Open oil & radiator flaps on 109

[Zoring]

Just as an aside, didn't the mixture control in the 109 previously always be automatic? Why do I have to faddle with it now?

[Panzerlang]

There is no mixture control in the 109, it has fuel injection.

 

Helmut Lipfert describes how his 109's engine spontaneously set itself on fire on one occasion and he was nervous of engines for a long time after that.

[6S.Manu]

Anyway I think all this talking is useless as we don't have a changelog: we can only speculate about this "feature" since we're not beta tester.

 

To say it all, I'm not even trying the new planes: noone has said to me what is their development stage.

[LY_LCT_unknwn]

So i did some testing. 2700rpm diving at 600kmh with water temp at 50c engine smoked about ~20s past 1min limit. Tried climbing at 160kmh@2700k engine smoked 1m22s. After few different tests i would say engine smokes up at the range 1min20s and 2mins. Doesn't matter what speed you and what temp you have. Is it random past 1 minute?

This looks highly unrealistic. I would prefer no limit than some random limit past 1min or 5min or whatever official limit was for max power (which isn't actual limit of when new engine would break/smoke up, but a limit to save engines from damage).

For example in DCS:P51 manual says that you can go full power for 5 mins. But while flying fast and keeping engine cool you can get a few times more than the manual says. However if you do low speed aerobatics you can overheat engine in a minute and break the engine.

[LY_LCT_unknwn]

It isn't related just to time but time spent at high RPM.

 

A developer explained it here.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/4680-developer-diary-part-56/?p=95615

 

That doesn't explain much. Why only 1 minute at 2700? Why temperatures have no impact? "engine damage becomes possible" does that mean "random" ?

[FuriousMeow]

Temperatures aren't the only item that influence high RPM limitations.

[LY_LCT_unknwn]

Temperatures aren't the only item that influence high RPM limitations.

Of course it isn't. But currently it looks like that it has zero or negligible impact compared to the time spent at high RPM.

If you tried DCS:P51 you would know that temperatures and airflow to the radiators can have a huge impact on the rpm limitations.

Edited March 15, 2014 by LY_LCT_unknwn

[Venturi]

Marginal cooling capacity situations are bad yes. In Russian winter or high alt I suspect not really a problem unless one was really stupid.

[6S.Manu]

With so many details still in  development we can't yet be sure of what is still to come.

 

[FuriousMeow]

Of course it isn't. But currently it looks like that it has zero or negligible impact compared to the time spent at high RPM.

If you tried DCS:P51 you would know that temperatures and airflow to the radiators can have a huge impact on the rpm limitations.

 

I have DCS:P51, but that's still a piece of software that only takes a few variables into account. You are still comparing a piece of software to a piece of software, you should be comparing it against real life which is exactly what the devs are trying to do - compare it against limitations in the manual.

 

It's funny to see so many cite the manual for optimum performance values of aircraft, especially the German aircraft across all periods, but when it works against them it should be taken with a grain of salt and more of guidelines than rules.

[Venturi]

Temperature (IE thermal energy) in the engine is not caused primarily by friction, but by combustion. If you had enough friction in your engine to significantly impact the total thermal combustion output of an engine which puts out over 1300hp (remember the best internal combustion engines are only about 30% efficient), then your engine would not last long enough to get your off the ground.

 

In your high RPM scenario, say 2500rpm vs 2200rpm, which is only a ~10% increase in combustion rate, and thus ~10% increase in energy output (all other things being equal), unless your cooling capacity is already at max (IE slow climb, shut rad flaps, etc), your engine will be fine thermally. Especially when ambient is exceedingly cold. Mechanical stresses on cylinder walls from piston load (these are oversquare engines, long throw cranks) and all the bottom (or top, in the db601 605 etc examples) end components will see significantly more shearing loads as they throw the weights of the pistons conrods etc around. At some point there will be failure or significant wear (which will be, I assure you, irreversible once you are aware of it - engine rebuild time, if you are a lucky pilot and make it back), but it will not be thermal but mechanical.

 

Thermal limits are fine and very important parts of CEM but they are only one aspect. Boost levels, loading the engine down at low RPM with high load will also grenade an engine. Etc. Much more mechanical aspects.

 

Disclaimer: I do not own nor fly a real db601A or otherwise equipped bf109, but I did sleep at a motel 6 last night.

 

 

Wear increases dramatically at high RPM and lubrication effectiveness is dramatically reduced under prolonged heavy load.

 

I personally feel that with increased wear we should probably see a significant increase in temps too.

