Jump to content

1stCL/Fucida

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About 1stCL/Fucida

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Czechia

Recent Profile Visitors

388 profile views
  1. Hi Keben, I tested a lot without any result. I sold 970 and bought 1080 and the problem disappeared. I guess that it was caused by not optimal 2 level memory of 970. Have a nice day, Jan
  2. @bies All the people, which are deeply interested in Fw 190 & BMW 801 knows the reason. It's implementation of well know (and not only here many times mentioned) manual, where is the original BMW 801 D-2 and also "upgrade kit" so-called Erhöhte Notleistung für Jäger. Anyway I guess, that the developers will fix that silly implementation. Currently it simply doesn't make a sense.
  3. Exactly. I don't understand, why some our friends here are trying to defend so huge mistake like current engine limit implementation. And they are still walking around and thinking about wilder and wilder theory, how could it be technically possible. Ehmmm 😕
  4. Upgraded engine. Especially stronger pistons developed for BMW 801 F, different exhaust's vents (from magnesium) and different spark plugs.
  5. Correct @sevenless, but be careful, the document, which you've sent, is OK, but that page, which you've quoted, is related to C3-Einspritzung. Erhöhte Notleistung is described on pages 3 and 4 (Blätter 4 und 5). and unfortunately there are not many details Yes Of course it was technically possible to engage it in any conditions. But it was prohibited. The system should be started when the engine worked with full throttle, so 2700 rpm and 1,42 ATA. I think, that the main reason for this instruction was in not optimal Kommandogerät's functionality when the governor was fooled. A little bit later revision called BMW 801 TS offered complex solution with recalibrated Kommandogerät and of course with all mentioned improvements (vents, pistons, sprak plugs) as standard
  6. It was mentioned above. In 1944 there were in service two variants of BMW 801 D-2. In that manual are mentioned both. The original one kept the older limits, the improved one had revised limits (10 minutes with EN, no limit for lower output). There was (OF COURSE!) necessary to check the temperatures in any condition. @JtD I know about limits or let's say regimes by german engines (Dauerleistung, Steig und Kampfleistung, Start und Notleistung, and some kinds of Sondernotleistung). The BMW 801 D-2 with Erhöhte Notleistung was one of few, where wasn't usage of former pressures limited, but similar situation appeared also a little bit later by Fw 190 D-9. And I repeat it for third time, it was possible because of other changes in engine itself (pistons, valves, spark plugs).
  7. @CUJO_1970 @PainGod85 Yes, totally agree. Current implementation of limits is simply wrong. When there was installed BMW 801 with Erhöhte Notleistung, there wasn't any limit for lower pressures. The only limit was 10 minutes for 1,58/1,65. I must repeat again what I've written above: The engine equipped with Erhöhte Notleistung was upgraded by stronger pistons developed for BMW 801 F, different vents from magnesium and different spark plugs. That all resulted in cancelation of former limits and setting of the new one (10 minutes @ 1,58/1,65).
  8. @sereme1: Erhöhte Notleistung was technically very simple system in complicated enviroment of Kommandogerät (controlling unit of BMW 801). With Kommandogerät did not exist any easy way, how to set higher intake pressure than well known value 1,42 ATA. It's caused by the governor, which was there to maintain stable intake pressure, but which was calibrated and wasn't able to "deliver" more than mentioned 1,42 ATA. So the solution was, that into one rail in regulation part of Kommandogerät was created drain vent (you're activating it directly by the handle in cockpit). After activation the pressure inside the rail goes down a little bit and after that the automatic governor is opening the throttle a little bit wider to compensate this lowered pressure. The result was, that the real intake pressure was higher (1,58/1,65), but the pressure in regulatory part stood on the original value 1,42 ATA. It's so-called "Fooling of the governor". After that engine delivered more than 2000 PS, but it was necessary to upgrade engine itself (if I remember: stronger pistons, vents from different material, spark plugs).
  9. Vielen Dank, aber... This concrete plane was not equipped with Erhöhte Notleistung. I have that book in my library and I was a little surprised, that during Bodenplatte operation there was in service still some planes without EN. That revision is from spring 1944.
  10. Yes 😐. But I'll try to discuss this senseless situation and place arguments with our partners from development team. I hope, that it will be fixed soon.
  11. Simply because it's wrongly modelled :). There is in this concrete case no technical reason to have shorter limit for lower power/torque output. The limit for 3 minutes was valid for older versions without Erhöhte Notleistung. Anyway these strictly engine limitations are neither optimal nor real. In real life the limitations was moreless recommendations. The most important limit was engine temperature, not the period, during which the engine run at full throttle. So there was no other limit than 10 minutes @ 1,58/1,65 ATA 3 minutes was valid for early A-8 planes equippped with older "revision" of engine approximately between February and July 1944. I must also notice, that there was long development of BMW 801 D between 1941 and 1945, so old engines were in some aspects, especially materials, of high stressed components e.g. pistons or valves, diferent than new ones. But as I mentioned, these limits were more recommendations (because of long durability of engine) than needs. In real life it was normally exceeded :).
  12. I think, that it's not right to blame you with anything. You've written in this thread many reasonable details, "Why the La-5 could be OK". I also like your well ballanced "engineering-scepticism" and also level of detail, which are you mentioning (e.g. WHY there is difference between rolling here and there, WHY is important to have large airlons with good shape, or WHY aren't data from Rechlin and NACA comparable). Until this moment, it's great. BUT: There are many historical evidences, where are witnesses saying: "Ok, La-5 was Ok and moreless comparable or maybe even a little better than 109", but there is no-one, which says: "It was The Great One". And as you know, the current implementation in game is saying: "Well, it was the best one". I know about effective design, which are you explaining here, but it's not confirmed in any (!) historicle memoir with any harder data. And that's no detail. PS: I like your motto 😄
  13. Hi, I have huge FPS drops, when there is a combination of bad weather (two most cloudy levels) and FLAK activity. On the local Czech forum there was some other pilot with the same graphic card and same problem. Strange is, that at the moment of drops the game is still saying, that it goes on normal FPS (e.g. 50+), but the reality is about 3 - 5 FPS. When the flak stops, or when there is more friendly weather, then is everything absolutely OK. I've tested it on two systems - i5-3570K@4,2GHz, 16 GB DDR3 and i7-8700K@4,8GHz, 16 GB DDR4. In both systems was the same card, MSI GTX 970 Gaming. Both in 1440p. Same result. Do you have any ideas please? I've tried more drivers than I can remember :-/ Thanks, Jan
  14. I'm still a little bit schocked...but in very positive way! Western front, western front, WESTERN FRONT! Thank you for this revision of your plans, I'm sure, that it was reasonably decision. ....and my darling, Fw 190 A-8!
  15. Thank you for current implementation. It looks consistent and it's pleasant to fly it
×
×
  • Create New...