What aircraft would you like to see following the Texan?

[Scott - A2A]

Chris,

I'm speaking of the mild supercharging of the 1340, being redlined at 36" when compared to, for example, the Mustang having a redline of 67". When people read the horsepower comparisons, they see 600 hp for the 6 compared to 1700 hp for the 51. So it's common to think the 6 has a much smaller engine. When in fact, it's 1340 cubic inches compared to 1650.

To put it in perspective, a big block Chevy Corvette is 454 cubic inches.

Scott.

[Dogsbody55]

Really looking forward to flying the T-6. Hopefully, all the comments by Scott mean it's getting close to release. Alpha testing sometime in the next month???

But back to the subject of this thread, I'm really hoping that an Accusim GA twin will be next. My thoughts would be something like a Seminole, followed by a Baron 55, followed by the Aerostar. This gives a good progression in terms of weight and performance. This might then be followed by something like a Beech 18, then (if not a DC-3,) a C-46. A military twin like a C-46 would be great, and would teach us all a thing or 3 about flying as they're tricky planes. But their numbers are dwindling, so I hope it happens withing the next few years. We still need a GA turbo powered plane as well, and a turbo Bonanza or Commander would be great.

I personally am not fussed about jets, but I like the older stuff like P-80's or T-33's, Meteors, Vampires and Hunters. The Hunter was often view by pilots as being the last "pilot's fighter". After that, computers took over.

As for other military planes, I'd really like to see a later Spitfire such as a MkIX or even a Griffon powered MkXIV. Also on my wishlist is a Hurricane, BF-109F or early G (the best of the breed from a pilot's perspective), Grumman F4-F and perhaps an F3-F biplane. If you want a difficult plane to handle, try a P-39. This was another plane that taught you to be on top of your game or else. Then there's the multi engine planes to choose, and a few here have asked for an A-26, but have you tried the A-26 at Sim Outhouse? Great performance, but lousy visibility. I won't mention the Lancaster, as Lewis might start weeping , but I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

So many planes; so little A2A!!!


Cheers,
Mike

[AKar]

The R1340 had a root induction supercharger just as all following large-bore radial engines did. For example, the R1830 reduced the bore and stroke per cylinder by 0.5", doubled the number of cylinders, doubled the weight, and ended up with just over double the horsepower. However, it's supercharger has a lower step-up (1:7.15 in the 1830 versus the 1:10 in the R1340), so the gains were not by boosting the engine more, it was simply more displacement and thus more area for combustion.

I'm speaking of the mild supercharging of the 1340, being redlined at 36" when compared to, for example, the Mustang having a redline of 67". When people read the horsepower comparisons, they see 600 hp for the 6 compared to 1700 hp for the 51. So it's common to think the 6 has a much smaller engine. When in fact, it's 1340 cubic inches compared to 1650.

Interesting discussion, I'm quite unfamiliar with these monsters, heck of a lot of technical manuals on my hard drives waiting digestion when I've got some extra time. Anyways, in general sense, it is indeed worthwhile to note that there are in practice two variables that make up the engine performance: displacement and compression ratio. There are very little magic tricks in reality, and given similar physical proportions, one necessarily end up with closely matched engines. I intentionally did not mention the effect of supercharging, or boost: considering the engine as a complete package, one can reduce the effect of supercharging into a corresponding increase in compression ratio (it is not typically done to the spec sheets because pure compression ratio is defined by physical proportions, the "geometric compression", not by actual, thermodynamic compression of the air).

Increasing effective total compression ratio works to increase the engine's performance for given displacement, "tuning" it higher. Typically however the same engine construction cannot be "tuned" to too large variations of power - it would make little sense to do so of course! Actually, many series of GA pistons show atypically large variations in this respect, and as expected, similar variations in reliability and how critical they are to handle. Even then, they show smaller geometric compression ratios when boosted by supercharger - for that reason, they are in principle at least less-performing than their naturally aspirated counterparts at the same manifold pressure.

As Chris mentions, if we want to have more power from a given engine design, typically the only way to achieve that is to increase the displacement: add some cylinders (O-360 → O-540) or make their displacement bigger (O-470 → O-520). Significantly increasing engine's performance by increasing the boost typically takes more drastic re-considerations in (geometric) compression ratios, in ignition timing, in cooling...everything.

Anyways, of note is the comparison in between the R-1340 and, say, V-1650: they have precisely same geometric compression ratios, displacements rather close to each other but the Merlin is boosted way higher. It is much higher-tuned engine, but this shows up in many aspects of design and also in inherent reliability. They are inherently different engines, whereas many up-rated radials of same design tend to add up the displacement, at least in attempt to keep the design and reliability much unchanged. Indeed, it seems that when physically similar radials were uprated by boosting, a bad reputation almost immediately followed.

