Is it realistic to fly 109F4 full throttle, RPM 26 and ATA at 14?

[Uriah]

Is it realistic to fly 109F4 full throttle, RPM 26 and ATA at 14?  I know this is still alpha and all and fear I may be getting use to some characteristics that will greatly change.  

 

I've been flying the 109e4 in COD and you really have to do a some engine management.  On the Manifold Pressure (ATA) be careful not to get the needle past the red area.  You must try to keep the RPM under 23 and the manifold pressure not past the red (about 12).  You have to play off the throttle and the prop pitch control to keep the RPM round 21/22 and the Manifold pressure in red or less.

 

While in BOS I can keep the throttle full which pushes the manifold pressure (ATA) to 14 and I can keep it there.  The engine will not blow.  Maybe the F4 can really keep at 26 RPM and 14 ATA.  I don't know.

[unreasonable]

I suspect it is not, except for brief periods: engine overheat/damage does not seem to be modeled yet. The 109G2 manual I have says that the take-off/WEP power setting of 2800/1.42 must not be used (and this button is disabled, whatever that means), in which case the normal climb/combat setting of 2600/1.30 is the most you can get. Presumably engines were wearing out too fast, I expect one of the 109 experts would know the details.

 

My last few flights I have been restricting myself to 1.30: the plane takes off just fine with or without flaps and there is still plenty enough power to maintain an energy advantage over the Laggs. The only problem I have is that it is difficult to get the throttle control sensitive enough to hit an exact pressure or rpm.

 

I was also worried about getting into bad habits that would cause problems later!

[Mogster]

That's the problem though, restrictions to reduce engine wear are meaningless in a sim where you get a nice new engine each flight.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Remember hearing a while ago that this isnt modeled yet. Id check back up this subject at release.

[unreasonable]

True, although solvable in SP if each a/c in the campaign is given a unique serial number which can be used to track its damage/wear status and its skin throughout the campaign (Just like in RL!), in which squadrons would probably start with a variety of worn and new a/c.  Then the low ranked pilots would usually get the clapped out a/c and the aces the better ones.

 

Actually in RoF campaign each aircraft of a given type is subtly different, reflecting wear or just manufacturing tolerances. But I do not think they have used the serial number way to track the status against individual a/c over time.  I suspect they will not in BoS either: it is much too sensible and efficient.

 

MP of course would be different: imagine the whining!

[Original_Uwe]

OP your missing out on a lot of performance in the CoD 109.

[Bearcat]

Remember hearing a while ago that this isnt modeled yet. Id check back up this subject at release.

This

[BlitzPig_EL]

The 109E in CloD can fly at max boost/full throttle and 2400rpm till the fuel runs out with no issue at all.  At least it could the last time I tried one.

 

 

I hope that the 109s in BoS are more realistic.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

109 F4 has a different variant to the E4 in the BOB.

 

109 F4 had a D 601 E and in mid 1942 restrictions were lifted on the max manifold pressure allowable so the variant we have in BOS should be able to use 1.42 ATA.

[Kurfurst]

Theoretically they could operate at maximum power for extended periods, the only hard limitation would be oil and coolant temperatures (and the 109 had a pretty solid cooling capacity with sizeable radiators, so I do not believe its an issue unless you close the radiators manually) and increased fuel consumption. Remember those engines were type tested on a bench for dozens of hours ( typically for 100 hours) at maximum output before being cleared for service use.

 

Of course there would be a much greater thermal and mechanical load on the engine, and likelihood that some compoment like a spark plug or cylinder fails, but thats a far cry from the cheesy, programmed automatic failure and/or "overheating" of the old Il-2 series. The time limits were simply there to keep engine wear and some random failure risk to reasonably levels... since that directly effected the number of serviceable planes.. say for example if engines last only 50 hours on avarage instead of 100 hours because of pilots pushing them to the limits, you will need to keep twice the number of engines in reserve as replacements... meaning half the number of engines availablebfor new production planes, too.

 

Yes, SOME planes had rather undersized radiators that did not have sufficient cooling capacity for prolonged heat dissapiation, which meant that engine components went too hot and could fail. But this was rather the exception, and not the rule..

