BF109 Engine Damage in boost/emergency mode

[Panthera]

1 hour ago, Venturi said:

 

We have the data for the hard limit, which is the onset of detonation which destroys any engine in a minute at the most.

 

This data to determine the boost level where detonation occurs, in its simplest form, is

1. the fuel octane used,

2. the boost level used, 

3. and the mechanical compression ratio of the engine.

 

All of these I have posted on before.

 

The rest of it is purely to do with engine longevity over many missions. However, the upper limit for the Bf109F4-G2-G4-G6 is described by "burning piston tops" and is what happens at 1.42ata on the DB605 as a result of DETONATION, this is the reason why the setting was blocked. I have yet to see convincing evidence that it was unblocked. Strengthening piston tops may prevent piston burn through over a minute or two, but detonation will still kill the engine immediately afterwards...

 

If that were the case 1.42ata would have been completely removed as a possibility via the throttle. You don't allow a setting that destroys the engine within a 1 minute or 2 (or even 5 min), it's not how engineers determine "limits", esp. ones that enter into an operating manual. Furthermore you for sure wouldn't see 3 min markings in cockpits then. The final nail in the coffin however is that EVERY DB605 was run in for 2x 5 min at 1.42ata at the factory.

 

At the same time there is only ONE mention of piston burn throughs in the DB605, and that was for the initial batch of DB605 engines. After the introduction of strengthened piston heads, and possibly other adjustments, you NEVER hear of piston burn throughs again. The last report on 1.42ata clearance doesn't even mention burn throughs, but instead solely concerns the aeration of oil, and  by august 1942 all new DB605's featured a new oil cooler correcting this issue. Thus by Aug 43 1.42ata was fully cleared for use WITHOUT a time limit.

 

In short there is ZERO proof of any 1 min limit for 1.42ata once cleared.  

 

I really don't see what's so hard to understand about all this. All it requires is a bit of logical thinking. Now I hate accusing other people of bias, but I am having a hard time figuring out what else could be in the way for people still advocating for a 1 min limit at this point.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Panthera

[Kurfurst]

18 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

so in other words, you are fine with the current system as along as it advantages GERMAN planes?

 

Actually, the point was very much the opposite yet it is clear that you missed it entirely.

 

I am not fond of the current timer-to-destruction model. What's the point of it anyway - apart from such simple binary model being very much easier to simulate..?

[KingstonDE]

On 13.10.2017 at 12:56 AM, GridiroN said:

 

But if I'm not mistaken, The F, and G models have a temperature indicator on the right side that in real life could be switched between oil and water, but the sim only displays one of these, isn't that correct?

 

On 13.10.2017 at 5:43 AM, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, that's right. 

Hi gents,

 

i think you are both a little bit wrong. It is both, uper part ( green ) shows water with red mark for max. down part ( brown ) is oil with min and normal temp ( 40 - 80 ). When you see your water on the red mark ( max ) your oil is also on the max. But it shows you the water/ oil out temp and you can switch for oil in.

 

Kühlstofftemp. Austr. = Water out temp

Schmierstoff - Eintritt drücken = switch for oil in temp.

 

regards

 

Little_D

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Fumes was saying that there are two separate discussions going on. Which is kind of right. I will try to summarize both

 

1) There is a discussion whether there is a historical 1 minute time limit on WEP as a results of information gathered from manuals. There is absolutely no evidence for any 1 minute time limit for the F-4, G4 or G6 in any manual. It is either totally banned or allowed without restriction.

 

2) The second discussion is whether the engine should break, due to physical reasons when under high stress. The question is, when this would happen.

 

=> Now there is the aspect of how the game treats all this. The current game set up is one minute WEP

Re 1) One minute WEP is not supported by the manuals or any other Document 2) At which time exactly the engine breaks is a difficult question, however certainly not at one minute. Evidence against that is the multiple 5 minute break in run. (for the F4  the additional photos)

 

The game also treats Russian (not western allies) engine limits relatively conservatively.