-Esa

[Ian Warren]

I think one was wrong .. 'ME' .. what we need is a ME Bf-109 to complement the Spitfire, we have to be practical but also think off the fun , the two types in mock combat ... a thought that stuck me was, is there any way to program a shoot and hit , not dissimilar to real A2A combat training ... ACCU-SIMCOMBAT trainer ... now that really adds to some fun ... for standard FSX and later

[Dogsbody55]

We already have a decent BF-109E in the A2A version that can be used in FSX, and it's worth a try. I'd like to see a layer one such as an F or early G before the 12.9mm guns were fitted to the fuselage, creating those nasty bulges over the gun breaches. Weight increased dramatically at that point making the plane less pleasant to fly. An FW-190 would also be great, but perhaps hard to model in FSX to A2A's standards given that propeller speed, boost, spark timing and mixture were all controlled via the throttle through an electro-mechanical unit called the "Kommandogerat" that enabled best performance.

Regarding the discussion on supercharging, you can also do a comparison between the RR Merlin and the Allison V-1710. These engines were of comparable size, with the V-1710 being about a litre bigger. Yet the Merlin was so much better at altitude because it could develop the power needed in thinner air. Even the early ones were better than the V-1710, simply because GM didn't develop a decent supercharger, for various (military) reasons. Yet this engine was capable of developing more power, as shown by GM's attempts at 2 stage supercharging with the P-63. Unfortunately, they used no intercooler, aftercooler or backfire screen (flame trap) to control charge heating and backfire into the supercharger which resulted in a very unreliable engine. A later version had anti-detonation injection, but again it was very unreliable. But the fact remain that in service, P-40's and P-39's were pretty useless over 15,000 feet. When the Japanese attacked northern Australia in 1942, P-40's were the only defensive fighter available. To ensure their bombers got through, the Japanese simply flew in at heights over 25,000 feet, where they couldn't be harmed to any great degree. By the time of the 1943 campaign, the RAAF had Spitfire Vc's. Now the Japanese were height limited, as their escorting Zeros could not go above 28,000 feet, whereas the Spitfires would now attack from 30,000 feet or higher. The difference was all about supercharging, and not engine size.


Cheers,
Mike

[AKar]

Yes, the altitude performance is of course an important consideration, and forced induction engines obviously do better as the power performance of naturally aspirated ones drop directly with the altitude. However, even an engine with no "boost" at sea level can be "turbo-normalized", and that is done with certain models. It is actually rather clever trick, it does not force any extra power from the engine but keeps it up all the way to some critical altitude.

Similarly of course, in principle a low-boosted engine could be able to retain its power to an altitude where higher-boosted one (at sea level) is already falling behind, but can't think of any such situation.

-Esa

[renaissanceman]

I think one was wrong .. 'ME' .. what we need is a ME Bf-109 to complement the Spitfire, we have to be practical but also think off the fun , the two types in mock combat ... a thought that stuck me was, is there any way to program a shoot and hit , not dissimilar to real A2A combat training ... ACCU-SIMCOMBAT trainer ... now that really adds to some fun ... for standard FSX and later

From Wikipedia (pinch of salt required although I have read this elsewhere):

The "Bf 109" designation was issued by the German ministry of aviation and represents the developing company Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (at which the engineer [Willy] Messerschmitt led the development of the plane) and a rather arbitrary figure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109

Jim

[Ian Warren]

We already have a decent BF-109E in the A2A version that can be used in FSX, and it's worth a try.

Yes indeed, I have looked at this model, but it is not the same as the the Spitfire by compare with detail and Accusimed, this would were the two connect .

[Dogsbody55]

For once, Wonkipedia is not wrong. German aircraft were given type names based on the company name, and not the designers name.

Aircraft type designations in Nazi Germany were based on the name of the company. In the case of both the BF-109 and BF-110, these planes were designed by Willy Messerschmitt as chief designer for a company Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, or (in English) Bavarian Flying Works. Both types were commonly referred to as ME-109 and ME-110, but this is wrong as the type designations were never officially changed by the Reich Luft Ministerium following the re-organisation of BFW. Type designations were issued by the RLM, and in the mid 30's when the 109 and 110 were designed, Willy Messerschmitt was very unpopular with Nazi officialdom. However, by the late 30's, his star had risen considerably, and in late 1938 the RLM issued type designations recognising Willy Messerschmitt's abilities as a designer, and according his next designs, the ME-209 and ME-210 with his name as the type designation. In July 1939, the company was re-organised as Messerschmitt AG, with Willy Messerschmitt as Chairman and Managing Director. This meant that for any designs reaching prototype stage after that date, the type designation starts with ME. This, I believe from all my books on the subject, starts with the ME-163 and ME-262, but other projects were active around this time, so the history is a little confused.