[Deltrex]

I suspect it is not, except for brief periods: engine overheat/damage does not seem to be modeled yet. The 109G2 manual I have says that the take-off/WEP power setting of 2800/1.42 must not be used (and this button is disabled, whatever that means), in which case the normal climb/combat setting of 2600/1.30 is the most you can get. Presumably engines were wearing out too fast, I expect one of the 109 experts would know the details.

 

My last few flights I have been restricting myself to 1.30: the plane takes off just fine with or without flaps and there is still plenty enough power to maintain an energy advantage over the Laggs. The only problem I have is that it is difficult to get the throttle control sensitive enough to hit an exact pressure or rpm.

 

I was also worried about getting into bad habits that would cause problems later!

 

The reason why the DB605A engine in the G-2 (and G-4 and G-6) got restricted to 1.3 ata a few weeks after the first operational appearance in the field and only raised back to 1.42 ata in autumn of '43 is not because of engine wear, but because of a raised chance of engine fires.

The problem originated in the engines oil system and and was fixed in '43 with a change to the oil pump (I have the exact details somewhere but I can't find them right now and don't want to spend an hour looking).

 

Edit: The 109F-4 doesn't have any restrictions at the time of Stalingrad and I'm not certain why the DB601N engine was restricted at the beginning of its service.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Deltrex

[unreasonable]

Thanks for info Deltrex.

 

But when you say the F4 had no restrictions do you mean that the pilot could use the max setting indefinitely, or that he could use it, but only for, say, 1 minute?

[Deltrex]

Any engine setting above maximum continues power has a time limit attached.

Full power of 1.42 ata has a limit of 1 - 5 minutes, combat power of 1.3 ata has a limit of about 30 min.

Time limits can change slightly depending on weather conditions.

[Mags]

The reason why the DB605A engine in the G-2 (and G-4 and G-6) got restricted to 1.3 ata a few weeks after the first operational appearance in the field and only raised back to 1.42 ata in autumn of '43 is not because of engine wear, but because of a raised chance of engine fires.

The problem originated in the engines oil system and and was fixed in '43 with a change to the oil pump (I have the exact details somewhere but I can't find them right now and don't want to spend an hour looking).

 

Edit: The 109F-4 doesn't have any restrictions at the time of Stalingrad and I'm not certain why the DB601N engine was restricted at the beginning of its service.

Yep, Deltrex, good post.

That is what my books and manuals also are saying. But I think the 109 F4 used the DB 601 E.

[Deltrex]

You're right, 109F-4 used the DB601E. The 109E-7 and 109F-2 used the DB601N.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Deltrex

[arjisme]

Any engine setting above maximum continues power has a time limit attached.

Full power of 1.42 ata has a limit of 1 - 5 minutes, combat power of 1.3 ata has a limit of about 30 min.

Time limits can change slightly depending on weather conditions.

 

And what was the consequence if a pilot exceeded those limits (say, if he flew at max limits indefinitely)?

Edited January 2, 2014 by arjisme

[Uriah]

Did Goering come and have a little talk with the pilot?

[Deltrex]

And what was the consequence if a pilot exceeded those limits (say, if he flew at max limits indefinitely)?

 

Exceeding the limits can lead to overheating of the oil and water in the engine or even to the fuel having a too high temperature on intake.

 

Water overheating can lead to excessive pressure in the water (cooling) system which can brake the seals and and lead to pressure loss, loss of cooling ability and further increasing temperatures, And of cause even without catastrophic failures a hotter cooling system will cool your engine less.

 

Oil overheating can lead to excessive pressure in the oil system which can lead to oil leaks and in turn to engine fires, either by directly igniting the oil or by the fuel igniting because the oil isn't there.

 

If the fuel intake temperature is too high the fuel will ignite prematurely in the cylinder and lead to loss of performance and engine damage, which may lead to leaks and engine fires.

 

So in short: If you run your engine too high (too hot) for too long it will tear itself apart and/or start a fire.

[unreasonable]

So in short: If you run your engine too high (too hot) for too long it will tear itself apart and/or start a fire.

