Let's stop this 1min engine limitation madness

[II./JG77_Manu*]

"VVS pilots usually flew the P-40 at War Emergency Power settings while in combat, bringing the acceleration and speed performance closer to that of their German rivals, but could burn out engines in a matter of weeks"

sources:

Osprey's "P40 aces of the Eastern Front"

Romanenko, Valeriy, James F. Gebhardt "The P-40 in Soviet aviation"

 

 

"It is true that initially the pilots attempted to improve its flight characteristics, primarily by using "war emergency power" during battle. They did this intuitively - if Soviet engines at maximum power roared like beasts, then the Allison only changed its tone slightly and everything seemed normal.

At "war emergency power" (all of 10 minutes with the Allison engine) the engine quickly wore out and the power fell off markedly. As a result (according to reports from the regiment engineer), over a period of a month the maximum speed of the Kittyhawks did not exceed 350 - 400 kmh."

Source

 

 

 

Different sources all claim, that Soviet pilots used to fly this bird at full power all day.

In game the engine breaks not after one month, not after 10 minutes (which is emergency time), but after 1 goddamn single minute. 

So you can't even closely do in game, what Soviet pilots used to do regularly in real life

 

Don't wanna even start talking about the other aircraft (190, 109E7..)

Edited January 27, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

Agree, please do something about this too, it was expensive enough just to sit in the hangar.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

"VVS pilots usually flew the P-40 at War Emergency Power settings while in combat, bringing the acceleration and speed performance closer to that of their German rivals, but could burn out engines in a matter of weeks"

sources:

Osprey's "P40 aces of the Eastern Front"

Romanenko, Valeriy, James F. Gebhardt "The P-40 in Soviet aviation"

 

 

"It is true that initially the pilots attempted to improve its flight characteristics, primarily by using "war emergency power" during battle. They did this intuitively - if Soviet engines at maximum power roared like beasts, then the Allison only changed its tone slightly and everything seemed normal.

At "war emergency power" (all of 10 minutes with the Allison engine) the engine quickly wore out and the power fell off markedly. As a result (according to reports from the regiment engineer), over a period of a month the maximum speed of the Kittyhawks did not exceed 350 - 400 kmh."

Source

 

 

 

Different sources all claim, that Soviet pilots used to fly this bird at full power all day.

In game the engine breaks not after one month, not after 10 minutes (which is emergency time), but after 1 goddamn single minute. 

So you can't even closely do in game, what Soviet pilots used to do regularly in real life

 

Don't wanna even start talking about the other aircraft (190, 190E7..)

  The P-40 has:

Continouos Power with 2600rpm and 42Hg --> 1100hp

Combat Power (10 minutes): 2800rpm and 47Hg --> around 1250hp

Emergency Power (2 minutes): 3000rpm and 70Hg --> around 1425 to 1600hp

 

I don't get your point. 

Edited January 27, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[II./JG77_Manu*]

  The P-40 has:

Continouos Power with 2600rpm and 42Hg --> 1100hp

Combat Power (10 minutes): 2800rpm and 47Hg --> around 1250hp

Emergency Power (2 minutes): 3000rpm and 70Hg --> around 1600-1800hp

 

I don't get your point. 

 

My point is, that those manual numbers are nonsense when looking how aircraft have actually been flown in WW2

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

My point is, that those manual numbers are nonsense when looking how aircraft have actually been flown in WW2

I agree the engines shouldn't stop, but loose power. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I agree the engines shouldn't stop, but loose power. 

No they shouldn't. BoS is modeled the way, that everyone who starts flying, gets a factory fresh aircraft. There is definitely no power loss on the first sortie (or even the first 5)

[SR-F_Winger]

No they shouldn't. BoS is modeled the way, that everyone who starts flying, gets a factory fresh aircraft. There is definitely no power loss on the first sortie (or even the first 5)

I agree with you. But modeling it like this would restore historical closer relative performances in this scenario. So - Not gonna happen

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

BS. 