From this, it becomes clear how the confusion may have started, as you have many different aircraft types produced by the Messerschmitt AG concern, with differing type letters (BF and ME). It becomes even more apparent how such errors could be accepted as truth when all other well known German aircraft types at the time (Dornier, Junkers, & Heinkel) were named after their designers who were also the company founders. The only other aircraft designer so honoured as Messerschmitt was Kurt Tank, who designed the Focke Wulf FW-190. When the FW-190 was re-engineered to take high performance and high altitude engines, these types became the TA-152 series. Also there was a twin engined design to combat the British Mosquito known as the TA-154, which was also a wooden plane. The only reason it was not successful was due to the allies bombing the factory that produced the glue for this plane, fortunately also destroying the specifications for the glue, which the Germans were never able to replicate. Other than that, the TA-154 was brilliant, but the replacement glue gave each airframe a short lifespan.

Going back to the ME-209 and ME-210, for those who may not know, the ME-209 was built purely as a record breaker in 1939, and raised the world airspeed record to 469mph in April 1939. However, it's test pilot described it as a "monstrosity" and "a vicious little brute". The 4th prototype was built as a fighter, but it's flying characteristics ruled out any further devolpment and the project was abandoned in 1940 then revived in 1942 with the production of a 5th prototype with a redesigned fuselage and new engine. The ME-209 project was finally was abandoned in 1944. The ME-210 on the other hand, did become operational. This was intended as a replacement for the BF-110 Zerstorer heavy fighter, but again the design gave a lot of trouble as it was an evil handling plane with unreliable remote defensive systems that didn't fulfil expectations. It was redesigned as the ME-410 which, although looking the same, was a much better plane, more reliable, better aerodynamically. That it didn't replace the BF-110 completely goes to Germany's ability to manufacture enough to do so, and the BF-110's success as a night fighter.

Messerschmitt 209V1 to V4


Messerschmitt 209V5



Cheers,
Mike

[Ian Warren]

For once, Wonkipedia is not wrong. German aircraft were given type names based on the company name, and not the designers name.

Wonkipedia Proud off ya .. I call it Dikipedia , general information and that is it , school kids hand book, one off the best books on the early A-E variant , authors Willy Radinger & Walter Schick, performance tables and development, dang incredible books .

The next three Volumes cover these race type and test models then on to the later variants.

[CAPFlyer]

Chris,

I'm speaking of the mild supercharging of the 1340, being redlined at 36" when compared to, for example, the Mustang having a redline of 67". When people read the horsepower comparisons, they see 600 hp for the 6 compared to 1700 hp for the 51. So it's common to think the 6 has a much smaller engine. When in fact, it's 1340 cubic inches compared to 1650.

To put it in perspective, a big block Chevy Corvette is 454 cubic inches.

Scott.

Apples and Oranges though Scott. The R1340 has an internal impeller that is part of the engine itself that is single stage, variable speed. The V1650/Merlin has an external 2-stage, 2-speed supercharger. The engine itself is only able to produce 1,400 HP.

Also, not sure what the perspective is with the 454 other than the cylinder and stroke is about an inch smaller than the R1340 and the 454 produces its best power at about double the RPM of the R1340 for less power.

[Scott - A2A]

Chris,

You are over-thinking this, which is common for someone brilliant like yourself.

The point I am making is comparing the sheer size of the engine vs horsepower, and how people who just read stats can easily have the false impression the T-6 has a small engine, when in fact the engine is quite large. And this mass is very apparent when operating it, which is something we model in Accu-Sim.

The Chevy 454 analogy is just to help those with experience in a big block Chevy have a sense of just how big these Warbird engines are.

Scott.

[CAPFlyer]

Ahh, yep, I definitely did overthink it.

[Adam_NZ]

Surely, after you've "done" the Spitfire and Texan, the single most iconic aircraft in aviation history has to be the DC-3/C-47 Dakota.

It's never really been done properly (IMHO) and could certainly benefit from Accusim. Yes, I know the gazillions of modifications/variations may make it hard, but any one would do!

Adam.

[Paul K]

Now that the T-6 is finished, I'd like to see development of the T-33 come to the fore.