P-40 Engine Settings as I found them (a bit weird)

[Venturi]

Again, you do not understand engines, CRUMP. Nor the time frame, the mentality, nor the way that period combat pilots actually used their engines. Aviation in 1942 is not aviation in 2016.

 

Your mentality is that of a modern jet engine pilot in peacetime military or civilian aviation at best, and you're right, I'm glad that my airline pilot doesn't push his engines. But then I'm not getting shot at while flying. And you're WRONG and WILLFULLY SO about the Allison engine and other topics as you have REPEATEDLY been through this thread.

 

And more importantly, it's obvious to me you could care less about quality of the game. Do you fly the game Crump? Or do you just like to argue?

 

If it were up to you whoever wrote the more taxing flight manual would have the best performing aircraft in game. Dave is absolutely right in his assessment of you and of the situation and I 100% agree with him.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Venturi

[Crump]

 

 

you do not understand engines,

 

The FAA begs to differ..... 

[Crump]

I still have trouble with one point.  If you give me two settings, one of which is much lower than the other, but the same time limitations apply, how can I understand this? Do I have to choose between 42", 45.5" and 56" and anything between is just 5 Minutes? Why then have Military Power at all in this? It just makes no sense at all. 

 

It does make sense.  The Military power rating is at a lower setting but a longer time period.  For example, a pilot who was authorized WEP (his engine was fitted with a boost regulator) could use 5 minutes of WEP.  At the end of that time period, he would reduce to Military power for an additional 5 minutes at that rating.  That is assuming his oil and coolant temps are within specifications.  Remember, the atmospheric conditions are pretty steady in your game while in reality they are not so the limits change accordingly.

 

That gave him some 10 minutes of operation at power levels above the 100% design power capacity of the engine.  Maneuvering an aircraft at high accelerations is exhausting.   As a result, real aerial maneuvering does not last for 10 minutes as the pilots become exhausted.

 

It was designed as fighter and the engine ratings reflect that.

 

 

dit:  The German Manuals are quite clear in this and the Settings Subtract from one another.  You have: (DB601A) Höchstleistung for 1 Minute 1.4ata Kurzleistung for 5 Minutes at 1.3ata Steig und Kampfleistung for 30 Minutes at 1.23 Dauerleistung at 1.15   So if you use 1.4ata for a Minute you still have 4m at 1.3ata and then 25 Minutes at 1.23ata   These are settings that don't contradict each other and hurt ma brains. 

 

That is information found in the operating instructions and why specific airplane type training is required for pilots!

Edited March 30, 2016 by Crump

[Venturi]

Refer to my previous post regarding 1942 vs 2016, also see combat aviation vs civilian.

 

The FAA begs to differ.....

 

[Crump]

Klaus, the Allison ratings are confusing.  You have to be very specific as to which engine and which installation.  My conclusion is based off what I know about convention, my training as a pilot, and my training as an A&P mechanic.

 

If you look at the operating limitations of the P-40N which was equipped with WEP, it gives ratings for both.

 

Most V-1710F3R engines did not come equipped with the boost regulator and the Operating limitations reflect only Take Off and Military Power.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

It does make sense.  The Military power rating is at a lower setting but a longer time period.  For example, a pilot who was authorized WEP (his engine was fitted with a boost regulator) could use 5 minutes of WEP.  At the end of that time period, he would reduce to Military power for an additional 5 minutes at that rating.  That is assuming his oil and coolant temps are within specifications.  Remember, the atmospheric conditions are pretty steady in your game while in reality they are not so the limits change accordingly.

 

That gave him some 10 minutes of operation at power levels above the 100% design power capacity of the engine.  Maneuvering an aircraft at high accelerations is exhausting.   As a result, real aerial maneuvering does not last for 10 minutes as the pilots become exhausted.

 

It was designed as fighter and the engine ratings reflect that.

So the Settings add. 

The Chart shows:

Take-Off 45.5"@3000 for 5

Military: 42"@3000 for 5

WEP: 56"@3000 for 5

 

Does this mean Military adds up to 15 Minutes? What about Standard Emergency Rating? It's 52"@3000 for 5 Minutes.

 

Do all of these add ans subtract? Or are they classed differently?

Or do I suddenly now get

20 Minutes Military 42"

15 Minutes Take-Off 45.5"

10 Standard Emergency 52"

5 War Emergency? 56"

[Crump]

Refer to my previous post regarding 1942 vs 2016, also see combat aviation vs civilian.