And you'd be shooting yourselves in the knee since the P-40 would become an unbeatable force of destruction with 570kph at ground level and everybody else would go full throttle all the time as well. 

It would ruin the game. 

 

Edit: in any power mode for 10 minutes or more the engine shouldn'T stop even when exceeding the time limit and maybe loose power 20 or more minutes after. 

Edited January 27, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[II./JG77_Manu*]

BS. 

And you'd be shooting yourselves in the knee since the P-40 would become an unbeatable force of destruction with 570kph at ground level and everybody else would go full throttle all the time as well. 

It would ruin the game. 

570? Where'd you get that number from? 

we are still talking about P40E..topspeed at ground level around 490 with WEP. Turntime 19,2s. Wouldn't ruin the game.

Yak and La pilots are already going full throttle all the time...not that their engines didn't burn out in history as well, from doing that!

By the way, in case you didn't get me right, i don't demand to fully open the WEP for the P40 indefinitely. But to bring it a little closer to reality

Something like a 10min span for full power, and after that a slight degredation of power, the longer you use WEP. But right now, you can't even enter a dogfight without having to fear that you kill your engine any second. And that really ruins it. That's more unrealistic that any other "solution" to the "all day full throttle"-flying

Edited January 27, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

570? Where'd you get that number from? 

we are still talking about P40E..topspeed at ground level around 490 with WEP. Turntime 19,2s. Wouldn't ruin the game.

Yak and La pilots are already going full throttle all the time...not that their engines didn't burn out in history as well, from doing that!

By the way, in case you didn't get me right, i don't demand to fully open the WEP for the P40 indefinitely. But to bring it a little closer to reality

Something like a 10min span for full power, and after that a slight degredation of power, the longer you use WEP. But right now, you can't even enter a dogfight without having to fear that you kill your engine any second. And that really ruins it. That's more unrealistic that any other "solution" to the "all day full throttle"-flying

Not 10 minutes, but maybe add 150% time to the one prescribed in the manual and 400%-700% to stoppage. 

So when the manual states a 1 minute limit make it 2:30 until performance degrades and stoppage after 5-8 minutes. 

Edited January 27, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Not 10 minutes, but maybe add 150% time to the one prescribed in the manual and 400%-700% to stoppage. 

So when the manual states a 1 minute limit make it 2:30 until performance degrades and stoppage after 5-8 minutes. 

There shouldn't be a stoppage for throttle at all. That's bonkers. The only way you really destroy your engine in a new aircraft is overrevving or overheating. As long as you keep those 2 in line, the worst that should/could happen is that your engine ages faster. Since we don't have the same aircraft in different sorties, the only way to properly implement this would be a degradation within your flight. But never ever a complete broken engine. 

Edited January 27, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Cheers to all points made, Celestiale/Manu.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

There shouldn't be a stoppage for throttle at all. That's bonkers. The only way you really destroy your engine in a new aircraft is overrevving or overheating. As long as you keep those 2 in line, the worst that should/could happen is that your engine ages faster. Since we don't have the same aircraft in different sorties, the only way to properly implement this would be a degradation within your flight. But never ever a complete broken engine. 

Then I guess we have to go the next step so that when you crash you are banned form the game for at least three days and if you die you get banned forever. And you should of course have to use the same aircraft for the entire time, have officers ground you, angry mechanics etc. 

And then we can add in wear as well. 

Edited January 27, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Jizzo]

Then I guess we have to go the next step so that when you crash you are banned form the game for at least three days and if you die you get banned forever. And you should of course have to use the same aircraft for the entire time, have officers ground you, angry mechanics etc. 

And then we can add in wear as well. 

+1

[Potenz]

Actually a wearing system wouldn't be a bad idea, but the problem is how to implement such thing in a way that would no cause any outcry, could be implemented as an experiment in the single player with random failures along, then if it works could be ported to MP.

