Open oil & radiator flaps on 109

[Superblu]

 

There is no dedicated throttle control in the real 109, there's a power control. It controls both throttle and rpm. In game this lever is controlled with the throttle control, though.

Unfortunately the game has a mechanism where the engine blows if you use 2500 rpm or more for a significant time. So even at high altitude you cannot fly all out without wrecking the engine. However, the automated systems will open the throttle fully to maintain the chosen boost as far up as possible at the given rpm.

I'm not too sure about this.

The 109 "throttle" lever in the cockpit clearly shows the "prop pitch" adjustment buttons,the are on the right side of it, to be operated with the thumb.

 

Real 109s had auto "prop pitch" control that could eventually be switched to manual and managed with that control.

In IL-2 ClOD was simulated, and i have no doubt it will in BoS aswell.

 

I recall someone saying that it's not yet implemented due devs having issues with the auto control simulation.

 

See the attached pic.

 

[JtD]

Just came across this doing a little reading in German aviation regulation of the time. Thought I'd share.

 

"Die Belastungszeit kann unmittelbar als Zeitangabe oder mittelbar durch einen Flugzustand, für den die Belastungszeit begrenzt ist (z.B. Steigflug) angegeben werden."

 

No wonder there's no time limit for the DB601E in the Bf109F-4 to be found. It never existed. Messerschmitt went with the regulation and gave the limiting flight situation instead of an actual time limit. The 1 minute limit we have right now, taken from another aircrafts manual, is not only a guess, it is in fact contradicting Bf109F documentation - which clears the power for take off and emergency, with no time limit whatsoever. It's not lack of information, no omission in the manual, there simply is no time limit. Fact.

 

These regulations came into effect in late 1939. Up to then, engine performance was to be given in 1', 5', 30' and sustained power. This might also be a reason why there was a clockwork with the earlier engines, and no clockwork with the later ones. It was no longer necessary.

 

Looks like time spent with other things does lead back here. Anyway, back into exile.

[bivalov]

i too did some reaserch, in addition to my knowledge, and my conclusions/thoughts are very similar... something interesting, about question, and on polish site, in manuals and motoren-karte... and i still trying to write several arguments, on russian, but i dont think that's will be very convincingly, for developers, there still have and just "persistent unwillingness" for any changes (that showed successful discussion about visibility of contacts, for example)...

 

i absolutely dont care, i just want a good game and correct modelling of engines...

 

and i see, that no any "1.42 limits" for ANY 109s, starting F and to G with DB 605 A... almost no limits and in any handbuch for engine/motoren-karte... just no... BUT, limits and prohibitions have in manuals of planes like 110s, 210s, bf 109 g-4/r3 and g-12 (ie this is not typical front fighters), etc... btw, 410 not have limits too... so, if i no forgot something, this is looks very interesting...

 

well, maybe were some documents, besides manuals, handbuch etc? but still have many worldwide mentions, about "unlimited using of engine", in difficult combats... limit is only temperature, possibility of fails, etc. if i not mistaken...

 

and btw, BMW have limits in almost all manuals, for fw 190, ju 88/188 etc... i think, because it's radial engine, without injection (in 1.42 version), concrete engine of BMW etc...

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

Okay, I found some information, that the DB 601 E and the formerly N version in the beginning only had their 1.3 ata Steig- und Kampfleistung. Only later it got opened to 1.42 Notleistung.

Furthermore, I looked in the original german manual I found.

There it is stated, that the Engine should be run on 1.30 ata with 2500 rpm.

Furthermore in this Motorhandbuch it is stated, that the engine could only for a short amound of time be run in 1.42 ata 2700 rpm. BUT It was ONLY possible, if the engine was fitted with an RPM limitter which the Pilot COULDN'T change. Furthermore, the 2700 rpm under any circumstances shouldn't be highered otherwise the engine could suffer pretty fast high damage.

I found another hint about this 1 min Notleistung with the DB 601. I hope I can finde some data about that soon.

 

For the G2, it was initially limited to 1.3ata,2600U/min because of piston failures. A new thicker piston crown and the change of the spark plugs von ET7 to ET7/1A cured this problem. But they found out that this wasn't the problem at all. The lubrication was insufficent in the engine. So Messerschmitt accused Daimler-Benz for a bad hydraulic coupling supercharger designe, and Daimler-Benz blamed Messerschmitt for a bad power plant designe in the 109.

