Bf-109 over heating problem

[Sleeplessmind]

I was wondering if their is a over heating problem with the Bf-109 in this game. I even had the radiator difficulty setting on automatic. (it is my training wheels at the moment) and yet the engine would over heat and seized up. I didn't think that i was working the engine hard as I had the throttle at 75-85%. Am I running the engine too hard?

[LukeFF]

The manual will tell you how long you can run the engine at certain RPMs and manifold pressure. There is no overheating problem.

Edited July 20, 2015 by LukeFF

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I was wondering if their is a over heating problem with the Bf-109 in this game. I even had the radiator difficulty setting on automatic. (it is my training wheels at the moment) and yet the engine would over heat and seized up. I didn't think that i was working the engine hard as I had the throttle at 75-85%. Am I running the engine too hard?

 

Don't manage the engine by percent, manage it by ata.

 

Also, follow Luke's suggestion.

 

I have never overheated the engine of a 109 in this sim... I don't even know if its possible... But if you run over RPM or at too high an ata for too long it'll kill the engine too.

[Finkeren]

F-4 or G-2?

 

The F-4s engine can be run at a maximum manifold pressure (with automatic pitch control) of 1.32 ATA for 30 mins max (this corresponds to roughly 82% throttle at lower altitude) If you run it higher than that for more than a minute you risk killing your engine. Highest continuous power is 1.20 ATA (which is slightly below 65%)

 

The G-2 is a bit different. The throttle is capped so you can't even go to maximum power (this was done historically on early Bf 109Gs because parts of the engine were too weak IIRC) You cam run the G-2 at max throttle for about 30mins safely, but keep it below 90% for normal flight just to be sure.

 

The Daimler Benz engines are set so they can be run above their nominal rating in case of an emergency, which is why you can break them so easily.

Oh and BTW: it's not overheating that causes this. It is simply a mechanical breaksown in the engine due to extreme wear.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Fly G2...problem soved

[Jade_Monkey]

Just fly with the manifold pressure needle completely vertical (~1.2) and you will never have a problem.

 

Obviously you can go over that level for takeoff, but for cruising, keep it vertical.

[Agilepig]

The problem is not Bf109 or Fw190. Soviet engines are problem. Soviet one also have limitation time but in game there is no limitation time for soviet engine. You can fly with full throttle forever.

 

Below is report about overheating of M-105PF on Yak-1 from SOVEIT DOCUMENTS. It looks little weird because I used bing translator.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the first flights it had detected that only make horizontal flights at maximum speed was possible for 2 minutes (with the engine running at nominal number of revolutions, with a temperature of outside air from 18 - 23 ° C and radiator caps placed on position "by the current"). If flying in these conditions of more prolonged temperatures of water and oil exceeded the allowed limits. It was not possible to carry out a continuous rise, even with fully-open radiators caps. He had to do "steps" (periodically go to horizontal flight) each 2,500-3,000 m to restore normal temperature regime.

 

 

To maintain the temperatures of water and oil within the allowed limits, it was necessary to reduce the revolutions of engine from 2,700 to 2.400-2.550 rpm which practically reduced the maximum speed increase and improvement of other benefits achieved with the increase of the supercompresion [TsAMO, f. NII VVS, op.485655, d. 73 and 121; op. 485690, d. 58: op. 485587] d. 81].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

and you can find report about turning fight between Bf109 and Yak-1 in same document. It prove Bf109F is better turn fighter than Yak-1 with M-105PF.

Edited July 21, 2015 by =Bout1=Gomwolf_K_

[Finkeren]

The problem is not Bf109 or Fw190. Soviet engines are problem. Soviet one also have limitation time but in game there is no limitation time for soviet engine. You can fly with full throttle forever.