 

It also can be a dificulty option as CEM or Externals.

Edited January 27, 2016 by [AoA]Potenz

[Y-29.Silky]

the only way to properly implement this would be a degradation within your flight. But never ever a complete broken engine.

So fly a plane that will have unescapable engine degradation no matter what. That sounds fun.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

So fly a plane that will have unescapable engine degradation no matter what. That sounds fun.

Well, I guess it would have to be an identity based system. (My silly Ideas)

 

You'd have maybe three pilots/identites per nation, one Fighter, one Bomber/Ground Attacker and a Recon/Transport Pilot.

You'd select an aircraft for each pilot, and when you fly, depending on how you do it, the aircraft wears out, more or less. 

 

You cannot change aircraft unless they are destroyed or not flown, after a waiting period of 2 to 5 days. 

 

Back at base you'd have repair timers for different kinds of damage

-slight damage --> 1-3 hours until aircraft is fully repaired but still worn. 

-heavy damage --> 3-8 hours until fully repaired. If entire parts are broken (Wings, Props, Engines) they will be replaced with new ones.

-Outlandings would add 2 hours to the damage, Outlandings in enemy territory count as complete Loss. 

-Complete Loss of Aircraft --> 12h - 3 days until replacement

-If you don't fly for more than 2-5 days this counts as time for major maintenance and your aircraft will be back in factory-fresh condition with refurbishing the paintjob, engine maintenance, polishing glass etc.  (Also, if you die you have to wait for same time span)

 

 

The repair times depend on a number of different factors. 

 

-First of all, commonality, how many of these are in service? The more there are of one type, the harder it is to come by parts. Thus a common aircraft like the Yak will be great for air combat, but if something goes wrong it's a long wait for you. A LaGG-3 is a better choice in that case and will repair more quickly.  I think the Server side could also give certain types preferential treatment by reducing repair times by aircraft type as well, so the I-16s, 109E-7s and G-2s and LaGG-3s don't go extinct on the battlefields. 

 

-Secondly, what do you do while your Fw190 is under repair? Well, you can help the cause by dropping Stuka-Eggs on Iwans. Since this is quite risky you will get quite severe waiting time reductions for flying a single mission.

Or you can take out a 111 Transport and Supply your front airfields. (Or become a Ju.52 Pilot once it becomes available)

Or you can take an unarmed Bf110 or Ju-88 and fly a high altitude Recce.

All this keeps you busy and your aircraft willl be back in working order in no time. 

 

 

You can switch to another identity and /or nation so if your Luftwaffe Pilot is waiting for repairs you can take out your Yak and fly for the enemy side, same rules apply of course, but your time on that side only translates to repairs for aircraft of that nation as well. 

 

 

Have I just blown your minds? I like the idea actually. 

Edited January 27, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[II./JG77_Manu*]

So fly a plane that will have unescapable engine degradation no matter what. That sounds fun.

no

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

So fly a plane that will have unescapable engine degradation no matter what. That sounds fun.

 

no

 

Yes, yes it does. It adds variety. 

Edited January 27, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Yes, yes it does. It adds variety. 

I have nothing against it. But i didn't say this, so Silky misinterpreted me.

[Potenz]

Well, I guess it would have to be an identity based system. (My silly Ideas)

 

You'd have maybe three pilots/identites per nation, one Fighter, one Bomber/Ground Attacker and a Recon/Transport Pilot.

You'd select an aircraft for each pilot, and when you fly, depending on how you do it, the aircraft wears out, more or less. 

 

You cannot change aircraft unless they are destroyed or not flown, after a waiting period of 2 to 5 days. 

 

Back at base you'd have repair timers for different kinds of damage

-slight damage --> 1-3 hours until aircraft is fully repaired but still worn. 

-heavy damage --> 3-8 hours until fully repaired. If entire parts are broken (Wings, Props, Engines) they will be replaced with new ones.