Anyway, in 1943 Messerschmitt gave Daimler-Benz some points, and they started a Test about what could help with the problem.

Here it is:

Furthermore, here is the results of the Me209 sumarry testing report May 1943:

Edited March 23, 2014 by Auva

[FuriousMeow]

Maybe learn a ting or two about German manuals first?

Maybe read and understand my post before posting a response that proves exactly my point.

[9./JG52Ziegler]

All I know is that I can fly at 1.2 ata or less all day without any problems in the F4 on the sim.  Since I have no control of pitch, this is what I use.  I still have full power for climbs and manuvers when needed as long as it's not for more then one minute.  Have not blown a single engine following this protocol. 1.2 ata seems to be the sweet spot.

[bivalov]

so, guys, i did everything i could do, and i written all that i could find (thx for many people from this forum), on russian, now developers can read without problems... in fact, it's just summary with examples, after several similar posts, on russian and here etc...

now let's just wait and hope, i think...
 

I found another hint about this 1 min Notleistung with the DB 601. I hope I can finde some data about that soon.

and did you find?

Edited April 10, 2014 by bivalov

[Eldur]

Well, I'm curious to see how it plays out tonight in MP. It could be that 109's worst enemy will be themselves in the excitement of prolonged engagement. If I'm flying lagg-3 I'll definitely be trying to force the 109 to go black-smoke.

 

This is not about how the 109 does against Yaks and LaGGs. She still beats them well enough in speed, acceleration and climb with ease at 1.3ata. It's just about the non-credible engine insta-wrecking by just running 100% for a little over 1 minute. There's no 110%, 130% or something like that. Just 0-100% + the possibility to run even higher powers by kicking in second supercharger gear, which the Soviet pilots actually did at least in La-5/7s, but presumably also in other planes, especially earlier La(GG) models - or systems like water injection WEP, MW50, GM1, higher rating due to C3 instead of using B4 fuel, Forsazh, Sondernotleistung like 1.65ata FW-190A-5s for low altitudes etc - none of the BoS planes has any of those, except for the supercharger gear control which doesn't add power yet. It just compensates for the MP loss at higher altitudes.

 

This also affects the Ju-87. I once took her some days ago for a dive bombing run, climbing at no more than 1.2ata / 2500rpm. I didn't even exceed these values on takeoff, most of the time I even ran her at just 2300rpm. Then after diving and dropping my payload, I retracted by airbrakes, pulled up and ran full throttle to regain altitude. It was approximately a minute and the engine was completely dead, temperatures were 80°C coolant and 60°C oil where the latter temperature was very reluctant to rise in general, even with fully closed cooling flaps. It was maybe not warm enough, but I never had any problems running 100% in any other RoF or BoS plane at 60°C oil temp. Problems arise below 40°C and somewhere around 115-120°C, but everything in between should be rather fine. And coolant temp. doesn't matter at all unless it's not boiling (100-115°C depending on what the cooland actually is mixed of, most WWII era planes should have decent coolant that can get as hot as 110-115°C) which can be seen easily on a check six or via F2 view.

 

It's just not nice to have a simple "death clock" technique where the whole engine management code allows for much more realistic modeling. It should be possible to see or hear some kind of early warning for upcoming engine failures by watching the gauges (temps and pressures) and by listening to the engine. And the team has already modeled the latter back in the days when they introduced the Fok. D.VIIF to RoF. It is no problem to run 100% thr. at any altitude, unless you fully kick in the high alt charger. Above ~2000m it's no problem, at lower altitudes you have to reduce the throttle if you keep the charger at 100%. The lower you come, the more you have to reduce the throttle, to like ~85-90% at sea level. If you're above this, you'll risk engine failure and you'll very clearly hear the knocking actually which is just awesome. It's completely possible to avoid wrecking the engine by just carefully listening and keeping the temperatures within the limits. But it's also possible to use the overload for short periods like zoom climbing up after an attack, even multiple times for half an hour. This is what I excpect from BoS. Clearly recognizable signals that tell me I'm running beyond the limits - but no instant piston seizures with no premonition at all. I hope very much that all this is still WIP and won't be like the 109/87 now for all planes.