I would expect to see temperatures rising before permanent damage was done so that we would know when to back off.

This isn't based on anything other than my general understanding of mechanics.

 

With so many details still in  development we can't yet be sure of what is still to come.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see temperatures rising during extended periods of high RPM in future, when additional game features are added.

I'd be equally happy if someone who knew better could explain why that shouldn't be the case.

[Venturi]

A good way of warning the pilot is not temp - but noise and vibration. Treat that engine poorly and it will tell you by the noise it makes as things start slapping around and/or detonating. Do that for a minute and you have to be a real numunts to not understand you are flying it wrong and that is the reason it is grenading. A lot less confusing then a simple engine gauge telling you high temp (why, my rad flaps are open? etc). But also, it opens up the gamut for more accurate engine modelling, like loading your engine down with high ata and low rpm (say with very coarse prop pitch at slow speed, etc) - if this also makes the engine unhappy, now you have virtual pilots much more aware of what they are doing wrong. And you will have a much better sim.

 

TIFWIW

[Narushima]

I have DCS:P51, but that's still a piece of software that only takes a few variables into account. You are still comparing a piece of software to a piece of software, you should be comparing it against real life which is exactly what the devs are trying to do - compare it against limitations in the manual.

 

It's funny to see so many cite the manual for optimum performance values of aircraft, especially the German aircraft across all periods, but when it works against them it should be taken with a grain of salt and more of guidelines than rules.

 

Maybe learn a ting or two about German manuals first?

 

Here's a manual for FW 190 A-8:

http://www.simcentrum.com/uploads/Manual-FW190a8.pdf

 

It specifies that 1,42 ata setting should be used for only 3 minutes. Later on in the manual (under emergency power system; page 52) it specifies that emergency power at 1,65/1,58 ata can be used for no more than 10 minutes, and that overheating can happen.

 

So what magic did these German engineers use that allows them to run an engine at a higher manifold pressure longer than at lower one?

It's simple. Unless it's specified that prolonged use of the power setting will damage the engine, then the time specified is only a recommendation to prolong engine life, and not an indication of when an engine will stop working.

 

The DB 605 had an engine life of 250 hours before full overhaul.

The BMW 801 had 300 hours. They achieved such long engine life by running their engines de-rated for most of the time. This changed in 1944 when engine production was in full swing, and what they most needed was pilots, so they ran their engines at their real limits. Engine/aircraft manuals prior to 1944 will not specify the engine setting time as the time it takes to ruin an engine.

 

The 601E dying after only 1 minute of full boost is just a joke.

[Venturi]

I agree with the power rating comment for longevity above. Crank and rod bearing wear primarily, I imagine. Certain airframes were more prone to overheat than others, the 190 is a good example of one that had a great engine but also was touchy w overheating, marginal cooling capacity built in, necessity for engine fan, etc.

[Bussard_x]

Maybe learn a ting or two about German manuals first?

 

Here's a manual for FW 190 A-8:

http://www.simcentrum.com/uploads/Manual-FW190a8.pdf

 

It specifies that 1,42 ata setting should be used for only 3 minutes. Later on in the manual (under emergency power system; page 52) it specifies that emergency power at 1,65/1,58 ata can be used for no more than 10 minutes, and that overheating can happen.

 

So what magic did these German engineers use that allows them to run an engine at a higher manifold pressure longer than at lower one?

It's simple. Unless it's specified that prolonged use of the power setting will damage the engine, then the time specified is only a recommendation to prolong engine life, and not an indication of when an engine will stop working.

 

The DB 605 had an engine life of 250 hours before full overhaul.

The BMW 801 had 300 hours. They achieved such long engine life by running their engines de-rated for most of the time. This changed in 1944 when engine production was in full swing, and what they most needed was pilots, so they ran their engines at their real limits. Engine/aircraft manuals prior to 1944 will not specify the engine setting time as the time it takes to ruin an engine.

 

The 601E dying after only 1 minute of full boost is just a joke.

 

 

The DB601E does not die at 1 minute test for yourself and you will find out. You have enough time to down 2 enemy fighters at full power, 2,5 minute that is in the sim. 

[Venturi]

It ought to be a randomized failure checks. But it should be coordinated with the bad engine management not just full power abuse. Say, categories of abuse each with own variables: high ata at low rpm, high rpm regardless of ata, high ata and rpm, high temp, low temp, and also with sustained damage situations. The possibilities are endless and also contribute significantly to the flying experience.