 

Considering all this clearly leads to the conclusion that a 1 minute WEP game treatment is highly inconsistent with real life data and game engine model approaches on  other airplanes in game.

Edited April 7, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[Blutaar]

When simulating engine wear, it should be simulated for every engine. It makes no sense that some engines can run forever at maximum rated temperatures like 114 degrees water and oil. Even if it could run at these temps in real life, it dosent mean it is healthy. Why not make it so, that for example when a Yak1 runs at above rated temps the timer starts to tick and after one minute the engine breaks. When cooling down it should be remembered by the engine, the same as with the breakdown timers, how long these maximum temps were used and only after 10 or so minutes you are able to run at max temps for another one minute. I wouldnt like it but i also dont like it that Yaks and La5s have no engine wear while others clearly have when going above a time limit.

 

That obviously wouldnt work for the FN because it cant overheat but i truly believe the FN is way to heat efficient. Even if the FN engine is more efficient then the F engine, dosent mean that it runs cooler while producing more horsepower in normal and boosted power. Whats the reason for the outlet cowls when the engine cant overheat? How can air cooling an engine without any airflow? Why can the oilradiator be opened wider as in the normal La5 when you can close it to 50% or more in the FN without any sign of overheating?

 

Is there any reasonable expanation for the cooling efficiency of the FN with closed cowls and radiator? Maybe i just oversee something and everything is how it should be but from my limited understanding it makes absolutely no sense.

[LColony_Kong]

For myself the Crux of the matter is that it is still ridiculous that this conversation is revolving around the time limits in the manuals. I don't think there is anyone on either side who thinks these times represent the point at which a engine goes kaboom. It is well known they are for longevity reasons.

 

What this leaves us with is no data on some engine kaboom point. IF engines fail in game, they should fail for REAL and DETERMINISTIC reasons. Missmatch of rpm and throttle, etc. We have documentation for things like this. 

 

There is no ww2 document Anywhere for the engines in this game saying the engine should blow up at a specific time. Since there is no evidence for this, such a mechanic in game should not even be on the table, except to say it's wrong. 

[Gunsmith86]

4 hours ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

1) There is a discussion whether there is a historical 1 minute time limit on WEP as a results of information gathered from manuals. There is absolutely no evidence for any 1 minute time limit for the F-4, G4 or G6 in any manual. It is either totally banned or allowed without restriction.

 

For the G2, G4 and G6 there is a limit of 1 minute WEP in all manuals.

 

For the 109 F its more difficult because ther are not all limits in the manuals with numbers ( 1, 2 or 3 min. ) and there are two diffrent settings that many belive to be WEP but only one is a WEP for fighting the other one is only for starting on short runways.

 

The one we call normaly WEP is the red one below which last for 3min  whit 2600 U/min at 1.42 ata and does so in game too according to the data info in game.

But on the early planes BF 109 E and F serie there is one boost that is even more powerful but with the limit that it is only be used for starting on short runways. Its the last in the list for DB601N engine "Drehzahlerhöhung" 2800 U/min with 1.42 ata! This one we have also in game and it is limited to 1 min in game which was also most likely so in real because it has been so for all older DB 601 engines. They only mention times in manuals if they change like the 3mins for DB601N instead of 5mins for DB601 A and 1min WEP for DB 605 after it was free to use.

 

[Jizzo]

Oh boy .... 

[JtD]

57 minutes ago, Gunsmith86 said:

For the G2, G4 and G6 there is a limit of 1 minute WEP in all manuals

According to the manual you posted, it is prohibited from use. Which one of the two cases we have documents for:

1. Banned

2. Without time limit.

No DB605/Bf109 manual has been shown so far that actually states a 1 minute limit.

(Short summary of the 10 pages.)