-Outlandings would add 2 hours to the damage, Outlandings in enemy territory count as complete Loss. 

-Complete Loss of Aircraft --> 12h - 3 days until replacement

-If you don't fly for more than 2-5 days this counts as time for major maintenance and your aircraft will be back in factory-fresh condition with refurbishing the paintjob, engine maintenance, polishing glass etc.  (Also, if you die you have to wait for same time span)

 

 

The repair times depend on a number of different factors. 

 

-First of all, commonality, how many of these are in service? The more there are of one type, the harder it is to come by parts. Thus a common aircraft like the Yak will be great for air combat, but if something goes wrong it's a long wait for you. A LaGG-3 is a better choice in that case and will repair more quickly.  I think the Server side could also give certain types preferential treatment by reducing repair times by aircraft type as well, so the I-16s, 109E-7s and G-2s and LaGG-3s don't go extinct on the battlefields. 

 

-Secondly, what do you do while your Fw190 is under repair? Well, you can help the cause by dropping Stuka-Eggs on Iwans. Since this is quite risky you will get quite severe waiting time reductions for flying a single mission.

Or you can take out a 111 Transport and Supply your front airfields. (Or become a Ju.52 Pilot once it becomes available)

Or you can take an unarmed Bf110 or Ju-88 and fly a high altitude Recce.

All this keeps you busy and your aircraft willl be back in working order in no time. 

 

 

You can switch to another identity and /or nation so if your Luftwaffe Pilot is waiting for repairs you can take out your Yak and fly for the enemy side, same rules apply of course, but your time on that side only translates to repairs for aircraft of that nation as well. 

 

 

Have I just blown your minds? I like the idea actually. 

waiting times can be server side set, so every server can set their own parameters, something similar was used in World of Tanks Clanwars, when you lose a tank in battle you 

have to wait 72hs to be available again for battle, was a nice way to administrate the tanks in your Division, reckless players pay the price. some clans ended the day battling in tier

7 tanks hehehe.

 

But in BoS would be a good experiment, to see how people adapt to a more real way to fight instead of taking any plane to the edge all the time.

Edited January 27, 2016 by [AoA]Potenz

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I have nothing against it. But i didn't say this, so Silky misinterpreted me.

The Problem is that it is comepletly a-historical to have aircraft pushing the engine limit all the time, and if you didn't you'd go through a number of engines rather quickly and risk loss of performance due to valves and camshafts wearing at incredible rates, worn out bearings, leaks everywhere etc. 

 

That's why, if we gave the engines the ability to run almost unlimited for longer periods, we would have to simulate engine wear as well. Otherwise I'm quite happy with the current system, maybe remove engine stoppages, but engine damage should occur nonetheless.  

[II./JG77_Manu*]

The Problem is that it is comepletly a-historical to have aircraft pushing the engine limit all the time, and if you didn't you'd go through a number of engines rather quickly and risk loss of performance due to valves and camshafts wearing at incredible rates, worn out bearings, leaks everywhere etc. 

 

That's why, if we gave the engines the ability to run almost unlimited for longer periods, we would have to simulate engine wear as well. Otherwise I'm quite happy with the current system, maybe remove engine stoppages, but engine damage should occur nonetheless.  

And still it's possible with every Klimov plane, and also the La5. That's ahistorical yes.

It is even more unhistorical and does way more damage gameplay-wise, that certain engines brake at certain power settings. It's ridiculous.

 

Right now, there are a few aircraft that hugely benefit from the current system, like the Yak1. People just slam the throttle and the RPM to max, and fly this way "all day". Just because the Yaks war-time manual didn't forbid it - reasons are easy, first and foremost because they had a lot of the Klimov engines at hand, and could easily replace them. Every sane person can imagine, that the Yaks engine wears off way faster, when flying with high power settings a lot - same as every other aircraft.