 

 

I tried to explain it and even posted the 1942 aviation codes for all aircraft in the United States to show it not only conforms with aviation convention, little has changed since then.

 

My suggestion is to learn more about it.  Since you do not listen, I cannot help you.

So the Settings add. 

The Chart shows:

Take-Off 45.5"@3000 for 5

Military: 42"@3000 for 5

WEP: 56"@3000 for 5

 

Does this mean Military adds up to 15 Minutes? What about Standard Emergency Rating? It's 52"@3000 for 5 Minutes.

 

Do all of these add ans subtract? Or are they classed differently?

Or do I suddenly now get

20 Minutes Military 42"

15 Minutes Take-Off 45.5"

10 Standard Emergency 52"

5 War Emergency? 56"

 

 

That is how I understand it in the Allison engines.  If it was equipped with a regulator, the engine had an additional power rating of War Emergency power.  That does not preclude the use of Military power ratings as long as none of the engine parameters exceed the red line.  Notice the Allison manuals go into great detail on recognizing detonation.  Much more so than any other engine manual I have read.

 

If your oil temps, inlet coolant temps, etc...were still in the green, the manual appears to allow for full use of Military Power.

 

You still had to report the use of WEP but there is nothing I see that impedes a pilot from using Military Power rating if his engine gauges are still in the green.

[Crump]

 

Do all of these add ans subtract? Or are they classed differently?

Or do I suddenly now get

20 Minutes Military 42"

15 Minutes Take-Off 45.5"

10 Standard Emergency 52"

5 War Emergency? 56"

 

 

They are classified differently. 

 

The boost regulator simply allows the use of War Emergency Power which the standard engine could not use without it.

 

If you have a boost regulator in an April 1943 V-1710F3R engine:

 

5 Mniutes at War Emergency Power (56"Hg at 3000 rpm)

5 Minutes at Military power (42"Hg at 3000 rpm)

 

After that, you are restricted to normal rated power as long as the engine gauges are in the green.

 

 

If you do NOT have a boost regulator in an April 1943 V-1710F3R engine:

 

5 Minutes at STANDARD emergency Power (52"Hg at 3000 rpm)

5 Minutes at Military Power (42"Hg at 3000 rpm)

 

The purpose of the boost regulator is protect the engine.  Without it, standard boost is 4"Hg lower because manifold pressure in a propeller aircraft is only steady in steady flight conditions.  If you manuever, additional airload on the propeller will affect the manifold pressure and it will rise accordingly.  This gives a buffer to detonation as the pilot maneuvers.

 

The boost regulator bleeds off the additional manifold pressure as the airload increases so the engine does not detonate.

 

In either engine, you cannot use Take Off power for anything but Take Off....

 

Take Off has specific altitude limitations and is not an "in the pocket" or work around for an additional combat rating.

[Crump]

With or without a boost regulator, the April 1943 V-1710F3R could use 10 minutes of power settings above normal rated power as long as the engine gauges remained in the green.

[Venturi]

I bet you don't know how to drive a stick shift.

 

Here's a hint. If you floor a engine while its low rpm, you can induce detonation. That doesn't mean the engine can't use that throttle setting at higher RPM. But then again, you're the expert right Crump?

 

 

They are classified differently.

 

The boost regulator simply allows the use of War Emergency Power which the standard engine could not use without it.

 

If you have a boost regulator in an April 1943 V-1710F3R engine:

 

5 Mniutes at War Emergency Power (56"Hg at 3000 rpm)

5 Minutes at Military power (42"Hg at 3000 rpm)

 

After that, you are restricted to normal rated power as long as the engine gauges are in the green.

 

 

If you do NOT have a boost regulator in an April 1943 V-1710F3R engine:

 

5 Minutes at STANDARD emergency Power (52"Hg at 3000 rpm)

5 Minutes at Military Power (42"Hg at 3000 rpm)

 

The purpose of the boost regulator is protect the engine. Without it, standard boost is 4"Hg lower because manifold pressure in a propeller aircraft is only steady in steady flight conditions. If you manuever, additional airload on the propeller will affect the manifold pressure and it will rise accordingly. This gives a buffer to detonation as the pilot maneuvers.

 

The boost regulator bleeds off the additional manifold pressure as the airload increases so the engine does not detonate.