[Venturi]

It's instructive to Google translate the German words:

 

Start and red power = "Start und Rotleisstung"

Climb and romp = "Steig und Rampfleisstung"

Continuous power = "Dauerleistung"

Speed increase = "Drehzahlerhöhung"

 

It's interesting to note that there was a RPM increase allowed above critical altitude, at altitudes only at 5.5km and above (far beyond critical altitude of 4.9km), for the DB601N.

 

It's also interesting to note that the DB601N required C3 100 octane fuel, as opposed to the DB601A series.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Or if you speak German, just read what it says. It’s “Start und Notleistung” take off and emergency power, not red and Kampfleistung which is combat power not romp :D

Edited April 7, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[L3Pl4K]

13, be fair, venturi had the pleasure to translate old german type style.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

No, absolutely, it is hard to read. Just correcting some details, no harm intended.

[Holtzauge]

Start & Rotleistung wasn’t that the special Eastern front 2.5 ata DB 605A power setting made available in May 1943 after the first combat encounters with the OP in-game Yak-7B? IIRC then this power setting was cleared for 30 min as long as you filled up with C4……

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

I think Rotleistung is something exclusive to Russian planes

[Holtzauge]

And don't forget the Yak-7b's Rotkurven functionality: Not even the Spitfire can match that......

[Asgar]

5 hours ago, Gunsmith86 said:

 

i'm not even convinced that this is an actual German manual, the fact that it's written in Fraktur makes with very unrealistic. Since all German ministries used Antiqua (as seen in the picture of the G- series manual.)

[Gunsmith86]

10 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

i'm not even convinced that this is an actual German manual, the fact that it's written in Fraktur makes with very unrealistic. Since all German ministries used Antiqua (as seen in the picture of the G- series manual.)

You should get better infos only texts writen after 1.September.1941 were in Antiqua before both was used.

 

This manual is from May 1941 and writen in Fraktur

Edited April 7, 2018 by Gunsmith86

[Sgt_Joch]

On ‎2018‎-‎04‎-‎06 at 2:57 AM, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Actually, the point was very much the opposite yet it is clear that you missed it entirely.

 

 

 

I understood your point, I was being sarcastic, but that never translates well in a post. 

[Corsair]

On 07/04/2018 at 7:11 PM, Gunsmith86 said:

 

For the G2, G4 and G6 there is a limit of 1 minute WEP in all manuals.

 

Can you please, I don't know, actually read the manual....

 

For DB 605, the 1 minute limit was never applied because pre-mid '43 the setting was banned.

 

On later manuals (post-mid '43), the setting was allowed (read: not banned anymore), and there was no time limit.

 

I mean, we've gone thouroughly through all this since a couple of months now. That kind of post assessing stuff without even looking closely into what is written on the documents you present as evidence doesn't help much.

Edited April 17, 2018 by EC.5/25.Corsair

[JaffaCake]

Just to summarise:

 

Gunsmith came up with already known documents, mis-interpreted them and presented as "evidence" that 1-minute thing was actually a thing?

 

If that is the case, we may have similar case happening with the developers similarly mis-interpreting the documentation.

 

Given the amount of discussion and consistent evidence people provided here - what are the next steps to get this implemented? Do we have anyone who had success writing to the devs about such mistakes - what would you require for a case like this?

Edited April 17, 2018 by JaffaCake

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Yes, I had suspected the same thing. I wrote to Han. I also posted his response which was “everything has already been discussed numerous times on the forum with evidence provided” or something along those lines in this thread, I believe, already. I wrote back to him that I could not find anything in favor of the 1 minute WEP and also

explained the entire reasoning to him. That was around 3 weeks ago and I have not yet gotten a response.

[JaffaCake]

2 hours ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

Yes, I had suspected the same thing. I wrote to Han. I also posted his response which was “everything has already been discussed numerous times on the forum with evidence provided” or something along those lines in this thread, I believe, already. I wrote back to him that I could not find anything in favor of the 1 minute WEP and also

explained the entire reasoning to him. That was around 3 weeks ago and I have not yet gotten a response.