Then there are the other aircraft, who have worse combat performance then they had in real life. In particular the P40. Why? Because the P40 manual was written in peace time, and the engine limitations are there, to get the pilots to treat the engine as careful as possible - to have less engine wear. 

In the war back then it didn't make any difference. When you got into a dangerous combat situation, you used all the power you needed - without breaking your plane. 

The current system writes a complete own history, which has nothing in common with the real life combat performance/usability of certain aircraft.

The difference between certain aircraft - for example the Yak and the P40 is just ridiculous in game. In a turnfight, those two should be about equal - of course the Yak has a better acceleration, and climb rate, not taking that away..but in a pure horizontal turnfight they should have the same combat performance. In game this is laughable.

Even 1946, with HSFX, with it's simplified engine management (only thing that happens, when you go full throttle, is that you overheat the engine after a while) has a way more realistic portrayal of the combat performance of all the aircraft out there. God forgive me, even in War Thunder, this is more realistic. The current limits completely negate the performances of some planes.

Will be interesting when the Kobra comes...when they implement the engine limitations for the Kobra the same way like the P40, it will be absolutely useless. I wonder why some of the highest scoring Soviet aces flew this aircraft till the end of the war.....

Edited January 27, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Brano]

From what I read,you have no idea how Klimov and Shvecov were designed and ment to be operated.Don't take it as offence.Take it rather as challenge to study the subject to not embarrass yourself here.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

From what I read,you have no idea how Klimov and Shvecov were designed and ment to be operated.Don't take it as offence.Take it rather as challenge to study the subject to not embarrass yourself here.

I read enough about those engines...also enough about their failures you wanna tell me, they are meant to run full power all day?

Apart from that..you are missing the whole point from what i am saying regardless

Edited January 28, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I read enough about those engines...also enough about their failures you wanna tell me, they are meant to run full power all the time?

The Klimov 105 ingame runs 1.38 ata at 2700 rpm, while 109s and Fockes run 1.3 ata at 2300-2600 continuous in a 35 litre engine, just like the DB601. So it's running higher settings forever. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

The Klimov 105 ingame runs 1.38 ata at 2700 rpm, while 109s and Fockes run 1.3 ata at 2300-2600 continuous in a 35 litre engine, just like the DB601. So it's running higher settings forever. 

and you can be sure, that neither 109 or Focke are supposed to run 1.3, or even 1.2 all of their lifespan..

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

and you can be sure, that neither 109 or Focke are supposed to run 1.3, or even 1.2 all of their lifespan..

And the Klimov has much more stroke than bore, while the german engines are almost quadratic. 

[unreasonable]

Just a tangent to this but I think it is on topic:

 

Thinking about Klaus_Mann's suggested engine deterioration schedule, I would love to see something like it in SP. Unfortunately that would require the kind of persistent campaign character that BoS/BoM has discarded.

 

Another point on engine wear and its effects: we are about to get BoM and the 109 F2. As fighter units were either withdrawn from the front or upgraded to F4s throughout Barbarossa, they handed over their used F2s to the nearest unit still using them.

 

From memory, the main GAF fighter unit in the Moscow battles in late 1941- spring 42 was JG51 - in F2s. By that time I think every other JG had been upgraded to F4s. Given that F2s were no longer being produced (?), then all of the F2s from Barbarossa that were not written off would have ended up in JG51.  Most of them must have been in a rather poor state: engines worn, repaired several times....

 

If 1CGS continues with its policy of making all planes factory fresh (which is consistent) then our F2s in the setting of BoM are going to perform, on average, rather better than their actual counterparts. (Although that does not itself make the engine limits correct).

 

Not trying to make a red vs black point here, just thinking aloud. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

F-2 that were still combat worthy were upgraded go F-4 stabdards simply by fittimg a Db601E engine. There was no need to write them off because it was the very same airframe.

 

OT engine wear is a difficult topic. Each engine works differently and suffers from different shortcomings (material, design, fluids, ect). A generalized engine-wear mechanic would not do justice to either the technical differences nor the manual recommendations.