Which is what I originally thought. So while it might be OK to run at 1.42 for take off for 1 minute max, it would be prudent to limit yourself to 1.3 in combat unless you were in an emergency.

 

If you do not do this now, you will get into bad habits that will be hard to unlearn once the devs introduce overheat effects.

[OBT-Psycho]

I would love to see this premature damage accumulating along your pilot's life.

 

I don't know exactly how it is done in RoF, as we may expect similar campaign here, but it would be awesome if damaged on your airplane were kept along as you go. number of aicraft damaged, even damaged beyond repair, maybe even lack of proper supply would add a totally different aspect of the offline game. It will then just be a succession of merely linked scenarios. You will be concerned by the well-being of your squad and the objectives you chose.

 

because all these limitations don't apply in our case. Of course if you go too far off the charts for engine limitation you would burn your engine. But staying at high ATA for longer than allowed but still under breaking time won't have a direct effect on the engine, but will cut out a fair share on the engine lifetime. But as you will just use it for a few, it won't have to bother by these limitations.

 

but there are many other aspect of offline and campaign that we don't know yet..

[FlatSpinMan]

Interesting to read, guys. Thank you.

Out of interest, does anyone else find that the throttle currently seems to move, not sure how to say it, but maybe 'geometrically' rather than 'arithmetically'? I find if I move the throttle forward smoothly, it seems to progress in jumps so I'm always lurching between very low power or full (ata1.40 - whatever that actually means) with a very fine middle ground.

Of course, that may be a problem with my joystick, or perhaps that's how it was in real life. I don't know.

[Matt]

It feels like the throttle works exponentially. It has also been reported in the bug topic.

 

Maybe they'll fix that, when they add manual prop pitch etc. for the 109.

[FuriousMeow]

I would love to see this premature damage accumulating along your pilot's life.

 

I don't know exactly how it is done in RoF, as we may expect similar campaign here, but it would be awesome if damaged on your airplane were kept along as you go. number of aicraft damaged, even damaged beyond repair, maybe even lack of proper supply would add a totally different aspect of the offline game. It will then just be a succession of merely linked scenarios. You will be concerned by the well-being of your squad and the objectives you chose.

 

That's not really applicable. Aircraft wouldn't be sent up damaged. They'd be repaired first and then sent back up.

 

If the pilot had to fly a mission, and his assigned plane was damaged, he'd get a different one in WWI. I'm sure the same in WWII. No commander would send out equipment that was faulty/damaged, they'd be ineffective in combat and a guaranateed loss.

[unreasonable]

I have a similar problem: opening the throttle a lot from idle has little effect, but at the other end small changes have a large effect, making it difficult to set exact rpms.

 

I am hoping for a fully adjustable sensitivity curve in later releases.

[unreasonable]

That's not really applicable. Aircraft wouldn't be sent up damaged. They'd be repaired first and then sent back up.

 

If the pilot had to fly a mission, and his assigned plane was damaged, he'd get a different one in WWI. I'm sure the same in WWII. No commander would send out equipment that was faulty/damaged, they'd be ineffective in combat and a guaranateed loss.

 

In respect of damage I agree, but wear is a different matter. An a/c could be fully repaired but sufficiently worn out (or shoddily repaired) to affect performance.

 

In RoF damaged a/c are not operational until repaired, but a/c have different states of wear, but as far as I know this is determined on mission spawn rather than carried over with specific planes.

[OBT-Psycho]

I am glad I am not the only one that spotted this throttle stuff.

 

I thought it was a matter of hardware response too, but I checked curves for throttle and it is linear. And when you watch the lever while carefully throttling up, I see a linear movement. But once you want to put display a desired pressure, it is hard to find the sweet spot.

 

regarding damages, I may have been slightly misunderstood. I get that you would not have to fly a damaged aircraft, and repair were done as soon as needed. but I would find interresting if in campaign a shortage of spare parts would occured once you bring too often an crippled aircraft. Then you would be grounded longer because you would have to wait for supply to reach your airfield.

 

If like in RoF you can choose your type of missions, actual stock of spare parts would affect your decision. No need to risk a dangerous mission if you know that afterward you have to wait 3 weeks to get your entire squadron back in the air. 

