Bf109G2 top speed in 1.105

[Dakpilot]

I agree but there is a difference between operating an engine at max allowed power it was designed for, Vk-105 (within temp limits) and operating an engine in an overboost situation beyond parameters that may self destruct within a few minutes

 

even with factory fresh aircraft the situation is not the same

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

If factory values confirm a safe 5min usage you can say the engine was sort of layed out for it. And I don't think Daimler Benz engines went from the production ramp straight into battle but were carefully tested before installition into an aircraft was comitted. So it's safe to assume that if factory data confirms sth to be safe, it's because this was carefully tested and confirmed in trials.

[Matt]

I can imagine the horror on forum,if devs would implement "worn out" factor into game

Maybe an "engine-wear-meter" that would fill up if you constantly abuse engines and that would increase the chance of overall random engine failure. And when you fly with safe power settings, the meter would go down, reducing the chance of failure. After each sortie, the player can take a look at how much the meter is filled up/ how worn out the engine is.

 

Arcady, but it would simulate the use of power limits more accurately than any time limit could do, because the player would benefit from flying with continuous power limits.

[Brano]

Could work with offline/online campaign with squadron management included.I cant imagine/reason implementation into MP dogfight servers.For me it is on very bottom of "to-do" list.

[Dakpilot]

I am all for historic engine limits, but also for some sort of realistic use, I understood that after 5 minutes of max boost the engine would have to be pulled and re-built

 

If given the full 5 minute absolute (if actual) then every Luftwaffe fighter would have to be grounded after flight (in game MP) people would always use the max allowable, online combat would not be a historical representation, (and yes i know its just a game  )

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

So taking your analogy a Me-262 couldnt run in BoS at anything higher than idle because even at cruise power it's engines needed replacement every 2 flighthours. Seriously, thats kind off a weak argument, even more because we still lack confirmation of factory data.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Dakpilot]

Sorry but actual engine operating life is not the same thing, if Me-262 had afterburner which restricted life to 15 mins we might be on the same page....

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

You can shorten any planes engine life ingame already. That is not quite the point though, we are talking about guranteed safe factory values which don't make the engine seize in a split second if it's in factory condition.

[Dakpilot]

With the Bf 109 probably one of the most popular talked about/researched fighter A/C of WWII and with many examples still flying with original engines i would have thought this debate would have been covered multiple times and info widely available to easily prove this issue

 

However if a 5 minute safe period would be introduced 99.9% of pilots will blast around at 'historic' safe full afterburner all the time, reducing a lot of MP to an unrealistic arcade representation of air combat in 42/43 even if historic it will be exploited/abused to an Nth of its life in an unplausible fashion

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

So you are bothered about balance, not accurate engine limitations. Thx for clarifying this.

[SR-F_Winger]

reducing a lot of MP to an unrealistic arcade representation of air combat in 42/43

 

 

You mean like the YAKjockeys that burn full throttle/RPM all the time using the radios they never had while dumping their flaps all day in a vertical climb?

Aaaaaaall rightyyyy  

Edited December 15, 2015 by VSG1_Winger

[Dakpilot]

Well i think it is historically correct that Yak engines were designed this way, simple for inexperienced pilots and rated at full throttle and by Stalingrad more aircraft had radios than not...1941 directive

 

it is a shame sensible discussions always end up in this way

 

and just to point out I am not for 'balancing' 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Askania]

"Wolfgang Schenck, on the other hand, told me that once he sighted RAF aircraft, he pushed his throttle "through the gate" (to use his expression). He said he did not give a care about the longevity of his engines, he was only interested in pushing the 110 to the max, to survive in combat, and get back to base. If the engines needed changing, well, go tell the mechanics to do it. That was his hard-nosed approach. Got him through the war."

 

John Vasco

[CaK_Rumcajs]

How does the historically correct engine debate relate to the historically "correct" 750 km/h dive speed of the Yak and LaGG?

 

My point is that the engine damage because of abusing for too long shall be based on real world numbers of newly and perfectly built engines. It has already been mentioned that the 1 min, 5 mins and 30 mins limits were legal limits in prewar Germany. Sort of a guarantee. But not necessarily real limits. Are such real world numbers available? Is there a chance to find those numbers? I understand there may not be sources available and there is no way to find 70 years after the war ended. In case such numbers do not really exist we'll have to take what is in game. I personally do not mind that much. I can live with current implementation tho I find it questionable because I have no answers to these questions. No magic secret archives at my disposal.