 

Below is report about overheating of M-105PF on Yak-1 from SOVEIT DOCUMENTS. It looks little weird because I used bing translator.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the first flights it had detected that only make horizontal flights at maximum speed was possible for 2 minutes (with the engine running at nominal number of revolutions, with a temperature of outside air from 18 - 23 ° C and radiator caps placed on position "by the current"). If flying in these conditions of more prolonged temperatures of water and oil exceeded the allowed limits. It was not possible to carry out a continuous rise, even with fully-open radiators caps. He had to do "steps" (periodically go to horizontal flight) each 2,500-3,000 m to restore normal temperature regime.

 

 

 

To maintain the temperatures of water and oil within the allowed limits, it was necessary to reduce the revolutions of engine from 2,700 to 2.400-2.550 rpm which practically reduced the maximum speed increase and improvement of other benefits achieved with the increase of the supercompresion [TsAMO, f. NII VVS, op.485655, d. 73 and 121; op. 485690, d. 58: op. 485587] d. 81].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

and you can find report about turning fight between Bf109 and Yak-1 in same document. It prove Bf109F is better turn fighter than Yak-1 with M-105PF.

All very interesting, but not really relevant, since the test here was done in summer. We are not exactly flying around in temperatures of 18-23 centigrade. Let's see how easy it'll be keeping the Soviet engines cool when we get the summer maps.

 

Also: The Bf 109s engine breaking down is not due to overheating.

[JtD]

Also: The Bf 109s engine breaking down is not due to overheating.

Exactly. They are breaking down for no reason.

[Agilepig]

All very interesting, but not really relevant, since the test here was done in summer. We are not exactly flying around in temperatures of 18-23 centigrade. Let's see how easy it'll be keeping the Soviet engines cool when we get the summer maps.

 

Also: The Bf 109s engine breaking down is not due to overheating.

 

Bf109 also flying in cold weather. And Bf109F engine breaking down is clearly due to overheating. DB601E does not have oil fire or engine cracking problem. You can also find some documents say DB601E-G(Same with DB601E but bomber version) can use Start -und Notleistung 5 minute.

 

DB605A have some oil fire problem at 2800rpm, for that 2800rpm forbidden until october 43 and it clearly solved with MW50 . As you see, Bf109G-2 does not have 2800rpm/1.42ata.

Edited July 21, 2015 by =Bout1=Gomwolf_K_

[Guest deleted@50488]

Comparing to the other sim , although different Bf109 models, I actually find that the temperature rise ( indicated by the oil and cooler temps ) is rather benign.

 

I am yet to try fully opening the radiators, which I think can be done manually, but I do not recall how, and see how fast it drops then.

 

Of course when we have the Spring / Summer maps we will probably face a different scenario and have to be even more careful with the F and E models...

[Zettman]

Exactly. They are breaking down for no reason.

 

You know that overheating isn't the only reason that can destoy a engine? This is not WT were you have only the heat of egine, oil and water that can lead to engine failures.

 

In reality some crucial party in an engine will break down if the RPM are to high or the pressure is above certain parameter. Heat doesn't (always) matter. Dynamic Load can break certain parts of the engine without resulting in excessive oveheating for example.

 

So no, they don't break down for no reason. It is just that you have no instruments that show you the reason. Wich is historical accurate, cause the where no load sensors in the engines.

 

Zettman

[JtD]

Of course I know all that. But if you knew that the real ones could run 10 to 100 times as long as they can in game, you wouldn't use the phrase historically accurate in that context.

[Zettman]

Of course I know all that. But if you knew that the real ones could run 10 to 100 times as long as they can in game, you wouldn't use the phrase historically accurate in that context.

 

Some of them could, others could not. I won't argue that a new engine could handle more than 60 seconds of Notleistung. But I don't thing all planes that took part in the battle had brand new engines. Also take into account that most real WW2 pilots would simply not fly their planes that close to the limit as we virtual pilots would do. There is a difference if you can hit ESC any time and spawn in a new aircraft compared to having to fight with this same plane the next day and the one after that (cause supplies were short). Additional their life depends on the functionality of the plane, you don't want a engine failure over enemy lines and end up in a prison camp (Germans and Russians weren't on good terms, considering what Germans had done before they reached Stalingrad).