 

 

That is... disheartening. Could it help to find a bilingual member to translate the message, so it would be easier for the developers to understand? I could see how a wall of text could be intimidating if English is one's second language.

[Sgt_Joch]

well no, it is not a mistake on the Devs part. The one minute limit is shown on various documents even after the ban was lifted, i.e. this manual from february 1944:

 

some players are trying to make the argument that there was no limit based on cherry picking certain documents and ignoring others, but that is a nonsensical argument.

why would the DB60x engine go from a 1 minute limit to no limit when there were no changes to the engine, cooling system, fuel, etc.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Sgt_Joch, do you speak German?

I am pretty sure you don’t actually

 

I suggest you get a translation before you start accusing people of cherry picking... everything else makes you look kind of bad...

Edited April 17, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[JtD]

What he means is that in this manual, 1.42ata is banned. The page is from a manual for the R3 version of the Bf109G, a recon version.

[VesseL]

4 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

well no, it is not a mistake on the Devs part. The one minute limit is shown on various documents even after the ban was lifted, i.e. this manual from february 1944:

 

some players are trying to make the argument that there was no limit based on cherry picking certain documents and ignoring others, but that is a nonsensical argument.

why would the DB60x engine go from a 1 minute limit to no limit when there were no changes to the engine, cooling system, fuel, etc.

 

So could this be the evidence Han mentioned? If it is the only document with "1min limit"?

[Corsair]

4 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

some players are trying to make the argument that there was no limit based on cherry picking certain documents and ignoring others, but that is a nonsensical argument.

why would the DB60x engine go from a 1 minute limit to no limit when there were no changes to the engine, cooling system, fuel, etc.

Your reasoning looks like cherrypicking.

 

Your document shows a ban of the 1,42 ata setting (ist blockiert).

⇒ The time limit is not a factor since it was purely banned. There is no time limit to enforce if the setting is blocked!

 

There are on the other hand evidences from autumn '43 mentioning no ban, nor time limit. Why would these manuals omit such a crucial limitation for the pilot?

 

Why enforce one single setting when multiple ones were around at the same time?

 

Both settings co-existed, it is a fact. The best solution would be, IMO and in the similar fashion of the La-5 and the M-82F, to propose a Bf 109 G modification for DB 605 with & without the 1,42 ata ban. But no nonsensical hard time limit which was never enforced when the setting was allowed...

Edited April 17, 2018 by EC.5/25.Corsair

[unreasonable]

In terms of internal consistency it makes no sense to have no time limit at all for 2800/1.42 when 2600/1.30 is time limited, albeit to 30 minutes. 

 

I understand why the devs chose 1 minute: the documents above that show 1.42 as being prohibited show time limits for 1.30 and 1.42, so they assumed, I think, that if the 1.42 setting had not been prohibited then the limit would have been 1 minute. I do not think this is unreasonable, but there is a case that a 3-5 minute allowance would be more suitable for both technical and game reasons.  There is no rational case at all for saying that 1.42 should be a continuous power setting.

 

 

 

 

 

[Corsair]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

if the 1.42 setting had not been prohibited then the limit would have been 1 minute. I do not think this is unreasonable,

 

It actually is quite unreasonable since autumn 1943 flight manuals mention the 1,42 setting allowance *without time limit whatsoever*.

 

There is no reason why these documents would omit such an important engine management information for the pilot.

 

Now I'm not saying the engine shouldn't be damaged from abuse. The thing is, this hard time limit is nonsense and unsupported for 109 G/DB 605 with the 1,42 ata setting allowed, as it was gradually from mid 43 

 

One modification at 1,30 and another at 1,42 without limit as currently implemented (like La-5(F)) would lay out a temporarily satisfactory basis while the devs develop a more satisfactory engine damage model.

Edited April 18, 2018 by EC.5/25.Corsair

[LColony_Kong]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

In terms of internal consistency it makes no sense to have no time limit at all for 2800/1.42 when 2600/1.30 is time limited, albeit to 30 minutes. 