 

Balancing does occur in a way of planeset choice. I must confess the planesets for both BOS and BOM are very well chosen. It would be easy to make couple of subtle very historical changes and the game would be largely unplayable for the reds. Which is something we do not want to happen, do we?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

My point is that the engine damage because of abusing for too long shall be based on real world numbers of newly and perfectly built engines. It has already been mentioned that the 1 min, 5 mins and 30 mins limits were legal limits in prewar Germany. Sort of a guarantee. But not necessarily real limits. Are such real world numbers available?

They are. 1min is the most mentioned safe usage for "Start und Notleistung" in pilot manuals for the DB601 and DB605 while I posted a Kennblatt (data table) of the Bf109 F-2 (DB601 N engine) earlier stating max 1.42 ata usage of 3min.

 

Unfortunately those are not factory documents, I have only some very technical stuff from Daimler Benz on the 601 and 605. There're for sure suffisticated factory performence tests availabel somewhere.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Dakpilot]

"Wolfgang Schenck, on the other hand, told me that once he sighted RAF aircraft, he pushed his throttle "through the gate" (to use his expression). He said he did not give a care about the longevity of his engines, he was only interested in pushing the 110 to the max, to survive in combat, and get back to base. If the engines needed changing, well, go tell the mechanics to do it. That was his hard-nosed approach. Got him through the war."

 

John Vasco

 

So what is the 'on the other hand' point of view

 

Even Wolfgang Schhenk in pushing his engines is still concerned with getting back to base, does he say he pushed it for 1, 5 or 10 mins? was this common procedure for all pilots? How many suffered engine failure and did not get to report their 'anecdotes'

 

if 5 mins at 1.42 is going to be considered the limit why is there so much evidence of 1 minute documented, surely the Luftwaffe is not going to handicap its Pilots in combat by restricting them below perfectly safe limits? if 5 mins really was the safe limit, it would simply be an understood documented and very easily proven case given the number of Bf109/110 pilots/reports

 

There are many DB601 and DB605 in operation 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[LukeFF]

You mean like the YAKjockeys that burn full throttle/RPM all the time using the radios they never had while dumping their flaps all day in a vertical climb?

Aaaaaaall rightyyyy

 

Do try to stay on topic for once.

"Wolfgang Schenck, on the other hand, told me that once he sighted RAF aircraft, he pushed his throttle "through the gate" (to use his expression). He said he did not give a care about the longevity of his engines, he was only interested in pushing the 110 to the max, to survive in combat, and get back to base. If the engines needed changing, well, go tell the mechanics to do it. That was his hard-nosed approach. Got him through the war."

 

John Vasco

 

I tend to think anecdotes like this are very much outliers. If every Luftwaffe pilot had the mindset of Schenck, their supply of spare engines would have dried up extremely quickly. 

[SR-F_Winger]

their supply of spare engines would have dried up extremely quickly.

I believe none of the pilots back then gave a damn about how long the engine will last in the long run when his life was at stake. Even if its just "in the ballpark" of being at stake I am sure they pushed the machine to the very limit and left the rest to the mechanics.

Edited December 15, 2015 by VSG1_Winger

[CaK_Rumcajs]

If every Luftwaffe pilot had the mindset of Schenck, their supply of spare engines would have dried up extremely quickly. 

If every Yak and LaGG was able to dive at 750 km/h the war in the air had been won in weeks. If only we were able to use the same logic for all aspects of the sim.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

if 5 mins at 1.42 is going to be considered the limit why is there so much evidence of 1 minute documented, surely the Luftwaffe is not going to handicap its Pilots in combat by restricting them below perfectly safe limits? if 5 mins really was the safe limit, it would simply be an understood documented and very easily proven case given the number of Bf109/110 pilots/reports

 

There are many DB601 and DB605 in operation 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Simple explaination. Pilots who got to get their hand on a 109 were not the first to fly them. Those machines were in combat conditions and thus had engines with some of serving life expired already. Of course, under suhc condition, you can not expect to push the engine to the same limits as on a factory bench test.