 

As for the Db601 there are documents stating use of 1.42 ata / 2700 RPM setting for ip to 3 min, so that "1 min+0 - 50%" rule of thumb doesnt quite cut it.

 

On the other hand opening everything for full abuse may result in difficulties, too.

 

A wear down mechanic (optimal would be a real cylinder damage simulation) would be a better substitude in my opinion.

[csThor]

The F-2s JG51 received in 1942 had all gone through factory-level maintenance (meaning they had been dismantled, cleaned, fixed, damages repaired, engine overhauled etc) and had received the MG 151/20 centerline cannon as an upgrade. As such they were in good condition when the unit received them and they were meant as a stopgap solution only as the upgrade to either Bf 109 G-2 or Fw 190 A was on the horizon already.

[unreasonable]

The F-2s JG51 received in 1942 had all gone through factory-level maintenance (meaning they had been dismantled, cleaned, fixed, damages repaired, engine overhauled etc) and had received the MG 151/20 centerline cannon as an upgrade. As such they were in good condition when the unit received them and they were meant as a stopgap solution only as the upgrade to either Bf 109 G-2 or Fw 190 A was on the horizon already.

 

Those are not the F2s I am referring to. I am talking about the F2s JG51 was flying in Operation Typhoon and the Soviet counter-attack in 1941: the period that BoM is supposed to cover, is it not? 

 

These would have been a combination of the any new production line F2s that had arrived as replacements, plus all of the other surviving F2s from the start of Barbarossa in JG51 or from other units that handed them over, with various degrees of unit level repairs, plus I think relatively few planes that had been sent back for factory repair and had got back to unit level within this time frame.

 

I do not know how many new or factory reconditioned  F2s were delivered to units between the start of Barbarossa and the end of 1941 - (anyone have a figure?) - but given how LW support and maintenance basically broke down through the summer and autumn I suspect not many.

 

Apologies for OT - if someone wants to get into the details of the state of JG51's aircraft during the BoM period we should probably take it elsewhere.

[csThor]

@ unreasonable

 

Even though this would take it OT I want to give a brief response: JG 51 did not receive "handed down" F-2s from other units in 1941 because there was no such move whatsoever. In fact in spring 1942 JG 51 had already received a bunch of F-4s but was forced to hand these over in exchange for refurbished F-2s (as I outlined above). In fact most units engaged in "Typhoon" received a new set of F-4s because they had been burned out and in fact in some cases they had scant few F-2s left "to hand down". The most drastic examples are Stab,  I. and II./JG 52 which had to be withdrawn after much of their aircraft park had been lost at Kalinin due to frozen engines when the soviet counter-offensive struck.

Edited January 28, 2016 by csThor

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I put my schedule in the Suggestions Box http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/20768-lets-stop-1min-engine-limitation-madness-manu-my-silly-ideas/

 

F-2 that were still combat worthy were upgraded go F-4 stabdards simply by fittimg a Db601E engine. There was no need to write them off because it was the very same airframe.

OT engine wear is a difficult topic. Each engine works differently and suffers from different shortcomings (material, design, fluids, ect). A generalized engine-wear mechanic would not do justice to either the technical differences nor the manual recommendations.

As for the Db601 there are documents stating use of 1.42 ata / 2700 RPM setting for ip to 3 min, so that "1 min+0 - 50%" rule of thumb doesnt quite cut it.

On the other hand opening everything for full abuse may result in difficulties, too.

A wear down mechanic (optimal would be a real cylinder damage simulation) would be a better substitude in my opinion.

Anyways, I think a simple mechanic would be a 250% rule for each mode until engine looses power, with engine stoppages after maybe 600% time. There should be some incentive not to overwork the engine. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Thats ablittle to generalized to me tbh. Some engines had for example safety restrictions die to great heat emissions during max power. If you for example have a safety time pf 3 min in summer time you can expect lobger periods of max power usage in winter, yet with a static generalisation your engine will take damage equally quickly.