 

In either engine, you cannot use Take Off power for anything but Take Off....

 

 

Take Off has specific altitude limitations and is not an "in the pocket" or work around for an additional combat rating.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Venturi

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

gotta say, pretty large buffer for detonation...

something like 30 odd inches.

[Crump]

 

 

I bet you don't know how to drive a stick shift. Here's a hint. If you floor a engine while its low rpm, you can induce detonation. That doesn't mean the engine can't use that throttle setting at higher RPM. But then again, you're the expert right Crump?

 

 

You do know it is sign of weakness of your position when have to stoop to personal insults.

 

 

 

BMEP has a direct relationship to ..............................................................Manifold Pressure!!!  

[JtD]

Where do you see 30"???

 

Ohh yeah...is this the stories and campfire tales of 70" in the P-40E?

From the Allison chief engineer.

Edited March 30, 2016 by JtD

[Venturi]

Relevant nonetheless. At this point your OCD fixation on manufacturer "arse-plating" is apparent enough, and I don't really care how many manuals you cite.

 

AGAIN the reality is that regarding Allison V1710-39 P40E:

 

1. Had no pressure regulator, all a pilot had to do was advance the throttle and RPM to get 72" MP

2. Per Allsion Chief Engineer period letter, the manufacturer's ratings were highly conservative

3. Per USAAF General's and Allison Chief Engineer's letters, pilots of multiple squadrons and nationalities which operated the P40E were regularly exceeding the Official Manufacturer published limits with few ill effects

4. Soviet pilots of P39s and P40s were known to run the engines as hard as possible to put them in parity or better with Luftwaffe designs, engine lifespan be damned

 

Now, can you deny ANY of the above?

 

Can you please tell me how in a PC HISTORICAL SIMULATION of WWII aerial combat, how ignoring the above makes ANY sense at all?

 

Furthermore, please relate how someone WHO DOES NOT CARE about flying the sim, should have any bearing on how the sim is developed?

 

 

You do know it is sign of weakness of your position when have to stoop to personal insults?

Edited March 30, 2016 by Venturi

[Crump]

From the Allison chief engineer.

Again, JtD...

 

that is a memo...

 

It is not something any pilot, engineer, or mechanic would change a thing on the engine.  It is empty air and not worth the ink or the paper as far as operating limitations go.....

 

You can also see that Allison engines in April 1943 WHERE using 60"Hg.....

 

Just not any engines that ever appeared under the cowling of a P-40E.

 

So unless your are asking for some mythical P-40E variant......WHAT IS THE POINT?  

 

That memo is absolutely worthless outside of historical curiosity that a a unit was dumb enough to do that.  I am quite sure that practice ended as quickly as it did in any other air force once it was discovered.

[Venturi]

Please answer my questions above, Crump.

[Crump]

 

 

AGAIN the reality is that regarding Allison V1710-39 P40E: 1. Had no pressure regulator, all a pilot had to do was advance the throttle and RPM to get 72" MP 2. Per Allsion Chief Engineer period letter, the manufacturer's ratings were highly conservative 3. Per USAAF General's and Allison Chief Engineer's letters, pilots of multiple squadrons and nationalities which operated the P40E were regularly exceeding the Official Manufacturer published limits with few ill effects 4. Soviet pilots of P39s and P40s were known to run the engines as hard as possible to put them in parity or better with Luftwaffe designs, engine lifespan be damned

 

 

 

 

1. Had no pressure regulator, all a pilot had to do was advance the throttle and RPM to get 72" MP

 

 

 

The limits are clear.  Without the boost regulator the engine was restricted to standard emergency power as of April 1943.

 

 

2. Per Allsion Chief Engineer period letter, the manufacturer's ratings were highly conservative

 

 

Not the legal instrument to change an engines operating limitations....

 

The memo is not worth the ink it is written on as far as what the operating limitations of the engine.  It simply shows us for historical curiousity that somebody was operating the engine outside of the limitations and Allison found out about it.

 

 

3. Per USAAF General's and Allison Chief Engineer's letters, pilots of multiple squadrons and nationalities which operated the P40E were regularly exceeding the Official Manufacturer published limits with few ill effects 

 

 

Who?  The "mulitple squadrons" comes from you.  Just because the letter was distributed to the entire force does not mean even ONE squadron operated the aircraft outside of the limitations.  It could mean only a hand full of airplane such as a section was caught doing it and Allison found out about it.