 

Also you got to consider safety factors, which incase of pilots manuals are probably streched more than in technical description depicting the exact performence for a more scientific audience. Pilots were humand too and probably the least used a stopwatch to not exeed 1 min usage as it is written in the manual.

 

Also, as I said before, there's also a source stating 3min, and it's not factory bench test data apparently.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[JtD]

But not necessarily real limits. Are such real world numbers available? Is there a chance to find those numbers?

No and no. Because in reality, engine life wasn't time limited. Each and every engine could fail on start up or last hundreds of hours at very high power settings.

[CaK_Rumcajs]

No and no. Because in reality, engine life wasn't time limited. Each and every engine could fail on start up or last hundreds of hours at very high power settings.

There is something called reliability. If an engine was to be broken right after startup with high probability it wouldn't have been considered for aviation. Please let's filter out 5% of margin from both sides.

 

Also engine life is always time limited. Without any exceptions. Each engine type has its average time to failure. Ofc when it comes to an instance it's always influenced by its usage and quality of production. But again there must be some reliability for aviation.

[JtD]

Also engine life is always time limited. Without any exceptions.

Good luck fining the numbers then.

 

I for one will stick with evaluating accumulated stresses instead of time when predicting service life.

[LukeFF]

If every Yak and LaGG was able to dive at 750 km/h the war in the air had been won in weeks. If only we were able to use the same logic for all aspects of the sim.

 

And that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. 

I believe none of the pilots back then gave a damn about how long the engine will last in the long run when his life was at stake. Even if its just "in the ballpark" of being at stake I am sure they pushed the machine to the very limit and left the rest to the mechanics.

 

When one was flying on the Eastern Front, where landing in enemy territory meant a high chance of capture and/or death, yes, one gave very much a damn about how long their engine would last. It's one thing to be blasé like Schecnk, who was fighting in the West, and it's quite another thing when one is fighting in the East. 

Edited December 15, 2015 by LukeFF

[CaK_Rumcajs]

And that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. 

Well it has. Factory new perfectly built Yaks and LaGGs with prototype characteristics may only be matched by similar quality Bfs. Aren't you telling that field limits and recommendations only apply to the blue side, right? Otherwise we'd have to stick with LaGGs and Yaks diving at lower speeds. Simply put I was speaking about consistency of approaches.

[Askania]

Some more 'anecdotes'

 

"The AM-35 engine drove it. It was horribly unreliable, very shoddy. There was a rule: if a pilot ran the engine to maximum RPM in flight, the engine would fail in the next flight or the one after that.

I myself was chasing after a high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, just about ready to commence firing. At that moment my engine died. I landed with a dead engine. My instructor habits came in handy. It turned out that the timing gear mechanism had broken. Flights in our MiGs were forbidden after this incident. I had made three or four flights in the MiG but had fought no aerial engagements."

 

N.G. Golodnikov

[SR-F_Winger]

And that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. 

 

When one was flying on the Eastern Front, where landing in enemy territory meant a high chance of capture and/or death, yes, one gave very much a damn about how long their engine would last. It's one thing to be blasé like Schecnk, who was fighting in the West, and it's quite another thing when one is fighting in the East. 

You describe the standard. I was talking about situations where death was sitting on their shoulder.

But youre right. Most likely pilots were taking the lngivety of their engines into account when deciding how to operate their engines.

But please dont tell me russians flew their YAKs full power all the time just because there was no safety timelimit in their manual.

They took care of their gear by not overstressing it without reason just like the germans did.

So IF Kurfürst can come up with documents that the DB engines COULD take 5 minutes without any chance of failure then the devs have to model it like that. IMHO that is. Would be just fair since all the YAKs perform like factory new as well. So why shouldnt the DB engines?

Edited December 16, 2015 by VSG1_Winger

[LukeFF]

Well it has. Factory new perfectly built Yaks and LaGGs with prototype characteristics may only be matched by similar quality Bfs. Aren't you telling that field limits and recommendations only apply to the blue side, right? Otherwise we'd have to stick with LaGGs and Yaks diving at lower speeds. Simply put I was speaking about consistency of approaches.

 

Blue side? What is this "blue side" you speak of? 

 

Beyond that, no, I'm not advocating that limits be applied to only one nation's aircraft. I just get tired of all of these arguments derailing almost like clockwork into a "but what about the Yak/LaGG/La?!!!!???!!"