 

Or knowing that most of engines will soon need to be replaced would make you consider the number of free hunt mission until new pieces arrive. you may want to save those few hours for convoy protection or so.

 

I know I am going a bit too far on this. but since they talked about their vision for offline play, I can't seem to stop thinking about it. it seems to be an important part of the sims we will have, and considering what we have seen so far I am very excited. 

[FuriousMeow]

I see what you mean. Something like that makes sense at the squadron commander level, assuming you make it that far. It would be squadron management then, but wouldn't be used at lower ranks obviously.

 

But as far as offline and squadron management, sure - although I wonder if it wouldn't be easier for an external campaign to do it better. The actual supply of parts would be random, at best you can somewhat control supply lines in your sector if every mission for your squad is to protect those supply lines and nothing else. Otherwise other factors come into play for spare parts to be in stock which would just be a randomizer/dice roll built into the campaign system that could be done external of the BoS program.

Edited January 3, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Emgy]

Out of interest, does anyone else find that the throttle currently seems to move, not sure how to say it, but maybe 'geometrically' rather than 'arithmetically'? I find if I move the throttle forward smoothly, it seems to progress in jumps so I'm always lurching between very low power or full (ata1.40 - whatever that actually means) with a very fine middle ground.

Of course, that may be a problem with my joystick, or perhaps that's how it was in real life. I don't know.

Well, the throttle lever operates the throttle valve, which lets more or less air into the intake manifold. Correspondingly (but not in a linear manner) the pressure in the manifold will rise or decrease, and this is what's measured in the pressure gauge.

 

So you see, there is no direct relation between the throttle lever and the pressure gauge. If the pressure gauge measured airflow in the throttle valve, we would have a direct relation. (But even then I'm not sure we'd get a linear response.)

 

Is it not the same behaviour in other games with good engine fidelity? I do not recall any linear relation between pressure and throttle lever in any of the military prop sims I've tried the past 3 years.

 

Btw 1 ata is, roughly speaking, normal air pressure at sea level. In an American plane, will read roughly 29inHg. http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/ata-inches-hg-26858.html

Edited January 3, 2014 by Calvamos

[Emgy]

Just flew two other sims to refresh memory. Spit IIa gauge behaviour is jumpy as hell. Bf 109E-4 gauge also nonlinear, just somewhat more "stable" than the F-4 in bos. Mustang gauge is anything but linear.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Interested in how devs have modelled the DB601-series(and later DB605) fuel injection. It had direct fuel injection, 2 spark plugs per cylinder and 4 valves per cylinder. Charger had a hydraulic clutch with a 4% "slip" to provide full boos up to the rated altitude. And most interesting to see will be the Fw190 with it's Kommandogerät, the most advanced engine controller of it's time.

 

 Bf109 had a overpressure valve that would let out excess pressure from the cooling system thus not blowing gaskets so easy, but even that would not help in a prolonged use. But pilot had an indication that better slow down or blow the engine. If you read Bf109 pilot memoir's all of them explain how they could limp home even with a badly damaged engine by running it until near overheat, then shut down and glide, turn on again and run until hot until the engine finally was giving in. Either a jump or crash landing depending on altitude.

[OBT-Psycho]

I see what you mean. Something like that makes sense at the squadron commander level, assuming you make it that far. It would be squadron management then, but wouldn't be used at lower ranks obviously.

 

But as far as offline and squadron management, sure - although I wonder if it wouldn't be easier for an external campaign to do it better. The actual supply of parts would be random, at best you can somewhat control supply lines in your sector if every mission for your squad is to protect those supply lines and nothing else. Otherwise other factors come into play for spare parts to be in stock which would just be a randomizer/dice roll built into the campaign system that could be done external of the BoS program.

you got it. and you're right, it may be done by external system. Some of my squadmate was involve in such a thing back in the old day, making a system quite similar to SEOW intersquad campaign if you know it. We flew this traditionally for a month with other french squad, and it was immersive as hell. That's what I hope to see back in this sims.