 

Yeah the hardcoded 60 seconds of invincibility (sorry had to put it that way  ) are not realistic nor historical. They could ad a random parameter to the equation, that lets some engines fail after 62 and others after 83 seconds perhaps even some at 45 seconds. Perhaps this would lead to pilots being more careful with the use of Notleistung, cause they never know when their engine would fail. But humans are not objective, so we would have dozen of threads complaining over German engines failing always after 20  seconds, despite the average still being around 60 seconds.

 

To come back to my point. The engines don't fail for no reason in BoS, it is just that you have no instruments indicating that. Which is historical correct. I did not talk about the 60 seconds being realistic, so don't make it sound that way.

 

Zettman

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

I've never had any overheating problems with both Bf-109s (just overstressing the F-4s engine when running WEP for too long)

[JtD]

...

So it is historically correct that engines fail. What a revelation. Unfortunately, not the way they do in BoS. Because real engines don't run on a timer. Neither for invincibility, nor for destruction. Edited July 21, 2015 by JtD

[Matt]

 

 

But I don't thing all planes that took part in the battle had brand new engines. Also take into account that most real WW2 pilots would simply not fly their planes that close to the limit as we virtual pilots would do.

 

Our planes in BoS are brand new. And i personally have never read that any real WW2 pilot did not fly close to the limit when his life depended on it (like during a fight), because they were worried about exceeding a time limit mentioned in the manual. In BoS, you basically have to throttle back after the time limit is exceeded, because you will get engine damage if don't do it. Of course they wouldn't fly around with full throttle all the time, but that's more of a problem with current MP (and basically SP too, not counting third-party content) missions, where you always find a target after a few minutes and the sorties are comparitively short in general and you're way more likely to run out ammo than out of fuel.

[Zettman]

So it is historically correct that engines fail. What a revelation. Unfortunately, not the way they do in BoS. Because real engines don't run on a timer. Neither for invincibility, nor for destruction.

 

I thing you don't get what I was saying? I merely but the word historical for the lack of instruments which would indicate damage on engine parts. I don't know why you keep attacking me, you quoted me falls and tried putting words into my mouth, by stating that I said the timer was historical, which I clearly didn't. Don't know where your problem is.

 

It was you who said that the engines break down for no reason. I was just giving you reasons why they still can fail without getting any warnings from the engine itself. Also you seem to disagreeing with yourself.

 

Of course they wouldn't fly around with full throttle all the time, but that's more of a problem with current MP (and basically SP too, not counting third-party content) missions, where you always find a target after a few minutes and the sorties are comparitively short in general and you're way more likely to run out ammo than out of fuel.

 

 

That was what I was getting at. One reason for them cutting the timer short to 60 sec (which I already said I'm not a friend of) could be to prevent the overuse of full throttle. I agree that Ia pilot would go all out if his life depends on it and I never said that he would not do so, but in all other cases they would not push the engine as much as we do in the virtual cockpit. How many of us are going above 1.2 ata (combat mode) during normal cruising, just because they know that they either will not last longer than 30 minutes, they will be RTB before that or the mission ends in less than 30 minutes. This is something that would not happen in real life, cause the missions would be much longer and they would have to fly with this engine the next day. Of course there are always some exceptions, like intercepting enemy bombers that are going to attack your AF for example or getting to a squadmate who is being attacked by enemies.

 

Zettman

[JtD]

I thing you don't get what I was saying?

I've got the same feeling about you.

I merely but the word historical for the lack of instruments which would indicate damage on engine parts.

And I said that it is unwise to use historically correct in context with the BoS engine damage timer.

I don't know why you keep attacking me, you quoted me falls and tried putting words into my mouth, by stating that I said the timer was historical, which I clearly didn't.