 

PS: This is initially a 109 thread, but the 87 has the same issue and I've seen the Il-2 has also changed. It's oil temp also takes a lot longer to rise and it endures 100% a very lot longer now than before. I need to do more test flights, but the last time I flew the Il-2, I ran her at 100% with 100% coolers for ~10-15 minutes without any problems, then I reduced her to 90mm / 2050rpm, that's approximately the max I ever ran her before, similarly to the 109 at 1.3ata / 2500rpm because of her excessive temps. Then another maybe 5 or 10 minutes later, the engine seized just like the DB-601s and Jumo-211s with no warning at ~80°C oil and ~60-70°C coolant. So I must have encountered some sort of death clock here, too. Didn't like that

[Eldur]

I believe, the current limitation is just a test or the recommendations of the Bf-109 / DB 601E handbook have just been taken word-for-word. In either case, the current situation will surely be changed anyway. It's just a question of how this will be changed.

 

This could be the point - it's also a language barrier problem. Maybe I should try to show a similar thing. You'll see this when entering Germany via roads:

 

The upper signs with the red circle say you must not exceed the given speed in km/h (höchstzulässige Geschwindigkeit). The third one tells that it is advised not to exceed 130km/h (Richtgeschwindigkeit). But it's not forbidden to do so unless there are limits set directly on the Autobahn which has been done in the most cases.

 

Information like 1.42ata / 2700rpm for 1 minute or 1.3ata / 2500rpm for 30 minutes max. are similar to the blue 130km/h sign, and not the red-circle limits. But the developers seemingly decided to see these values as absolute limits where something bad must happen if exceeded.

[Venturi]

I hope you (devs) listen to what I've been saying about tactile/intuitive sensory feedback - as is now brought up again.

 

 

 

"It's completely possible to avoid wrecking the engine by just carefully listening and keeping the temperatures within the limits. But it's also possible to use the overload for short periods like zoom climbing up after an attack, even multiple times for half an hour. This is what I excpect from BoS. Clearly recognizable signals that tell me I'm running beyond the limits - but no instant piston seizures with no premonition at all."

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

This is not about how the 109 does against Yaks and LaGGs. She still beats them well enough in speed, acceleration and climb with ease at 1.3ata. It's just about the non-credible engine insta-wrecking by just running 100% for a little over 1 minute. There's no 110%, 130% or something like that. Just 0-100% + the possibility to run even higher powers by kicking in second supercharger gear, which the Soviet pilots actually did at least in La-5/7s, but presumably also in other planes, especially earlier La(GG) models - or systems like water injection WEP, MW50, GM1, higher rating due to C3 instead of using B4 fuel, Forsazh, Sondernotleistung like 1.65ata FW-190A-5s for low altitudes etc - none of the BoS planes has any of those, except for the supercharger gear control which doesn't add power yet. It just compensates for the MP loss at higher altitudes.

 

 

Well, first of all. Don't put any effort into saying 100% Throttle or anything like that. Because you don't measure your Enginepower in percentage of your throttle leaver....

We measure the Engine-Power in RPM and Manifold pressure.

And when you put your throttle on "100%" you put your Engine into the Start- und Notleistung Setting which produces the maximum manifold pressure AND the best RPM setting. More power, the engine couldn't deliver that is impossible.

And Supercharger weren't devices which produced more power, they only compensate the powerloss on higher altitudes because of the loss of oxygen.

The Germans WEP were the Notleistung which is 100% throttle setting. MW50 and GM1 were by german pilots called "Schuss". You had another button for that, and those systems came later in the war. Not 100% sure about that now.

Anyway, don't think that 100% throttle leaver setting equals the maximum "save" power setting. No it equals the maximum of power you engine can deliver which is in case of the Luftwaffen-Planes the "Start- und Notleistung" whereas Notleistung Emergency-Power means. It is meant to be used in emergency, not in any other circumstances.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Auva

[Eldur]

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. 

 

Just looked into my docs folder and found something very interesting.