 

I understand why the devs chose 1 minute: the documents above that show 1.42 as being prohibited show time limits for 1.30 and 1.42, so they assumed, I think, that if the 1.42 setting had not been prohibited then the limit would have been 1 minute. I do not think this is unreasonable, but there is a case that a 3-5 minute allowance would be more suitable for both technical and game reasons.  There is no rational case at all for saying that 1.42 should be a continuous power setting.

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree. Running any WEP power setting for durations as long as even an hour is not going to destroy the engine simply due to the power itself. We have ample documented long test runs, anecdotes, and knowledge of why the time limits existed to prove that. 

 

Sure, did real pilots fly around at WEP all the time? NO. And for good reason. A engine run like that all the time would not last very many missions. Did pilots use WEP as long as needed if their butt was on the on the line? YES. 

 

If we add time limits because we think it is silly for people to fly around at full boost constantly, we do the game a worse disservice because the correct engineering limits of the engine are being plastered over in an attempt to enforce a certain player behavior. Maintenance and logistics are beyond the scope of virtually any video game that isnt some kind of grand strategy. 

In the end all your going to get is airplanes whose true abilities get turned into a game of "lets see whose nation/army wrote more or less conservative time limits." I will take idiots flying at WEP 24/7 OVER having airplanes COMBAT characteristics obliterated because we cant handle people doing dumb things in video games. Which matters more? Preventing people not playing by a book written for a context we can never replicate? Or making sure airplanes function TACTICALLY correct. Clearly the latter. (And for some reason nobody here seems to think that the massive fuel consumption at MAX power wont limit people. You will either have to take too much fuel for a given range, thus being heavy, or run out of fuel very fast due to constant full power settings.)

 

 

 

 

 

Ill say this again for emphasis: it is silly to replace mechanical limits with abstractions to try to force a players hand because he isn't faced with the same environment as real life. This only results in getting neither a correct aircraft OR the operational constraints the mechanic alludes to. 

[unreasonable]

46 minutes ago, EC.5/25.Corsair said:

 

It actually is quite unreasonable since autumn 1943 flight manuals mention the 1,42 setting allowance *without time limit whatsoever*.

 

There is no reason why these documents would omit such an important engine management information for the pilot.
<snip>

 

That a document does not explicitly state a time limit that does not mean that the setting is a continuous power setting that can be run forever.  Some common sense is assumed. 

 

49 minutes ago, Fumes said:

<snip>

 

 

Ill say this again for emphasis: it is silly to replace mechanical limits with abstractions to try to force a players hand because he isn't faced with the same environment as real life. This only results in getting neither a correct aircraft OR the operational constraints the mechanic alludes to. 

 

 But abstractions are what we have, since a purely physics based model would be - as yet - too difficult and as you say the game cannot easily model the longer term wear and tear/ engine life issues. (Not that MP would accept it even if this could be done).  So the issue is simply what they should be. If there is a system that has a limit for 1.30, it must have a limit for 1.42. You argue for no limits at all. I and others disagree: as do, more importantly, so do the developers. 

 

So it seems to me that there are two potentially fruitful approaches: you can either have a sensible input that might get the developers to increase the 1 minute limit to something tactically more meaningful, or you can just wait and hope (and lobby) that a more sophisticated engine model comes along to replace the time limits. 

 

Unfortunately all we have now in this thread is an echo chamber of people making more and more emphatic and heated claims - bold and underlining are neither arguments nor evidence. I am not sure what you think you are achieving. Then again, I am not sure what I am achieving here either, so I will leave you to it.  

[LColony_Kong]

2 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

That a document does not explicitly state a time limit that does not mean that the setting is a continuous power setting that can be run forever.  Some common sense is assumed. 

 

 

 But abstractions are what we have, since a purely physics based model would be - as yet - too difficult and as you say the game cannot easily model the longer term wear and tear/ engine life issues. (Not that MP would accept it even if this could be done).  So the issue is simply what they should be. If there is a system that has a limit for 1.30, it must have a limit for 1.42. You argue for no limits at all. I and others disagree: as do, more importantly, so do the developers. 