 

If the engine has a technicle flaw (on the 109 it was the oil filter i think?) damage should of course occurr less envirounment dependent.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Thats ablittle to generalized to me tbh. Some engines had for example safety restrictions die to great heat emissions during max power. If you for example have a safety time pf 3 min in summer time you can expect lobger periods of max power usage in winter, yet with a static generalisation your engine will take damage equally quickly.

 

If the engine has a technicle flaw (on the 109 it was the oil filter i think?) damage should of course occurr less envirounment dependent.

The DB605 had trouble with plain bearings which would overheat due to low oil pressure, amounts of oil and insufficient oil filters. 

[unreasonable]

@ unreasonable

 

Even though this would take it OT I want to give a brief response: JG 51 did not receive "handed down" F-2s from other units in 1941 because there was no such move whatsoever. In fact in spring 1942 JG 51 had already received a bunch of F-4s but was forced to hand these over in exchange for refurbished F-2s (as I outlined above). In fact most units engaged in "Typhoon" received a new set of F-4s because they had been burned out and in fact in some cases they had scant few F-2s left "to hand down". The most drastic examples are Stab,  I. and II./JG 52 which had to be withdrawn after much of their aircraft park had been lost at Kalinin due to frozen engines when the soviet counter-offensive struck.

 

Please answer this question then - at the beginning of Typhoon, were JG 51 operating F2s? To the best of my knowledge, they were one of the last units to be equipped with only F2s in 1941.  Those aircraft came from somewhere. Even if JG 51 had some F4s, it does not change the argument that most of the F2s it had at the time of BoM (and I am sure you agree that F2s were involved in this battle) would have been well past their best. 

 

Prien discusses the "hand down" of aircraft to units from II/JG 3 when it got F4 as replacements, I/JG3 when it was withdrawn, and similarly for II /JG 53 when it was withdrawn for re-equipping. (I only have his books on those JGs).

 

So the handover of aircraft in theatre from units about to be transferred or re-equipped is well documented. This process was happening from the very beginning of Barbarossa. Did JG51 also take over aircraft from other units re-equipping with F4s? I have seen an account stating just that - perhaps you have evidence to the contrary. But given that this was standard LW practice throughout Barbarossa I would be surprised if they were the exception. 

[Dakpilot]

There shouldn't be a stoppage for throttle at all. That's bonkers. The only way you really destroy your engine in a new aircraft is overrevving or overheating. As long as you keep those 2 in line, the worst that should/could happen is that your engine ages faster. Since we don't have the same aircraft in different sorties, the only way to properly implement this would be a degradation within your flight. But never ever a complete broken engine. 

 

And I guess  you know this as fact from your long experience of operating DB601/605 engines

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[csThor]

@ unreasonable

 

JG 51 was not the only one left. In fact many units soldiered on with the F-2: JG 52 (except III. Gruppe) and especially JG 54 (which did not receive its first F-4 until December 1941 - for II./JG 54, the rest soldiered on with a mix of F-2 and some F-4 until mid-1942!). You make it sound as if JG 51 was the "trash can" for the rest of the units. Which is what I don't agree with.

 

PS: The main reason why JG 51 was left in the field but given aircraft left behind by departing units or those about to be reequipped is the fact that they had a bunch of well-off air bases to operate from which also provided better maintenance infrastructure (i.e. heated hangars etc). The airfields at Vitebsk, Smolensk, Shatalowka and especially Dugino were solid pre-war air bases and offered much better logistical capabilities than the temporary landing strips other units had to use (and which made maintenance a nightmare).

Edited January 28, 2016 by csThor

[unreasonable]

@csThor - I take your point: I expect you have more comprehensive knowledge than I do: I am a fox not a hedgehog, if you are familiar with that expression.  

 

(But most F2s must still have been pretty crappy by BoM )