 

You have nothing that proves "multiple squadrons" or the extent the engine was abused.

 

 

4. Soviet pilots of P39s and P40s were known to run the engines as hard as possible to put them in parity or better with Luftwaffe designs, engine lifespan be damned

 

 

Says who?  I have seen evidence that the Soviets used different cruise power settings and that the engines did not last as long in VVS service.  There is nothing that says they ran around envoking the combat fairey praying that that their violations of physical law would go unnoticed and somehow this would all work out into victory over the Luftwaffe.....

 

Pfft....sounds like a very silly theory IMHO.  Something born of the movies and not reality.

[Venturi]

Please answer my questions above, Crump.

[LukeFF]

 

 

that is a memo...  

 

It is not something any pilot, engineer, or mechanic would change a thing on the engine.  It is empty air and not worth the ink or the paper as far as operating limitations go.....

 

 

Somewhere, right now, the engineers of Allison are laughing at you, Crump. I don't mean to be harsh, but it's becoming quite clear to me why you've worn out your welcome on so many forums. With you, it's your way or the highway, regardless of whatever evidence is presented. 

 

So, along with Venturi, I have a question: do you even own BoS and/or BoM?

[Crump]

It is amazing to me that the Allison memo whose subject is NOT to use anything higher than the published limitations has somehow become an authorization to use 70" manifold pressure.  

 

NOWHERE in the memo does Allison authorize 70" manifold pressure.  The entire point of the memo is to say "FOLLOW the PUBLISHED OPERATING LIMITS".

 

 

 

 

The memo is a general reference to V-1710F3R and V-1710F4R engines.   Allison clearly states do not use anything over the 60".  

 

 

 

 

 

Allison abuse.pdf

 

 

Well, the V-1710F4R engine in April 1943 WAS authorized to use 60" just as the Allision engineer relates....

 

 

So, there is no grand story of the combat fairey invocation on a systematic and wide scale basis nor is there any story of an Allison engineer subverting aviation convention and standards secretly raising engine operating limits in a memo....

 

It is just a memo saying follow the operating limits and we have raised them because we changed the blower ratio.

 

That is all reflected in the legal instrument that is used by pilots, mechanics and engineers when they want to know the engines operating limitations!!  

 

Craziness...I know!  

 

 

 

Can you please tell me how in a PC HISTORICAL SIMULATION of WWII aerial combat, how ignoring the above makes ANY sense at all?

 

Read the above...your questions are answered in their entirety. 

The specific Operating Instructions do not authorize the V-1710F3R as of April 1943 to use anything higher than 56"Hg and only on engines equipped with a boost regulator.......

[Venturi]

You conviently neglect to see the -F3R (-39) references scattered throughout the letter

 

RIGHT NEXT TO THE 66" and 70" boost remarks

 

Do you OWN THE GAMES CRUMP??

[Crump]

 

 

I don't mean to be harsh,

 

Does not bother me a bit my friend!

 

Not like it is a different group of folks I ever have any issue with....you guys change your forum names but it the same person behind the screen name. 

You conviently neglect to see the -F3R (-39) references scattered throughout the letter

RIGHT NEXT TO THE 66" and 70" boost remarks

Do you OWN THE GAMES CRUMP??

 

 

Do not know the difference between a memo and specific operating instructions.....

[Venturi]

I know the difference alright... One is peacetime "Johnny broke a rule so he's getting written up" One is wartime "Johnny didn't break the rule so he's being buried"

[Crump]

I know the difference alright... One is peacetime "Johnny broke a rule so he's getting written up" One is wartime "Johnny didn't break the rule so he's being buried"

 

One is a plea to the combat fairey and the other is reality.....

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

This is not about whether 70" was authorized or not.

 

This is about whether it was possible or not.

 

Something that you seem that you cannot seem to get your head around.

 

70"Hg of manifold pressure was possible, and it was reported to be used with authorization be damned.

Edited March 30, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Venturi]

I'd like to see how you got on with the "combat faireys"

 

Lol

 

One is a plea to the combat fairey and the other is reality.....

[Crump]

I know the difference alright... One is wartime "Johnny broke a physical limit so he's died" One is wartime "Johnny didn't break the rule so he's alive"

 

Fix it for you....

I'd like to see how you got on with the "combat faireys"

 

Lol

 

 

 

I never believe in them.....