 

So it seems to me that there are two potentially fruitful approaches: you can either have a sensible input that might get the developers to increase the 1 minute limit to something tactically more meaningful, or you can just wait and hope (and lobby) that a more sophisticated engine model comes along to replace the time limits. 

 

Unfortunately all we have now in this thread is an echo chamber of people making more and more emphatic and heated claims - bold and underlining are neither arguments nor evidence. I am not sure what you think you are achieving. Then again, I am not sure what I am achieving here either, so I will leave you to it.  

Common sense is indeed assumed, that we do not read in the need for time limits into the absence of evidence for them. This is the very crux of the ridiculous nature of defending these limits. For some reason we are stuck circling around defending a bogus game construct as if it were the common sense solution to a problem that should not exist.....

 

You very well can argue for no limits, because the limits do not apply to the scope of the game. It is is that simple. NONE of the the time limits in the manuals that are constantly referenced here were applicable to what happens to a engine in game, ie instant destruction. In order to destroy an engine from pure wear from high power you would have to run the engine for a time period that would generally exceed the span of any given mission. 

 

Unreasonable, if you had a complicated engine model, you would have people running around on full WEP all the bloody time. Just as if we did what I am suggesting and remove the limits. You get the same tactical result. 

 

I dont know how many times this has to gone over. The time limits have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ENGINE FAILURE DURING THE COURSE OF A MISSION. WE THEREFORE HAVE NO EVIDENCE ANY TIME BASED FAILURE POINT, AND TONS OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. 

 

But I guess "common sense," whatever that is, trumps all empirical evidence. 

[Corsair]

Bold text is more than necessary since after dozens of pages, many do not seem to understand black and white text, i.e. on the 109 manuals...

 

18 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

That a document does not explicitly state a time limit that does not mean that the setting is a continuous power setting that can be run forever.  Some common sense is assumed. 

 

 

Where did I say that? Did you read my whole post? I selected the parts you missed.

 

Quote

Now I'm not saying the engine shouldn't be damaged from abuse. The thing is, this hard time limit is nonsense and unsupported for 109 G/DB 605 with the 1,42 ata setting allowed, as it was gradually from mid 43 

 

One modification at 1,30 and another at 1,42 without limit as currently implemented (like La-5(F)) would lay out a satisfactory basis while the devs develop a more satisfactory engine damage model.

 

Fumes explains very well while a hard limit is a very poor feature, even as a stop gap.

I shall also modify my post, "satisfactory" meaning being "temporarily satisfactory".

Edited April 18, 2018 by EC.5/25.Corsair

[LColony_Kong]

15 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

That a document does not explicitly state a time limit that does not mean that the setting is a continuous power setting that can be run forever.  Some common sense is assumed. 

 

 

 But abstractions are what we have, since a purely physics based model would be - as yet - too difficult and as you say the game cannot easily model the longer term wear and tear/ engine life issues. (Not that MP would accept it even if this could be done).  So the issue is simply what they should be. If there is a system that has a limit for 1.30, it must have a limit for 1.42. You argue for no limits at all. I and others disagree: as do, more importantly, so do the developers. 

 

So it seems to me that there are two potentially fruitful approaches: you can either have a sensible input that might get the developers to increase the 1 minute limit to something tactically more meaningful, or you can just wait and hope (and lobby) that a more sophisticated engine model comes along to replace the time limits. 

 

Unfortunately all we have now in this thread is an echo chamber of people making more and more emphatic and heated claims - bold and underlining are neither arguments nor evidence. I am not sure what you think you are achieving. Then again, I am not sure what I am achieving here either, so I will leave you to it.  

I use bold etc to place emphasis. That is what they are there for. 