[arjisme]

It specifies that 1,42 ata setting should be used for only 3 minutes. Later on in the manual (under emergency power system; page 52) it specifies that emergency power at 1,65/1,58 ata can be used for no more than 10 minutes, and that overheating can happen.

 

So what magic did these German engineers use that allows them to run an engine at a higher manifold pressure longer than at lower one?

It's simple. Unless it's specified that prolonged use of the power setting will damage the engine, then the time specified is only a recommendation to prolong engine life, and not an indication of when an engine will stop working.

 

If a pilot did exceed those time specifications, what happened when he returned to base?  Was the engine always overhauled if the limits were exceeded at all?  Of was it just logged that it occurred and after a certain amount of accumulation it was overhauled (this apart from the normal maintenance schedule)?

 

Maybe there was a certain amount of checking and testing to verify the engine was OK to keep using and, if so, was put on duty?

[Venturi]

There is wear which when it accumulates will result in more serious damage. Bearings are meant to be self sacrificial. However the same forces which are applied to the bearings are also applied to structural components like crankshafts, connecting rods, camshafts and lifters etc. Basically the bearings wear out because of these forces and friction caused by the redirection of mechanical forces within the engine. However if these forces become too great, clearance between the bearing surfaces is reduced too much, lubrication between the bearing surfaces fails, seizure and destruction results. Not to mention, reciprocal forces can summate to overcome fastener or structural integrity of rotating parts, especially in an engine with long stroke to bore ratio. This results in steel being let go at high velocity inside the engine: kaboom.

 

So, to summarize there is bearing wear, there is accelerated bearing wear, and there is structural failure. The first two are relatively insensible to a pilot on one sortie (bad enough bearings make bad noise, a pilot will abort mission) but the final component, which can arise from the first two, is catastrophic. And there is little warning other than you were probably abusing the crap out of the engine.

[Venturi]

I would say,

 

high ata low rpm situations =detonation and accel bearing wear, very heavy vibration and noise

 

Too High ata, normal rpm = accel bearing wear, no shaking or vibration

 

High ata and rpm = accel bearin wear + Independent sudden, randomized probability engine integrity failure, increase likelihood logarithmically as rpm goes above limit. No shaking or vibration just high exhaust note

 

Low or high temps = accel bearing wear, no shaking or vibration.

 

 

Enough bearing wear = bad noise and eventually engine structural failure

 

Structural failure, your windscreen suddenly goes brown w hot oil

[AX2]

Maybe learn a ting or two about German manuals first?

 

Here's a manual for FW 190 A-8:

http://www.simcentrum.com/uploads/Manual-FW190a8.pdf

 

It specifies that 1,42 ata setting should be used for only 3 minutes. Later on in the manual (under emergency power system; page 52) it specifies that emergency power at 1,65/1,58 ata can be used for no more than 10 minutes, and that overheating can happen.

 

So what magic did these German engineers use that allows them to run an engine at a higher manifold pressure longer than at lower one?

It's simple. Unless it's specified that prolonged use of the power setting will damage the engine, then the time specified is only a recommendation to prolong engine life, and not an indication of when an engine will stop working.

 

 

It's a good point. and a fact.

It is clear for the german planes the limits of the engine are only  for maintenance purposes. 

 

 

On the other side , It is a big problem of gameplay for developers. especially at  multiplayer.

I'll try to explain:

If I'm flying a BF 109 aircraft vs  Russian plane like Yak 1 , and the developers allowed 20 minutes at maximum power to BF 109, I'll be hunting russian ducks.

And that would be very boring

 

But if  I'm flying a P51 vs  German plane like BF 109 , and the developers allowed 3 to 5  minutes at maximum power to BF 109, I'll be hunting german ducks.

And that would be very boring.

[6S.Manu]

They can just insert a single "engine" wear parameter:

1) MP Dogfight mission -> If the player "change" plane it will be recorded and he will lose points doing that (just list points, AA Kills, AG Kills, KIA and number of Plane used): otherwise he will risk a failure.

2) Campaign (Offline or online) -> the parameter is stored at the end of the mission and used in the next one (with the possibility of a fix between them).

Edited March 16, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 As a reference the Tempests went to an inspection every single time they hit the WEP aka cut the wire. This caused excessive wear and tear on the engine and required an inspection/overhaul. It decreased time between scheduled/required overhauls as well. So giving a value that is limited is mainly because of this, to preserve the engine and assure safe operation within limits. It does not mean that if you exceed the limit by 10 seconds the engine will magically blow right away, like we see now in BoS.