 

Finally, the Soviet aircraft are modeled not on prototype data but on serial-produced machines. VikS mentioned that some time ago.  

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

And that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. 

 

When one was flying on the Eastern Front, where landing in enemy territory meant a high chance of capture and/or death, yes, one gave very much a damn about how long their engine would last. It's one thing to be blasé like Schecnk, who was fighting in the West, and it's quite another thing when one is fighting in the East. 

 

When the Eagle Dynamics team interviewed Herr Brunotte, Herr Brunotte specifically mentioned that he flew more often than not at 1.0-1.1ata, even on takeoff, to extend the life of his equipment.

 

It's right there in the Daimler-Benz documentation - max continuous power is 1.2ata... not ideal continuous power... 

 

When I first started gaining awareness of some of those concepts and I was still heavily involved with ACG flying at 1.0-1.1ata seemed so foreign... Why not fly with the throttle pushed to the firewall?

 

Simple... It's unrealistic and doesn't make sense... 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Finally, the Soviet aircraft are modeled not on prototype data but on serial-produced machines. VikS mentioned that some time ago.

Serial production data were subject of propaganda like all things in ZSRR.

[LukeFF]

Serial production data were subject of propaganda like all things in ZSRR.

 

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Statements like yours show you've not really done any serious research into Soviet aircraft development.

[Brano]

Test results were confidential military data,not material for propaganda stuff...

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Sure whatever. Brainwashed works.

[Brano]

Yep,for sure,as soon as Soviets got their results from factory, state and military trials,they published them on the front page of Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper and sent also one copy to Goering,Udet,Milch and Abwehr guys

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Yep,for sure,as soon as Soviets got their results from factory, state and military trials,they published them on the front page of Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper and sent also one copy to Goering,Udet,Milch and Abwehr guys

It's a good think the KPSS had Outlook Express so they could easily forward their factory tests to all of their contact list, together with that one funny Youtube video of a cat.

[CaK_Rumcajs]

Blue side? What is this "blue side" you speak of? 

 

Beyond that, no, I'm not advocating that limits be applied to only one nation's aircraft. I just get tired of all of these arguments derailing almost like clockwork into a "but what about the Yak/LaGG/La?!!!!???!!"

 

Finally, the Soviet aircraft are modeled not on prototype data but on serial-produced machines. VikS mentioned that some time ago.  

Luke, would you please read what I wrote once again and this time give it a try to understand. First of all "blue" in terms of WW2 sims means "the German side". It's been a norm for years. Do not pretend you do not know. Second, I'm asking for equality of both sides. Not anything else. So it would be really appreciated if you didn't derail the discussion to your cause. Stop it. My point was, we have new perfect Yaks and LaGGs, we shall have new and perfect DB 601(5) engines. If you disagree on this I have no sympathy for you.

[Askania]

Some more 'anecdotes'

 

an account by Ulrich Steinhilper in Messerchmitt 109, ISBN 0-7603-0803-9109 by D.A. Lande on page 65
 

I made a steep turn, full throttle, rudder bar hard round and the stick against my leg, the engine turning at 2,800 rpm - 400 too many! We had to make as much speed as possible - the British fighters were diving toward us.

. . . We were fighting for our lives now and both of us would have to act alone. I dived away and saw that the engine was now turning at 3,300 rpm, the throttle fully open. I couldn’t risk the engine blowing up, so at 7,000 meters (22,000 feet) I leveled out. Up until then, I hadn’t been hit or so I hoped. Further down there was a layer of cloud which would hide me on the next dive, I made for the sanctuary.

 

"the engine turning at 2,800 rpm - 400 too many!"

 

Bf 109E, erhöchte drehzahl (engine overrev)

 

 

2400 steigbar auf 2800

 

Edited December 17, 2015 by Askania

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Some more "nazi" 'anecdotes'

....

Your contribution is welcome, but pls leave this crap out. Statements like this drive me seriously nuts.

[Askania]

What really is a crap? What it really looks like?

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109e.html

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

MfG

Askania

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

What really is a crap? What it really looks like?

I meant your snobby "nazi" refference. And data on the Emil's performence are not really usefull in a discussion about the Bf109 G.