 

 

It's a little bit hard to read because of the size, but I'll just type the essential lines:

 

Die Werte der Flugleistungstabelle sind mit "Steig- und Kampfleistung", d.h. n = 2400 U/min.,

P_Lade = 1,3*) ata (bis Volldruckhöhe) erflogen.

 

Die geklammerten Werte (im Flugleistungskurvenblatt gestrichelt gezeichnet) beziehen sich auf "Start-

und Notleistung", d.h. n = 2600 U/min., P_Lade = 1,42 ata (bis Volldruckhöhe).

 

Bei Verwendung einer Drehzahl von n = 2800 U/min. ergibt sich eine Geschwindigkeitszunahme

von weiteren 10 bis 15 km/h in Volldruckhöhe.

 

Achtung! Die in der Tabelle geklammerten Werte für Steigleistung bei Start- und Notleistung

sind im Kurvenblatt zwar gesctrichelt als zusammenhängender Linienzug gezeichnet. Es sind jedoch

nur Teile dieses Linienzugs zu erfliegen, da die Verwendung der Start- und Notleistung auf eine

Dauer von 3 Minuten begrenzt ist.

 

Volldruckhöhe bei Vollgas-Waagerechtflug: 5200m,

...................... im Steigflug: ........................ 4800m-

 

[...]

 

*) Die Ladedrücke sind z.Z. herabgesetzt auf 1,25 ata für Kampfleistung und 1,35 ata für Startleistung.

Die Kampfleistung verringert such dabei um 4,5 % und die Startleistung um 6 %.

 

Now some interesting things:

 

1. Note that this is the DB-601N from the 109F-1 and F-2, and not the more powerful 601E

2. The rpms are lower than the E's, but there's information given about the speed increase when using 2800 rpm

3. There are climb values for Start- und Notleistung, but they have been flown separately and drawn into a single curve due to the 3 minute restriction - though the document does not tell us what happens if one doesn't obey it, it has been obeyed very strictly even in test flights to gather the max. performance values

4. The engine values must have been flown with 1,42ata and 1,3ata, but there's a footnot that says "at the moment the manifold pressures are reduced ..." with the general loss of performance due to this reduction.

5. Last but not least, for anyone who does not understand the x (y) values: x is Steig- und Kampfleistung, (y) is Start- und Notleistung.

6. I don't have the "Kurvenblatt"

[Eldur]

Flanker, too much ata is the problem here.

 

I did some tests

 

Seems it heavily jsut depends on rpm in BoS now. There's a "throttle limitation" difficulty setting that I ticked on. Approximately 1 minute of 1,42ata the throttle is automatically cut to 1,24 ata which prevents engine seizure. But no matter what you'll do then, you can't go past 1,24 ata in that flight anymore. The rpm are pretty much 2450 then.

So I did the same in the Ju-87. I ran her at 1,2ata and 2300 rpm, then firewalled both throttle and rpm (I should do some tests with just one of them, too), 30 seconds and the ata gauge slammed to it's lower limit and initially I thought the engine's gone. But then I was wondering why it dropped so much, but then I found that playing around with the rpm lever made it possible to get as much as 1,4 ata again at ~2200 rpm. And now bet some: You can fly around with 1,4 ata at 2200 rpm all day long. At least I did that for like 10 minutes without any further problems.

[Venturi]

Shaking my head: good testing Flanker, just bad implementation. Could be they just don't have it worked out right, yet.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I did some tests

 

Seems it heavily jsut depends on rpm in BoS now. There's a "throttle limitation" difficulty setting that I ticked on. Approximately 1 minute of 1,42ata the throttle is automatically cut to 1,24 ata which prevents engine seizure. But no matter what you'll do then, you can't go past 1,24 ata in that flight anymore. The rpm are pretty much 2450 then.

So I did the same in the Ju-87. I ran her at 1,2ata and 2300 rpm, then firewalled both throttle and rpm (I should do some tests with just one of them, too), 30 seconds and the ata gauge slammed to it's lower limit and initially I thought the engine's gone. But then I was wondering why it dropped so much, but then I found that playing around with the rpm lever made it possible to get as much as 1,4 ata again at ~2200 rpm. And now bet some: You can fly around with 1,4 ata at 2200 rpm all day long. At least I did that for like 10 minutes without any further problems.

