane is too heavy and wingloading too large, and auxiliary equipment operation uncertain in aerobatics, so the plane can not be thought as suitable for aerobatics."

Here we may have a case of typical defect in certain type of CS propellor governor, but certainly it is established fact already that WW2 CS propellors overspeeded in some situations.


-jippo

Jippo; Salute! I'm just trying to be fair about all this. There are things I see that I don't entirely like but I'm not sure about. Hope they get fixed but then I'd rather have some form of head movement or stereo vision compensation (translucent stick and cockpit frames or POV moves in circles as opposed to swiveling about a point for head turns) much more. From the little time I get to spend just testing, I think that the LW planes are not at a disadvantage.

The 30+ mins I flew w/o overheat were at 98% to 100% power, 1200 to 1500m alt level flight, not in winter (green landscape), LaGG-3 41 (testing against a plane I knew from IL2), CEM on. I feel that I need to push that plane more before I can say something like never overheats to check for some possible overheat conditions.

Should the LaGG do as I saw? Knowing that the LaGG had no boost, I'm wondering if the 100% power and 85% rpms set in FB is really full power for that the way that 100% power and 85% pitch is full power for the 109F. It's much easier to know when you have direct control of pitch (109F, CEM, auto-pitch off) and knowlege about the engine.

The LaGG 110% may be where full power for the LaGG is as it may not really have an over boost of any kind and have just been fit into the 0 to 110% format of throttle that the game uses as cleanly as possible. I won't be making statements until after I know and I'm at least aware enough to not be sure. I do feel that it ~may~ have too much capacity, but I just won't say I'm sure till I am and hope you all can understand my objections to claims that it does with no backup docs. That said, I have NO problems with postings that express doubts and feelings as doubts and feelings only, that stop short of making solid claims.


Cube; My squad flies OKL. Due to health problems, I don't train much or compete online. We are happy with FB and continue to fly OKL.

You can pick out half of what I write and cry fanboy, but you're really 10 pounds in a 5 pound bag. You've claimed that the VVS planes never overrev and I've either overreved one on the first try or I overpressured it and the sucker blew. That's not what I call a VVS advantage. I kept the power and rpms up and that was all she wrote. Did the same with the 109F and flew over 100kph faster with no problem, and did those tests with CEM off the first tests I flew in initial checkout to compare with IL2.

FB is not perfect, only =closer= than anything I've seen yet. 60% (FB) is much better than 45% (IL2) which is much better than the 30% all told that we got before IL2. You may get different mileage but I'm aware of much bigger shortcomings in previous sims and don't expect everything to be just so or I have a tantrum.

I'm not happy at all without CEM, but I'm not going around getting worked up and chanting BS either. Show the tracks if you want to make claims or give directions how to repeat what you see. Saying "they never do this or that" leaves you wide open to any time someone else can. I guess for you, I have to post tracks. Looks like I need to go collecting claims and testing against them. That, btw, is how the scientific method works --- the test of claims against reality where a single disproof is all it takes.

I've already dived the P40-E to 740kph without blowing up in FMB with CEM just because I see posts saying it blows at 550, although now they say 'it's only some of the time'. Made a track, too. I'd like to see tracks of it blowing up just so I can watch the guages. It didn't shake on me at 540-550 as I've read I'd have to fly through so I just don't know -- sometimes software is like that from one set of hardware to another, all I can say is there is no coded speed limit for the P40-E as some people claimed and those claims are what I call BS since I've seen better.


Neal - who is getting sick of exaggerated claims.

Salute Neal!

I, then again, am a sucker for online wars, and would mostly like to see as objective plane modelling in FB as possible.

Report specifically states that the climb test was flown "...with 100% power and max. rpm 2600..."

I'm not sure if I even want to try and correct LaGG modelling as such because it already suffers from upper hand of the 109's, and VVS players really struggle early war online. But then again this "clumsy" plane almost matches Brewster in a turn, has perfect pitch control and doesn't overheat. I find that there are many things wrong about LaGG, and it's modelling in the game could(and should) be improved at least in some aspects to match reality at least a bit more.

About the other Russian planes or talks about bias I cannot comment because I have not data what so ever about their performance.