[KingstonDE]

Hi guys,

Have you ever looked at the complete manuals of the 109 engines, doesent matters if E/F/G 109`s? And not only the ATA/rpm information? There it is clearly described, that one should fly from full pressure altitude with max power (max ATA, max RPM with autoprop). This also applies to the engines that have a 1 minute limit of ATA 1.42. Why? So that the turbocharger can even bring enough air into the combustion chamber, in order to be able to obtain a clean air/gas mixture at high altitudes. Yes ATA falls with the altitude, but the rpm`s remains !! The engine does not have the load and heat due to the changed mixture above the full pressure level as it would have on 500m or 3000m. So no problem with max power to fly above the full pressure level until the tank is empty and without damaging or overburdening the engine. 

 

regards

 

Little_D

 

 

[Gunsmith86]

Tryed it in the 109 G6

 

Test1: at 6000m you still get 1.42 ata (2800 RPM)  the engine started to fail after 1min and 45 sec.

 

Test2: at 6000m 1.42 ata (2800 RPM) the engine started to fail after 1min and 15 sec. reduced power to 1.0 ata for 15min and than tryed again this time the damaged engine run for 1min and 58sec. on 1.42 ata before stopping completely

 

Test3: at 8000m with full power we get only about 1.16 ata (2800 RPM) the engine withstand this for 3min and 58 sec. before stopping.

 

The damage modell of the engine is at least more complex than some may belive because it never stops at the same time.

The bigest problem in the game with this limit is proberbly that you get no warning at all before the engine is damaged.

Also calling it a limit is proberbly wrong it should be seen more as a warranty from the engine manufacturer ( your engine will last at least 1min at 1.42 ata )

Edited April 19, 2018 by Gunsmith86

[LColony_Kong]

5 hours ago, Gunsmith86 said:

Tryed it in the 109 G6

 

Test1: at 6000m you still get 1.42 ata the engine started to fail after 1min and 45 sec.

 

Test2: at 6000m 1.42 ata the engine started to fail after 1min and 15 sec. reduced power to 1.0 ata for 15min and than tryed again this time the damaged engine run for 1min and 58sec. on 1.42 ata before stopping completely

 

Test3: at 8000m with full power we get only about 1.16 ata the engine withstand this for 3min and 58 sec. before stopping.

 

The damage modell of the engine is at least more complex than some may belive because it never stops at the same time.

The bigest problem in the game with this limit is proberbly that you get no warning at all before the engine is damaged.

Also calling it a limit is proberbly wrong it should be seen more as a warranty from the engine manufacturer ( your engine will last at least 1min at 1.42 ata )

Yes this what my complaint in the other thread was about. Due to these stupid limits the devs have made up settings above FTH that inhibit performance 

[MiloMorai]

10 hours ago, 1./JG2_Little_D said:

Hi guys,

Have you ever looked at the complete manuals of the 109 engines, doesent matters if E/F/G 109`s? And not only the ATA/rpm information? There it is clearly described, that one should fly from full pressure altitude with max power (max ATA, max RPM with autoprop). This also applies to the engines that have a 1 minute limit of ATA 1.42. Why? So that the turbocharger can even bring enough air into the combustion chamber, in order to be able to obtain a clean air/gas mixture at high altitudes. Yes ATA falls with the altitude, but the rpm`s remains !! The engine does not have the load and heat due to the changed mixture above the full pressure level as it would have on 500m or 3000m. So no problem with max power to fly above the full pressure level until the tank is empty and without damaging or overburdening the engine. 

 

regards

 

Little_D

 

 

 

You due know that the 109s engine was equipped with a variable speed supercharger? Airplanes like the P-47 and P-38 had turbochargers.

[KingstonDE]

11 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

 

You due know that the 109s engine was equipped with a variable speed supercharger? Airplanes like the P-47 and P-38 had turbochargers.

 

Sorry for my bad english, but this dont make a differents, as the DB60x still needs full ATA/rpm over fullthrottle high to obtain a clean air/gas mixture at high altitudes.

 

regards

 

Little_D