Where is the throttle limitation check box? I couldn't find it in any of the settings tabs. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Ah, I'm not using custom yet. Thanks

[Marauder]

so, guys, i did everything i could do, and i written all that i could find (thx for many people from this forum), on russian, now developers can read without problems... in fact, it's just summary with examples, after several similar posts, on russian and here etc...

 

 

Thank you for your work. But I think it misses the point. I does not matter if the limit is 1 or 5 or 30 minutes. It is wrong to have the engine blow up after a certain time. The real thing are thermal or mechanical problems, and these need to be simulated. Plus the engine trouble indications Venturi is mentioning.

 

Also if the handbook says 2850 rpm must not be exceeded - I expect the engine in game will blow up, because some handbook limit has been exceeded. But in real life it had to be send to the manufacturer for an inspection. Which means it doesn't blow up.

[bivalov]

Thank you for your work. But I think it misses the point. I does not matter if the limit is 1 or 5 or 30 minutes. It is wrong to have the engine blow up after a certain time. The real thing are thermal or mechanical problems, and these need to be simulated. Plus the engine trouble indications Venturi is mentioning.........

 and i agree with you, of course...

 

but here much more people, who understand and write, than in russian part... so, because devs are russians, and because in russian part not so much people who can really discuss problem, we just have what we have... i think, it's one of main reasons, besides such questions as why we discuss about obvious things, do work of devs etc...

 

Viks said some words, about limit = just starting point for degradation etc, all this have sense (in game no such things, as supply, different equipment and design etc, which affect on real using of engine etc), but personally for me is looks unconvincing...

 

and i just tried to show, in this case, why "1 minute" is wrong, and 3 minute is more correctly, according to all facts (real limits, real work of engine etc)... hmm, but still no answer...

 

PS btw, guys, will be good if someone, who knows deutsch and english, can translate and confirm findings of Revolver (not need to read discussion, in fact, focus on docs)... at least, it's for understanding of facts...

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

 and i agree with you, of course...

 

but here much more people, who understand and write, than in russian part... so, because devs are russians, and because in russian part not so much people who can really discuss problem, we just have what we have... i think, it's one of main reasons, besides such questions as why we discuss about obvious things, do work of devs etc...

 

Viks said some words, about limit = just starting point for degradation etc, all this have sense (in game no such things, as supply, different equipment and design etc, which affect on real using of engine etc), but personally for me is looks unconvincing...

 

and i just tried to show, in this case, why "1 minute" is wrong, and 3 minute is more correctly, according to all facts (real limits, real work of engine etc)... hmm, but still no answer...

 

PS btw, guys, will be good if someone, who knows deutsch and english, can translate and confirm findings of Revolver (not need to read discussion, in fact, focus on docs)... at least, it's for understanding of facts...

Well because I'm currently in my lab I don't have enough time for a detail translation but, I try to give a short translation about the stuff in the red and green boxes on page one.

 

Translation:

V. Forerun

  Standard duration 1 hour. In following power settings

  a) Climb- and Fightpower: 25 min. Thereby control of Fanpressure setting with the charger setting to low.

  b) maximal allowed continuous power: 30 min.

  c) Takeoff- and Emergencypower: 5 min.

 

After the prerun, the engines get disassemblied for a check up and every new part which was build in at the repair get checked; the

valve seats are getting tighten up and reshaped. Cotnrol If they sit right on the valves and if they are round, there is no air gap and checkup of the chargerdrive and gear.

After the reassembly the final chrome-plated valves, which is forbidden to work on them, are getting reinstalled.

 

VI. Postrun

A normal prewarm of the enigne for about 1h30m followed by a postrun during 1h30 with following powersettings.

  a) Climb- and Fightpower: 10 min. Thereby control of fanpressure setting

  b) maximal allowed continuous power: 15 min.

  c) Takeoff- and Emergencypower: 5 min.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Try any of those and you might end up blowing the engine in BoS Similar damage modeling like in CloD, the moment you hit the magical value set for overheat = radiator blows and that's it even you pull back the lever. WIP as we all know..

[bivalov]

Well because I'm currently in my lab I don't have enough time for a detail translation but, I try to give a short translation about the stuff in the red and green boxes on page one.

