S! Compans. I fully agree. It's reached the point where bringing up any point on the boards (which is where I do most of my asking around first anyways) has to be approached tentatively. Talk about treading on thin ice!


Please stop the deragatory remarks people. Oh, and I'd like to add "Realism freak" and "copout crowd" to the list. (I think I just halved Stigler's vocabulary?! :p )

Did a lot of trials with 109, 190A and 190D in FB.
CEM is on.
1. If I understood the manual, MW50 Boost is switched on in lower rpm´s and is activated when throttle is moved over 100 (100-110). In real up to 95% throttle MW50 could be activated. It is right if MW50 components are expired and you don´t throttle down, the engine is damaged.
Odd in FB, if you activate MW50 at 50% throttle your manifold preesure rises a lot (??bug?).

2. 190A and 109 have a correct modelled "Anzeige Lauftschraubenverstellung" (pitch control meter), an instrument like a clock with two digits. 190D is lacking this (in real some 190D and Ta152 remained this instrument, due to a manual override button on the Kommandogerät).

3. 190D in FB with CEM seems to have no manual pitch prop control (simulating Kommandogerät), in real there was a override mode. The simulated Kommandogerät in my opinion reacts to slow in FB, above all when you go for 110% and MW50 boost.

4. I think this CEM is a fully new item to a flightsim. To simulate such a complex Kommandogerät of the Dora/Ta 152 seems difficult, controlling throttle, proppitch, manifold pressure, cooling...

5. As many facts as possible should be gathered, above all original service manuals.

Greetings

flyingdoc

Kommandogerat couldn't have been perfect, else why the button for manual control? If it breaks down the would the button also work? Once the button was pressed for manual, could the system be reactivated?

I flew the 109F CEM in manual by setting power and then increasing or decreasing prop pitch to keep my revs in the good zone of power. It worked well. I also had to stay on the throttle to keep engine pressure from getting too high, or my speed in dives.

I've read from a modern pilot with 35,000+ hours of professional time about CS props and you have to work both controls with them, too, depending on your situation. I am viewing the difference as one way the mainly used lever in combat being pitch while the other way it is throttle and in both ways you can't get away with just one lever at least if you're going to use a lot of vertical moves with wide speed swings. With Kommandogerat, you can and it will reduce your workload to give you time to track your target and do SA neck exercises. For that, I see the value of the German system.

My only problem, and I still haven't checked to ensure this, is if you can't use manual prop control in auto-pitch equipped planes when CEM is set off. My only answer is then not to play on servers where that is used no matter what side I pick. VVS fliers should do it for their own honor, what kind of pilot needs to handicap the enemy? Well, we all know the answer... poor pilots or those afraid of something.


Neal

That makes sense - it seems odd, as I've said, to have an automated system which pretty much has to be switched off in order to get the plane to perform effectively. I thought the whole idea about the system in the Bf109 (and much more in the Fw190) was to reduce pilot workload. But it seems in FB that such a system has an opposite effect.

"like saying that its not Russian cannons its ShVAK's overmodelled"

NO. it isn't like saying that because German planes don't have ShVAKs, but German planes DO have constant speed props.

I havn't flown any Allied planes in FB only 109E4, 109F2, 109F4, 190A4, 190A5, 190A9, 190D9, and brewster, but I am quite certain that you can forget about having differences in modelling between constant speed props (CSPs from now on) on different planes. I'm sure there is a single program module that handles CSP operation for all planes that had that sort of system, so in the game there in no difference between operation of Brewster Buffalo prop and FW190A prop (in terms of efficiency, reaction speed and resistance to overrevving).

Were there performance differences between props of FW190A4 and Buffalo and LA7 and LaGG whatever? I'm sure there were, but I think we can forget about having those differences modelled (other than what RPMs the governer can be set for, when I say performance differences i'm talking about reaction speed, and probaly overrev as well).
Your description of the FW makes it sound like IRL it didn't have a CSP and had some sort of manual override, but ingame it has a CSP and as such the pitch cannot be controlled manually (only the governer RPM setting).

Likewise I would guess there were performance differemces in operation between automatic variable pitch systems (AVP from now on) as used on 109F4 VS 190D9, but in game they are surely all controlled by the same program module which will give the same performance with the only difference between planes being the RPM range that the AVP operates under. The paper manual clealry states that the CSP was the best, as it is ingame. I can agree that the CSP ingame has some properties superior to how they were IRL, but i'm guessing that the AVP system ingame has some properties superior to what it had IRL. If not then I would like to see some documentation showing as much.

Linked to German UBI forum.

Thanks!

Right now the automatic - fullautomatic system of the german planes didn't seems to be as effective as the VVS manual system. Combat wise, gameplay wise.
SO thats the big point we have to look into.
In General I think, beside some bugs, it well modelled.

It just comes out wrong?
If you switch to manual mode German planes operate/perform far better then on auto.
Perhaps this is also a bug.

Oleg is looking into the hole thing. So we will most probably see some minor changes after the next patch.

i know, in FB the Fw190 with BMW 801 has a constant speed prop, it handles like that.

BUT, is that true for real ???

shouldnt it have a automatic pitch propeller (like now in 109F+ and Junkers Driven 190s).

the Kommandogerät was espacially build that the pilot didnt have to carry about such things like mixture and pitch- he just had to set a special manifoldpressure (ata Ladedruck) and the KG made all other things.
actually they could "override" the Kommandogerät and set a manual proppitch that they didnt fly to fast in a dive, used it as a brake.


the Junkers Jumo 213 was another beast. its automatic system was NOT called Kommandogerät, that was a BMW idea, it was the "Motorbediengetriebe". in general it was an analog computer like the BMW-KG. the difference was that the pilot set a special RPM (the flightmanual gave him for avery situation the best RPM) and all the rest went automatic.

just my thoughts, if im totaly wrong , im sry

"fullautomatic system of the german planes didn't seems to be as effective as the VVS manual system."

I think that statement is highly misleading and unfair.

"If you switch to manual mode German planes operate/perform far better then on auto."

This statement says it all. Manual control of variable pitch system gives better performance than automatic control (note that I havn't tested this so don't know if it's true myself), it has nothing to do with VVS vs LW. Did manual control of variable pitch system give better performance IRL? Another thought was that this could be a problem with the engine modelling rather that prop pitch modelling (i.e. engine performance may be better with settings outside the range of automatic control, in particular I suspect that you can get more performance by manually setting pitch to operate at higher RPM than the auto settings use, even if IRL these higher RPMs would have been prohibited, in which case planes with only manual control would be able to exceed their RL performance by running at excessive RPM).

And just to restate there is common cofusion regarding what is and isn't manual pitch control, I think most VVS planes have constant speed propeller like FW190A (ingame FW190A, I don't know about RL, it may be that it had a different system that is being modelled as though it were constant speed to make it better than the automatic variable pitch type on 109s), which is an inherently automatic system with no option for manual pitch control. So just because a plane does not have a "prop pitch auto" setting doesn't mean it has manual pitch control, as constant speed propellers use the pitch control commands as governer speed settings.

Well, manual control always better then automatic for perfomance - any you can read numerous account from WW2 pilots who stated that. Here is no doubt.
The question howewer, to WHICH degree its better? Was the german kommandogeraet really so slow to react? Gave manual pitch control for K4 really +30 km/h at sea lvl? These questions need to be answered. Also question about overreiving engines on VVS planes still remains - you cant do it no matter what.