I didn't attack you any more than you attacked me, this post is the first time I'm quoting you at all and I never said you said the timer was historically accurate.

Don't know where your problem is.

That's pretty obvious. Both where my problem is (the engine damage timer) and that you don't know that.

 

It was you who said that the engines break down for no reason.

You're putting words in my mouth or more accurately, have removed the context so that my statement that was a cynical reply to a very specific problem in game appears like a generalization, which it is not.

I was just giving you reasons why they still can fail without getting any warnings from the engine itself.

If you had done just that, the discussion would have gone another way.

Also you seem to disagreeing with yourself.

Another point that makes me think you don't get what I'm saying.

 

Well, on the bottom line I think we can agree that we both think that the other guy is not getting the point, plus I also think that from the technical side we have nothing we are disagreeing with and only maybe disagree about the game's engine damage timer, I hate it since day 1, whereas it looks to me that you appear to be happy with it. So the bottom bottom line would be that there's no point in continuing this discussion. Have a nice day.

[Dakpilot]

As some one who has flown/used large WWII aircraft engines operationally, and in situations where my life depended on it, I can say that a LOT more thought is put into the condition and safety of your engine than is remotely done by any of us when flying I simulated combat.

 

If the engine risk/wear/damage factor of overboosting was totally scientifically and historically re-created it would be so abused to the point that it would so ahistorical that the Yak flap exploit would be a tiny irrelevant joke. Not to mention that the "virtual" stock of Luftwaffe spare engines on the whole Eastern front for one year would be entirely burnt up in only one week of  virtual combat.

 

To seek realistic historical accuracy is obviously the golden goal of flight sims, but in this case implementing it totally  would do much more harm than good. 

 

Until a way of forcing historical doctrine on virtual piloting can be found, the 'artificial' engine overboost timer limit is the only way to control abuse that would make  the game even less historically representative.

 

Sadly people will always 'game the game' (some of them anyway)

 

I personally have no problem with, (and this is only MY opinion,)  this slightly artificial restraint on already generally superior German engineering.

 

While Pilots in the heat of combat can/will use their engines to the maximum of performance, there is also another overriding sense of self preservation...(for that sortie and future ones) that of actually being able to return to base and not forced land behind enemy lines...a fate foremost in the mind of pilots on the Eastern front.

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Potenz]

I've got the same feeling about you.

And I said that it is unwise to use historically correct in context with the BoS engine damage timer.

I didn't attack you any more than you attacked me, this post is the first time I'm quoting you at all and I never said you said the timer was historically accurate.

That's pretty obvious. Both where my problem is (the engine damage timer) and that you don't know that.

 

You're putting words in my mouth or more accurately, have removed the context so that my statement that was a cynical reply to a very specific problem in game appears like a generalization, which it is not.

If you had done just that, the discussion would have gone another way.

Another point that makes me think you don't get what I'm saying.

 

Well, on the bottom line I think we can agree that we both think that the other guy is not getting the point, plus I also think that from the technical side we have nothing we are disagreeing with and only maybe disagree about the game's engine damage timer, I hate it since day 1, whereas it looks to me that you appear to be happy with it. So the bottom bottom line would be that there's no point in continuing this discussion. Have a nice day.

 Zettman made a quite simple and understandable point.

 

Please mate, stop the cascade quoting and trolling for no

reason.

 

Regs

 

Potz

[JtD]

You may or may not have noticed that I've ended that pointless debate 10 hours ago. Zettman said his piece in a PM, and now we're all happy and content. No need to worry, or to fan the ashes.

[SC_Manu653]

For your information the Bf109 can overheat is engine when you are at 6km altitude between 200kmh and 250kmh.

[Potenz]

You may or may not have noticed that I've ended that pointless debate 10 hours ago. Zettman said his piece in a PM, and now we're all happy and content. No need to worry, or to fan the ashes.

 well for me it's a new post, since my time zone is -3