 

 

Translation:

V. Forerun

  Standard duration 1 hour. In following power settings

  a) Climb- and Fightpower: 25 min. Thereby control of Fanpressure setting with the charger setting to low.

  b) maximal allowed continuous power: 30 min.

  c) Takeoff- and Emergencypower: 5 min.

 

After the prerun, the engines get disassemblied for a check up and every new part which was build in at the repair get checked; the

valve seats are getting tighten up and reshaped. Cotnrol If they sit right on the valves and if they are round, there is no air gap and checkup of the chargerdrive and gear.

After the reassembly the final chrome-plated valves, which is forbidden to work on them, are getting reinstalled.

 

VI. Postrun

A normal prewarm of the enigne for about 1h30m followed by a postrun during 1h30 with following powersettings.

  a) Climb- and Fightpower: 10 min. Thereby control of fanpressure setting

  b) maximal allowed continuous power: 15 min.

  c) Takeoff- and Emergencypower: 5 min.

 

 

 

thanks, for trying...

 

and i forgot to clarify, we just need to understand - because we clearly see 5 mins of 1.42/2700 (besides other facts, from other sources) - conditions, when engine tests on "test stand" or something like this, are similar with conditions when engine installed on airplane, or not...

 

developers think, not...

 

but and language barrier, prevents to understand, EXACTLY... and i think, all understand, what is means for game, if conditions are really similar (how said Revolver)...  it's could be serious argument...

 

WIP as we all know..

you know, if before i was optimistic, in this case, is not so... but let's see, of course...

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Good to see you around Mr Bivalov I am quite hopeful as the devs for sure can obtain information regardless the so called language barrier. There are always ways to get info in native languages, it they really want to. Devs hold the keys to make a new benchmark in WW2 flight sims and I wish they can pull it off. There is a lot of promise and potential in BoS and devs have shown enthusiasm and passion. Ingredients and talent is there Lot of variables to cover and heaps of work of course, but nothing that could not be solved I think.

[FuriousMeow]

Benchmark in WWII sims is ensuring the German aircraft are "properly" not limited due to engine limits.

 

The engine was limited, so how is that properly simulated? Every 109 that exceeds the limits is detracted from the total available so that eventually no 109s are available except Stukas and 111s?

 

Start thinking about that, they had limits - even if it didn't destroy the engine they had to be overhauled (even if it wasn't a rebuild, it was still opened up) - so for online every 109 that exceeds engine limits is subtracted from available 109s online and in offline campaigns for a period of time?

 

No, that wouldn't make sense - they must be available at all times even if the manual says they must go back to the manufacturer if exceeded too high for too long.

 

You don't want the benchmark, you'd have only a handful of 109s available because every 109 pilot would fly well beyond the specified limits before it was overhauled or sent back to the mfg.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I think the failures should be randomized. Firstly, exceeding the limits for a few seconds here or there should not, for the most part, cook your engine even if you exceed the one minute mark. Some engines WILL fail depending on tolerances and if your mechanic was a dunce or the top guy at the airfield. So make them fail between 0:59 seconds and say, perhaps, 6:59 (or whatever random number is chosen) when run beyond the manufacturers limits. It happens all the time in car and motorcycle endurance racing. Same vehicle race to race or opposing vehicles from the same team run better or worse based on a number of factors.

 

I listened to a 109 pilot last year at Planes of Fame, Chino, tell the story of chasing a Mosquito for a very long time in his K series at max throttle. Ultimately he never caught it and shredded his supercharger instead. He caught fire and had to bail but he was running it well beyond spec for (don't quote me on this last bit but I seem to remember) upwards of 20 minutes. His radar operator urged him to try and the pilot even said he was pretty sure he would damage his aircraft in the process. Wish I could remember his name. He had some funny stories as well but that is for another time/thread.

 

I'm not a programmer. How hard would it be to implement randomizing failure times? I don't want random failures within operating limits and the Dev Team has already said they won't do this. But rolling the dice on your motor makes for some interesting combat. Can I close the distance on that adversary or will I grenade my motor trying? Can I run at max to extend away and end the fight? Must have happened to more than just one pilot IRL I would think.