Edited March 17, 2014 by LLv34_Flanker

[wastel]

becaus it was wrong in an older post:

 

1.3ata and 2500rpm was an setting for 30mins...not 5mins.

[SharpeXB]

I'm reading a good book "A Higher Call" one of the pilots Franz Stigler, is in a Me 262 squadron at the end of the war. He says that exceeding the jet engines limits wasn't going to kill you, it was going to kill the next pilot that took the plane up. It would be hard to simulate that sort of reality in a game.

[AX2]

Here's a manual for FW 190 A-8:

http://www.simcentru...ual-FW190a8.pdf

 

It specifies that 1,42 ata setting should be used for only 3 minutes. Later on in the manual (under emergency power system; page 52) it specifies that emergency power at 1,65/1,58 ata can be used for no more than 10 minutes, and that overheating can happen.

 

So what magic did these German engineers use that allows them to run an engine at a higher manifold pressure longer than at lower one?

???

Edited March 18, 2014 by Mustang

[w1tek]

In the russian forum there are heated disputes about BF 109 F 4 engine limits, participants discussed many technical documents on BF 109 F 4 but various documents indicate different information , in Europe and in USA there are a lot of BF 109 in working condition. Have anyone any information about the engine of the BF 109 F4 which is in working condition or additional technical documents? 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 There has been quite a few of them around and Kurfürst has also on his page. What we see now is out of whack and propably a bug related to the AI tuning devs talked about?

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 I checked those document pages VikS did post, some power curves and operational stuff. None of the pages said the engine blows up after 1 minute of using WEP or 30min power. It also had acceptable temperature limits for operating the engine under the different power settings, none of which are exceeded in game when breakdown occurs and hard to tell because not all the gauges work properly yet. There is the note pilot MUST have restriction to 2700rpm aka auto on if using full power so rpm does not exceed 2700rpm. I do not buy the story, sorry. The limits are to conserve engine, not the hard coded limits for mechanical breakdown to occur. With those limits not even a test run for an overhauled engine could be done without mechanical failure. And they run the engines on high power for longer than 1 minute. Now where are the limitations to the Klimov engines, please. 

[AX2]

Lv34_Flanker, I'm agree about the BF 109,

The limits are only for maintenance purposes to keep the engine longer time in service. FOR ALL SIDES AND PLANES maybe....

 

But we must understand something :

The developers  only have manuals, they must take a decision, and the decision were the manuals.

Like or not  they will  use manuals, common sense was discarded, FOR ALL PLANES AND SIDES.

And that is good  ??   

YES !

 

 As an example. 

 

It would be a madness, if the players will have a BF109 Boost allowed for 14 minutes. 

And La 5 FN boost allowed for 34 minutes. 

So maybe it was reality  in WWII,  but it would be madness gameplay for both sides.

For both sides indestructible engines ...?? 

Find a "neutral " solution to  fix the problem, it is almost impossible 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Manuals give you the guidelines and the data sheets + specifications the needed information. You have to combine this with other data as well to get the whole picture. If we take the DB601E as example. Manual says 1.42ata/2700rpm is limited to 1 minute continuous use, 1.31ata/2500rpm to 30 minutes etc. This is a safe value that is used to keep the engine wear within limits and the maintenance cycle within the specified. I recall DB600-series went on 120h overhaul periods. VikS data sheet gave with the rpm and ata settings also the permissible temperature values within the power settings. NONE of these temperature values are currently broken before engine breaks down on WEP and on 30min power at 10-13min mark. Not a single one. If you have to believe the systems are modelled right, the radiator is so effective it stays shut or barely opens even at high power settings. So this means the values the thermostat uses for operating the radiator flaps are NOT exceeded. Look at the coolant gauge in cockpit, stays at 80'C and maximum given is 115'C on the manual. At this point the radiator would be fully open to let maximum air flow through for cooling. We can not check oil temps as the button on the gauge does not work. Lower scale was used to check oil temperature. The thermostat on the oil cooler was set to keep approximately 70'C for the oil by operating the oil cooler flap.

 

 So let's combine this. Pilot A flies per manual and does not exceed given values and gets the 120h service life with very small risk of breaking down the engine.  Pilot B flies more liberally and does exceed the limits now and then thus he reduces the service life to say 75h. Still B had no breakdowns, but a more worn engine with a higher risk of failure. Bf109 airframe had service life of approximately 400 flight hours if strain was kept within the given limits. Excessive over-G and maneuvering shortened this. Again the life of the plane was and is calculated if user stays within specified values, but the plane did/does not break down immediately if you exceeded them. Just shortened the life of the airframe. Of course propability of a fault or failure does increase if you keep abusing the limits.