-jippo

"That's right it really feels that only prop governor of Bf109 was accurately coded, but this is exactly what I am saying. So according to you this situation is ok? Don't you think that modeling all the flaws and limitations for one side and just giving magic governor for the others is not very objective simulation?"

I would like it to be better, but it's ok. I understand that there is a limit to how complex something can be, going from no CEM to CEM with complete modelling of every aspect of every system of every plane is just out of the question, you have to start somewhere and I think this is a good start. So I can do a 90 degree dive in a plane that should only be able to do 85 degrees, I just don't see that as a very big deal, particularly since my experience in the game is that the overall results are as they should be, when my 190D9 is being chased by an LA7 I go into dive and when my plane starts shaking at 750kph IAS and I pull up I look behind and see the LA7 is now way behind (and somewhat above) me because he couln't match my dive. The fact that it is due to some atificial overall structural discombobulation that he suffers at a lower airspeed than I do rather than specifically his prop governer not performing as well as mine doesn't bother me.

"modeling all the flaws and limitations for one side and just giving magic governor for the others"

I don't understand this statement, you make it sound like German planes don't have magic governors, either that or Bf109s are one "side" and FW190A, HE111 et. al. are the "other" side.

LaGG-3 has the boost or supercharger. This is in my opinion the real core of the problems. The supercharger does not need managing. You can switch the second stage on immediately at the start and keep it on, no danger of overboosting the engine. In the real life immediately before the height for change the performance dropped and this is now not accounted for. Additionally, the mixture control is not really required.

Overrevving or not that's secondary. There are however clear indications around that I-153 and I-16 and Hurricane climb way too fast, I would be really happy to know whether this is an exploit caused by CEM, I think once the CEM is disabled these planes have reduced performance. Additionally, they keep pace way too well in the dive. This leads to assume that the acceleration due to thrust and gravity is not balanced, so that thrust contributes still in speeds higher than max. level flight speed. This is clear for somebody who has tried to tackle I-16 or particularly I-153 with Brewster. The tactics should be more BnZ, sim just does not favour Brewster in it over these two...

Otherwise, I see FM as a clear improvement. In spite of the *****ing about making planes too easy, making stalls more remote, I think it is a step towards realism. I bet even I could fly real Bf or Fw if handed over in 300 km/h speed, land or take-off not.

But doesn't that apply to many other planes as well? On both sides too, Hurri I and Brewster act the same too.

Btw. does you report state what propellor was used in the LG-1? Could it be the same as in Pe-2?


-jippo

Neal, I've been reading this and not saying anything, cause I am way out of my league when it comes to being a 'expert' on CEM.
I don't fly online, I only have a dial up connection. I just want to fly in the campaign with my 'wingmen'. I can't keep up right now, I think due to the 'radiator' not closing unless you use CEM.
Please try flying without CEM in a 109G6, after take off the radiator will not EVER close again. This makes it so I can't keep up with my squadron, they leave me in the dust. Very big bug for me. Please varify this so that something might be done by the programmers in a patch. I sense you will be listened to more than I....if it's just glossed over, or ignored because it doesn't matter to online flyers or CEM users.....us 'little' guys will be screwed . A bug is a bug.

Thank You .

Hmm, either you are simply trolling or you missed original thread what started all this CEM discussion:
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=018667
There you'll see tracks as well as going through all the "Rusian engines overrev very easy too" stuff what you are starting again now. So Ill quickly repeat resume of this thread – Russian engines never overrev but you of course can damage them because of overheating or possibly other mistreating but this is already another matter, what has nothing to do with prop control.
And this "FB is very good, better than anything else" is again another fanboys weapon – ok it can be the best, but it don't change the fact that CEM is modeled wrong.
So if you so tired of exaggerated claims better don't use them yourself and apply this "scientific method" to your own statements, because for now theres only Jippo, Ugly Kid and me providing any proofs and real life references.

Btw speaking about this 85 degrees dive limitation of LaGG3. I think it's a bit another matter than never overreving issue. Even to reach 85 degrees you should apply proper engine management – simply test report doesn't describe all the engine control procedures during all the tests. But it shows that even with proper management governors couldn't handle inverted flight. Of course it could be just some problem with this particular plane, but It may be general flaw of Russian governors as well, and it would nicely explain some limitations of diving procedures in other planes.