Edited April 17, 2014 by A1FltTrn=HerrMurf

[Venturi]

Some things are guaranteed in life. One is, you abuse your internal combustion engine and it will fail. It doesn't matter if it's the honda accord you just bought with 300,000 miles on the clock, or the brand new bimmer m5 with turbo, or a sopwith camel, or a db601 engined bf109.

 

What isn't guaranteed, is the quality of the engine when it was manufactured or the quality of the maintenance.

 

Some abuse will kill it in a minute. Some will take 20. That's why there needs to be categories of damage. And randomize it past a reasonable interval.

 

The factory wouldn't say 5min, and then guaranteed failure. They would say, "this use is safe for 5 min". That is a very different statement. You might get 30min, 40min, you might get 6.5min. It depends on the variety of abuse and on the quality of the engine.

 

Militaries deal in nominal values, not best case values. In real life, you overrev, you get instant failure. Instant, no warning. In real life, if you start to get detonation, you have maybe a minute, but have lots of warning. If you are simply pushing the engine hard, who knows?

 

By the way, this is not a 109 specific issue, so everyone should put their unbiased hat on. The way it feels right now is that you are flying a plane a computer geek developed. What you want to fly, what everybody wants to fly, is a plane that a pilot and/or motorsports enthusiast is convinced by.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Quite agree on it not being specific to one engine. I almost mentioned it in my previous post but it was already getting a bit wordy.

 

I think the randomization should apply to all of the engines. Say, plug in the nominal value (time) of that particular engine and then the randomizer (85-650 percent) comes into effect for that round. The next round, same base value affected by a different randomization. Of course getting the base value right is the most important thing and then determine what range you want for the randomizing.

 

I don't care if it's a DB, Merlin, Fiat, Allison, PW, Nakajima or Shvetsov.

 

 

OR whatever your favorite aircraft is powered by.

 

Any programmers out there? How hard would this be to implement?

Edited April 17, 2014 by A1FltTrn=HerrMurf

[FuriousMeow]

It's not hard to produce random anything. It's hard to make it please everyone, as we see here. A hard limit is in place currently, I suspect that the refinement will come later down the line. I know several will claim "but after so much complaining, I'm not so sure that they will do it" while ignoring the quite evident fact that a lot of items regarding everything aircraft related is stlil  not refined/place holder/or not even present.

 

Trim tab trimming isn't present, manual engine control for the DB isn't present, many/most instruments aren't functional - but that doesn't stop some from including the "but I don't believe it will be changed/fixed" nonsense which adds nothing. Neither does the "the Klimov can be run constantly at x/y/z while the DB can't" failing to note that both engines operate at different everything.

 

One thing is for certain, aircraft performance and engine performance will never be 100% comparative to reality. 90% is is pushing it. They are simulating the real world on a computer. Flight simulators to train military and Commercial pilots have several different computers linked together, not just a single quad core but several of them. So the charts are great to get as close as possible, but to expect real world on a computer - not in anyone's lifetime currently alive.

Edited April 17, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Venturi]

Relatively speaking, I imagine that compared to coding the air pressures and laminar flows necessary for an accurate flight model, recreating, within a reasonable approximation, the behavior of forced-induction WW2 aircraft engines (whatever stripe of them we are referring to, Yak or Bf or Fw or La) is well within the technological limitations of current technology. The state of the WW2 simming community and other WW2 sims available today is proof of that. Heck, rise of flight is proof of concept, albeit at a smaller, simpler scale.

 

I would argue that half of the experience of flying a WW2 bird, or any aircraft for that matter, has to do, intimately, with the engine powering the aircraft. We are all just so used to dealing with inferior simulations of this aspect that many of us don't expect or demand better. However, even if a buyer of this sim doesn't understand the difference between fine or coarse propellor pitch, or what a supercharger does for an engine, they still feel the authenticity of the behavior and reactions of the engine to their inputs. Also, crucially, there does not need to be a choice between fidelity and playability in this regard. You (the devs) can make it to be, and in fact it is in real life, a very tactile and intuitive thing. No great technical learning required. Just ask any driver of a manual transmission auto on the road today.......