 

In fact all I hope for is a system that include more penalties once you are damage or killed than just having to hit refly. Anything smart enough to not being awfully frustrating but make you concern about the odd of your virtual pilot. nothing bothered me more than an hardly flying plane still trying to engage you instead of making it back home.

 

still a few month befr we figure it out

BTW I tried the throttle test on CloD and the 109 seems to behave the same, but as stated is less touchy than or friedrich.so maybe it is due to the type of engine, maybe it is a quirk to be fixed. I have no strong knowledge about engine so I can"t be sure

[Superblu]

109 F4 has a different variant to the E4 in the BOB.

 

109 F4 had a D 601 E and in mid 1942 restrictions were lifted on the max manifold pressure allowable so the variant we have in BOS should be able to use 1.42 ATA.

^ this

 

Theoretically they could operate at maximum power for extended periods, the only hard limitation would be oil and coolant temperatures (and the 109 had a pretty solid cooling capacity with sizeable radiators, so I do not believe its an issue unless you close the radiators manually) and increased fuel consumption. Remember those engines were type tested on a bench for dozens of hours ( typically for 100 hours) at maximum output before being cleared for service use.

 

Of course there would be a much greater thermal and mechanical load on the engine, and likelihood that some compoment like a spark plug or cylinder fails, but thats a far cry from the cheesy, programmed automatic failure and/or "overheating" of the old Il-2 series. The time limits were simply there to keep engine wear and some random failure risk to reasonably levels... since that directly effected the number of serviceable planes.. say for example if engines last only 50 hours on avarage instead of 100 hours because of pilots pushing them to the limits, you will need to keep twice the number of engines in reserve as replacements... meaning half the number of engines availablebfor new production planes, too.

 

Yes, SOME planes had rather undersized radiators that did not have sufficient cooling capacity for prolonged heat dissapiation, which meant that engine components went too hot and could fail. But this was rather the exception, and not the rule..

and ^ this .

 

I'm 100% in agreement with you guys.

 

 

 

S!

[Jason_Williams]

The limits of the 109 throttle are not finished yet, but soon. Also coming is the impact of ambient temperature on the engines.

 

Jason

[Bearcat]

So I take that means there will be consequences to not letting your engine warm up properly....

[Jason_Williams]

That and no endless max power etc. You could damage your engine etc. etc. No one models the effects of the environment like we do.

 

Jason

[SYN_Mike77]

engine damage is such a big part of RoF that if they didn't fix this it would be a huge step backward.  I had no doubt they would fix this.

[gx007]

Thank you for clarifying this aspect of BoS. 

[Skoshi_Tiger]

The 109E in CloD can fly at max boost/full throttle and 2400rpm till the fuel runs out with no issue at all.  At least it could the last time I tried one.

 

 

I hope that the 109s in BoS are more realistic.

From the TF 4.0 readme

 

 

New Power Settings:

 

30 minute climb: 1.25ata/2400rpm

10 minute Accelerated climb: 1.35ata/2400rpm

5 minute rating: 1.35ata/2600rpm

WEP power 1 minute rating: 1.42ata/2600rpm

 

Cheers!

[YoYo]

Is it realistic to fly 109F4 full throttle, RPM 26 and ATA at 14?  I know this is still alpha and all and fear I may be getting use to some characteristics that will greatly change.  

 

I've been flying the 109e4 in COD and you really have to do a some engine management.  On the Manifold Pressure (ATA) be careful not to get the needle past the red area.  You must try to keep the RPM under 23 and the manifold pressure not past the red (about 12).  You have to play off the throttle and the prop pitch control to keep the RPM round 21/22 and the Manifold pressure in red or less.

 

While in BOS I can keep the throttle full which pushes the manifold pressure (ATA) to 14 and I can keep it there.  The engine will not blow.  Maybe the F4 can really keep at 26 RPM and 14 ATA.  I don't know.

 

It's possible with auto prop (but not for a long time) with Prop pitch on 12:00 (but in BOS propeller pitch gauge doesnt work yet).

Edited January 30, 2014 by YoYo

[Sandhill]

engine damage is such a big part of RoF that if they didn't fix this it would be a huge step backward.  I had no doubt they would fix this.

 

 

+1