 

 A game is a game and a vision of it's makers. I fully understand that. Maybe 17 years of working with aircraft maintenance/repair/armament is not good if I want to enjoy a simulator. Maybe I would be better off if I just was an average gamer with just the enthusiasm for WW2. Don't know. Let's see how the final product is, I remain hopeful that it will be OK. For ALL planes equally.

Edited March 20, 2014 by LLv34_Flanker

[Matt]

The handbook tells the pilot, that he is not allowed to use a specific boost/RPM setting for more than the specified duration. I can't really understand that this recommendation/order then gets turned into a technical cause that makes the engine break every single time.

 

It would be the same as making the fully extended flaps break every time the plane is faster than 250 km/h (that's also a recommendation in the pilot handbook).

 

If there is a reason which should make the (new) engine fail under these specific circumstances, then by all means, it should be modelled in BoS. But "because it says so in the pilot handbook" shouldn't be the single justification for this.

 

 

So maybe it was reality  in WWII,  but it would be madness gameplay for both sides.

Gameplay should play no role in this particular matter imho.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Matt

[Venturi]

Flanker, too much ata is the problem here. Surely you must agree that there is a point at which damage can occur rapidly? These are not 200hp naturally aspirated Cessnas. Detonation can occur with rapid onset with boosted engines...

[LukeFF]

 

But we must understand something :

The developers  only have manuals, they must take a decision, and the decision were the manuals.

Like or not  they will  use manuals, common sense was discarded, FOR ALL PLANES AND SIDES.

 

 

You really need to back down on the hyperbole and realize all of this stuff is still highly subject to change. The game is at 40% completion right now. 

[NZTyphoon]

In the RAF the Pilot's Notes for specific aircraft types were issued to pilots along with the Pilot's Notes General (2nd ed, April 1943),

 

 

which set out the reasons why flight and engine limits were to be observed:

 

 

Note the comment in Section 3, para (ii)  [top of page 26]

These figures provide a general guide to the reasonable use of the engine. In combat and emergency other considerations may justify the pilot in disregarding these restrictions.

 

So, no, the engines won't automatically self destruct, in addition to which, if a pilot is faced with a hoard of angry 109s/Yak 1s/Li-2s he was probably justified in exceeding the limits to save his neck.

 

This is a letter circulated within Fighter Command in late 1939 confirming that the Merlin II & III was cleared to use +12lbs boost - the engine withstood eight 1/2 hours of +12 lbs boost, although it did fail after 49 1/2 hours because of an early, unshrouded cylinder head join of a type which was already being replaced.

Edited March 21, 2014 by NZTyphoon

[Marauder]

When presented the evidence that the DB601E was routinely run 5 minutes at WEP as a checking procedure, the devs replied that M-105 engines ran more than 10 hours under 5 minute limit conditions without breakdown. (This is a normal thing for aircraft engines of WW2.) But no change in game, because a pilot handbook (not the Bf 109F handbook) says use WEP for only one minute. The developers mistake use recommendations for physical limits and disregard evidence to protect this arcade gaming feature. I hope they change their mind in the next 12 weeks.

[bivalov]

...Now where are the limitations to the Klimov engines, please.

Flanker, looks like this mist in your head returns, huh?

 

m-105pf NOT has special power settings, this is engine with nominal power 1210 hp = almost SuK 1.3/2500 with 30 mins... or you need evidences? really?

 

in other things, that i can say - good information, proofs and discussion for OUR game (developers are just who did this, nothing about their), about db 601 in this case, this is priority of NOT russian people...

 

if someone can help to self, me and other guy, with good discussion about planes/engines of his country, he can just do this... all very simply... agree?

 

 

and - in fact - almost all people who talk about UNLIMITED work of engine on special power, are right... i think, absolutely... this is typical practice with all engines, when engines are stresstesting and can work on forsazh long time etc...

 

here just needed adequate cooling, could be errors and fails, it's question of resource/supply/economic etc, well, i just said about too...

 

and choice is - in game will be historical limits, from manuals, and possiblity of fails after these limits; or will be historical limits + some info about real practice (m-82 with 13 mins of forsazh, instead 10 mins, in very rare cases, in manual), next, like in first variant; or will be unlimited freedom with little/some possibility of damage - well, something like this...