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Hardcoded limitations and interpreting data differently is what makes the difference, also in BoS. It is plain stupid that I could run LagG-3 all day long at full power and rpm until ran out of fuel. MAny sources say LagG-3 had problems with overheating and whatnot.Then I took the Bf109F-4 and could not even attain SPECIFIED power settings for less than half of the time given in manuals. Go figure. I've read my share of documents and stuff to see that something is not right or very much WIP. And about tolerances. While I've been working on military stuff, say 17 years and counting, the tolerances there are quite strict and unforgiving because that plane HAS to work as intended when it is needed, not to make the pilot squirm and wonder what will break on his mission. Also over-rpm does not break engine instantly, did that a few times on my BMW M5. Upon inspection afterwards no damage whatsoever was found

 

 Oh and about random damage and wear. Devs stated that every time you hit Fly/Start the plane is factory fresh, no wear and tear.

[Venturi]

A momentary blip past redline at 8100 vs 8000 does not count, please read http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/410438-piston-engine-rpm-overspeed.html#post5602003

 

And when your conrod bolt goes, there is no warning, only a lot of noise quickly, then a lot of silence for a long time after......

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

"Oh and about random damage and wear. Devs stated that every time you hit Fly/Start the plane is factory fresh, no wear and tear."

 

Yes. I essentially said the same, although, I paraphrased is differently.

 

And as a former military mechanic I can state emphatically there are good mechanics and bad mechanics. There are plenty of dud mechanics which directly contribute to mechanical failure through shoddy work. Aside of that, thoroughbreds running at high RPM's also fail regularly. Look at how many turn-backs there were during the war for mechanical troubles and how many race cars break in a weekend of racing.....at any level; amateur - F1.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 HerrMurf, I agree on mechanics being of different skill level. Still working as military mechanic and I strive for doing my job by the book and using all my expertise gained under the years to ensure I do not contribute to a failure As BoS does not model shoddy workmanship or anything else then one would expect the engines work as they should, according to the manuals and technical specifications. At the moment German engines are not doing so for some reason. Russian engines have no problems whatsoever and will put them through testing during Early Access as well as Axis engines. No bias or side taking, just want things to run as they should.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

They'll get the baseline right. Just give it some time. I'm not particularly concerned about it yet as we all know 45%, WIP etc. I just think the randomization at the edge of the performance envelope would be a cool and realistic feature.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 I agree. The more you push the greater the risk of something breaking or losing power.

[JtD]

and i forgot to clarify, we just need to understand - because we clearly see 5 mins of 1.42/2700 (besides other facts, from other sources) - conditions, when engine tests on "test stand" or something like this, are similar with conditions when engine installed on airplane, or not...

Yes and no. They don't have to be similar, but can be. For instance, some of the test runs can be done with gas instead of liquid fuel, also you don't have in flight stresses (high g's, vibration etc.) on a test stand and you will have sufficient cooling capacity. However, you can use B4 fuel on the test stand for no difference, you can make a gentle flight and cooling on the 109 easily was sufficient in winter time. There is no reason for an engine to reliably run 5 minutes on a test bench but reliably blow up inside of 5 minutes in real life.

 

But then even 5 minutes is bogus because there was no time limit for the DB 601E as installed in the Bf 109F-4. So when it comes to engine limits, I'm afraid there's no substitute for properly modelling basic physics.

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

Yes and no. They don't have to be similar, but can be. For instance, some of the test runs can be done with gas instead of liquid fuel, also you don't have in flight stresses (high g's, vibration etc.) on a test stand and you will have sufficient cooling capacity. However, you can use B4 fuel on the test stand for no difference, you can make a gentle flight and cooling on the 109 easily was sufficient in winter time. There is no reason for an engine to reliably run 5 minutes on a test bench but reliably blow up inside of 5 minutes in real life.

 

But then even 5 minutes is bogus because there was no time limit for the DB 601E as installed in the Bf 109F-4. So when it comes to engine limits, I'm afraid there's no substitute for properly modelling basic physics.

Furthermore, Every Formula 1 Car Engine gets several hours tested at the manufactor. And from hundreds of build engines, the 10 engines are chosen for the whole season. And even those often have serious reliability problems. Even they often get derated to "save" the engine in the race.