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

[Edited]

 

Please try to make your point without getting personal.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Bearcat

[Crump]

 

This is about whether it was possible or not.

 

 

 

Of course it is possible...

 

Remember....RofLseal....you can do anything and deserve a gold star.  Things will always work out for you no matter what.  You ARE special.....

[MiloMorai]

There are faireys and then there are faeries.

 

Fairey made a/c such as the Swordfish.

[Venturi]

Possible AND documented. Also did NOT cause engines to go "boom" after 1min, or even 2-3 min.

 

Detonation is a complex subject and requires a nuanced understanding of engine mechanics to comprehend. Lug a supercharged engine and it WILL detonate, even at "accepted" MP levels. Managing high power boosted piston engines is an art. That is why Allison was so conservative... That and longevity from higher power outputs. They dumbed down the engines capabilities so that even a dumba$$ could avoid detonation.

 

But that kind of fidelity is not likely to be modeled. The engines should be modeled on what performance was POSSIBLE, given a good operator, not what the lowest common denominator was.

 

This is not about whether 70" was authorized or not.

 

This is about whether it was possible or not.

 

Something that you seem that you cannot seem to get your head around.

 

70"Hg of manifold pressure was possible, and it was reported to be used with authorization be damned.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Venturi

[Crump]

In all seriousness, the Allsion engineer in the same memo you quote states it is not possible, safe, or authorized...

 

He even goes into an in depth explanation as to why the engine will not make 70"Hg.  It will only do it a sea level under some pretty narrow atmospheric conditions. 

 

The entire point of that correspondence is to say, "Follow the published limits as they are the engines actual limitations based on the strength of the design."  He actually states that if you read it.

But that kind of fidelity is not likely to be modeled. 
 

 

It is not likely to be modeled because your game is striving for a level of realism.  If it was Marvel Universe it would be a different story....

 1min, or even 2-3 min.

Detonation is a complex subject and requires a nuanced understanding of engine mechanics to comprehend.

 

 

Detonation is right up there with string theory and quantum mechanics....

 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

In all seriousness, the Allsion engineer in the same memo you quote states it is not possible, safe, or authorized...

 

He even goes into an in depth explanation as to why the engine will not make 70"Hg.  It will only do it a sea level under some pretty narrow atmospheric conditions. 

 

The entire point of that correspondence is to say, "Follow the published limits as they are the engines actual limitations based on the strength of the design."  He actually states that if you read it.

 

It is not likely to be modeled because your game is striving for a level of realism.  If it was Marvel Universe it would be a different story....

Oi, Snake oil salesman stop changing your point.

 

Earlier you said that it was limited due to detonation (post 216 217)

Now you say it is due to structural limitations.

 

Lets see what the report says

"The 60" war emergency rating on the 8.8 blower ratio was somewhat further from the detonation point [in relation to 9.6 blower ratio) but was limited by structural limitations of the engine to the 60" value."

 

It doesn't matter if 70" could be achieved only at sea level and at narrow range of atmospheric conditions, again you are trying to misdirect the conversation like a politician., if you had enough ram-effect, if the atmospheric conditions were right and you advanced the throttles, it would achieve 70" and it would not detonate.

Edited March 30, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Venturi]

DO you own the game Crump?

[Venturi]

I find it interesting that you should be so involved in a product and yet have ZERO exposure to it.

[Venturi]

Tell you what, put your money where your mouth is, next time I see you post with both ribbons on your avatar, then we can talk again.

[Crump]

 

 

I find it interesting that you should be so involved in a product and yet have ZERO exposure to it.

 

It is more like involved in piston engine fighters at the pinnacle of their design period.  It is a hobby and I find them much more interesting than the jets at work. 

 

That is also why they are often the subject of engineering conference presentations too.  

 

 

Earlier you said that it was limited due to detonation (post 216 217) Now you say it is due to structural limitations.  

 

Do you even read my post's?

 

Allison warns it pilots on detonation and goes into some degree of depth on what the operator should be looking for to recognize it.

 

The Allison engineer who wrote the memo clearly states the engine was limited to 60"Hg due to structural strength of the engine.

 

 Two different things being said by Allison that are correct in the context.  

 

You are not reading the post and selectively cherry picking them out of context.

[Venturi]

So, you don't have the game. This is all abstract for you.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Venturi

[Crump]

Does that preclude me from getting the game??

[Venturi]

Like I said, get your bars and put some hours in.