 

and i dont know, really, that will be right and correct for our game...

 

at this moment, i just think, it's will be 1 and 2 variants... and i think, looks like, db 601 e could have at least 3 min. 1.42/2700 (garanted limit without fails), by some evidences on russian forum plus famous facts with stresstesting, real examples etc...

 

well, it's how i thinking before, in fact...

 

and, maybe, here need new poll about this serious question... or i just mistake in something, so, sorry...

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Venturi, sure I agree the ATA plays a role. But devs stated we get a FRESH and FAULTLESS engine every time we take off. NO random failures, porked injection systems etc. from the start. So far so good. But their approach answering with whatever data seems to be like climbing up a tree arse first, does no good if your grip slips..1min limitation of 1.42ata does not automatically mean an engine failure if you exceed that for say 20sec. Or the 30min value breaking engine in less than half of that, as we see now. There is a safety margin for every value given in hand books, like in the one NZ Typhoon posted. Do people really believe Daimler-Benz(or any other manufacturer) made so bad engines that they blew up after 1min of WEP? That the designer of the engine did not calculate safety margins? Add to the mix that in game NONE of the temperature limits are exceeded before breakdown occurs and using WEP would for sure increase the strain on cooling system thus increase coolant temperatures as well(+open the cooland/oil radiator flaps to increase cooling).

 

 Mr Bivalov. Even Klimov VK105PF did not have a WEP/Forszah as clear as in DB601, it is the plane it was installed in that caused limitations. Devs can speak all day that they ran a VK105PF in a bench for 10hrs without breaking down, but if you read the literature of planes which had this engine you can see they suffered from overheating and other stuff as any engine did when installed in an airframe. It being a Klimov does not make it defiant to failure or any other anomaly and it had to be used within given power settings or you could bust the engine. Will be interesting to see if the day comes with Ash-82FN engines, where power curves show very clearly that the WEP was usable only up to 2km and after that the power curve was pretty much the same as on 100% power. Had those charts on my other HDD.

 

 Anyways, the final product will tell where the devs set the parameters. Until then not much one can do but test.

[Venturi]

While I agree that hard use can accumulate in an engine, there are also situations which can arise that no engine can withstand for more than a minute at most, detonation being one of these. The biggest fault of the game is its lack of warning when this is occurring. I know that the engine is capable if modeling this - a Fokker DVIIF has this exact problem in ROF... And it will also grenade the engine if you abuse it. There is pinging heard in that case as a warning, after a minute or so, engine damage, but you can ride the limit by feathering the throttle. This is realistic, and how we should have it here, too, for the db601e. The problem is, and what I keep on saying, is that there is no appropriate modeling of this "ride the line" ability in game, and no warning signs of pinging to do so. The issue in both db601e and Fokker dviif cases is in pushing the engine under heavy load with highest throttle - when the engine is capable of providing more power than is sustainable by the design. There is a grey zone where a good pilot can get a bit more power without damage - but knowing people in general, not everyone is smart enough to use it correctly and they blow up engines. Thus, the regulation comes out. Detonation can and will destroy an engine quickly. But you usually have warning with boosted engines, you can hear pinging img and/knocking and back off. So that's what ought to be in place here. I would prefer an engine which can deliver extra power that you have to be smart to use in a "grey zone" rather than be limited to a maximum hp, which is a lower amount, which can be used by any numunts. (You can change this by limiting the boost output from the supercharger - this is why I think the db engineers purposely gave the engine too much boost to be used for all situations - they knew in some situations it would be ok, in others not, and they trusted that the pilot could know when. Apparent they made the decision that this was not the case, later...

[bivalov]

Mr Bivalov. Even Klimov VK105PF did not have a WEP/Forszah as clear as in DB601, it is the plane it was installed in that caused limitations. Devs can speak all day that they ran a VK105PF in a bench for 10hrs without breaking down, but if you read the literature...

you just was cheated or you not understand, if i not forgot history of discussion, Viks just said, that unlimited power in correct conditions is correctly for ALL engines, and m-105pf, FOR EXAMPLE...

 

nothing more, in fact, and i dont want to be advocate here, i absolutely not fan or red/blue player, it's just facts and how i understood...

Edited March 21, 2014 by bivalov

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Good post Venturi  Mr Bivalov. I wish we could get more info on english forum as well. Translators do not work for Russian language, not very well. Again, shall see what happens during development. Have a good weekend

Edited March 21, 2014 by LLv34_Flanker