BF109 Engine Damage in boost/emergency mode

[LColony_Kong]

Well, if the devs want to develop a full engine simulator describing the various modes of engine failure (engine RPM / MP mismatch, causing detonation - engine mix too low for MP, causing detonation - engine mix too high for RPM/MP, causing plug fouling and cylinder misfires)... then by all means, I support it.

As I've written about extensively before... use search.

Sure, id be all for more complex engine managements. 

 

But in the meantime, they should get rid of the limits as a step in the right direction. 

[Blutaar]

If i understood correctly, the given values are per flight (i don't know how an average flight time is calculated).

 

So you have a source. Would be nice of you if you can show me. I never heard of that.

[Venturi]

I forgot to add, hot spots in the cylinder head / piston top causing pre-ignition and detonation, regardless of the coolant or oil temp... after prolonged high boost operation...

Time limits are nominal times... for manifold reasons...

The 109s, by the way, were well-known to have a plume of smoke generated from their engines whenever they went to high throttle settings... do you know why?

[LColony_Kong]

I forgot to add, hot spots in the cylinder head / piston top causing pre-ignition and detonation, regardless of the coolant or oil temp... after prolonged high boost operation...

Time limits are nominal times... for manifold reasons...

The 109s, by the way, were well-known to have a plume of smoke generated from their engines whenever they went to high throttle settings... do you know why?

They are not. Simple as that. 

 

Time limits were put in place merely to preserve engine lifetime as long as possible. They were influenced not only by the engine design but whatever the nation in question needed. Meaning that if the Germans and Russians had the same plane, they might have different limits. This is why it is not uncommon for planes to very high allowable climb settings. The host nations simply didnt want people using the power all the time if it wasnt needed. In combat, it is needed. 

[SCG_OpticFlow]

So you have a source. Would be nice of you if you can show me. I never heard of that.

 

No, it's just my understanding. I might be wrong. All the sources I've seen only list power mode / max duration in minutes.

[SCG_OpticFlow]

I see we are commiting the classic "you arent a known quantity to me (35 posts) so I assume you are rube" rubbish. Typical forum bull. 

 

I am well familiar with the other threads on this forum that debated this issue. I have also discussed it at length with members of this community outside of this forum. I havent seen anything that would discredit what I just said to any significant degree. 

 

what you state about safe usage is totally false. The time limits were quasi-arbitrary numbers that existed ONLY to extend engine life to whatever was decided was needed. This is why engines repeatedly got uprated while keeping the same time limit. This is why there are manuals that specifically state this. This is why we have loads of pilot accounts of running engines well in excess without failure. This is why we have 8 hour WEP run ins. This is why a 109 carries enough MW50 for DOUBLE the manual allowed use even with breaks in between. 

 

Time limits are game fantasy. 

I cant speak to the E. But it was pretty common that engines that used WEP were replaced or worked over as soon as possible, regardless of how many hours on the. IIRC this was standard policy on Merlins in 51s. 

 

No pilot in his right mind stopped using max power because he exceeded a time limit in combat. If you get shot down, the engine life of 25 hours doesnt matter. 

 

The DB-601E engine manual (for the 109 F4) advises to use "Start- und Notleistung" (start and emergency power) -- 2700 rpm, 1.42 ata -- for take off when at maximum weight or short airfield. I'd guess, it wasn't engine replacement event.

[Panthera]

I'd just like to know where they got the "1 min" limitation from, because that honestly seems extremely unlikely. And engine damage after just 2 min is incredibly unrealistic.

 

Later models with MW50 boost had a recommended 10 min limit at 1.8 to 1.98 ata (SonderNotleistung), that's a long time running at a MUCH higher boost pressure. I've yet to find any document that limits 1.42 ata to 1 min.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I have been told that a feature the Bf 109 Es and Fs had IRL was a clock timer attached to a button/lever needed to engage the 1.42 ata regime. The engine throttle would normally go up to say 1.30 or 1.35 ata, then if the pilot wanted more power he activated this lever/button which allowed the throttle control to go beyond that, while activating it a 1 minute timer would engage in the pilot's clock in the cockpit. Once the time was over the throttle setting would return to Combat Power. This would be modelled in Cliffs of Dover.

Don't know if the Bf 109G had this feature as well, but if we had this ingame it would be handy for the pilots to avoid surpassing the time limit at high boost. The only downside is that it wouldn't make possible to use the intermediate boost settings like we can do now. For example in the 109 F-4 you can use 1.37 for around 7 mins, and 1.39 for around 4 minutes, which although they don't give as much power as the full 1.42 ata setting, it's still more than the combat power 1.3 ata. With this system everything past combat power would be forcefully limited to 1 minute of use (don't know how many times or which cooldown it had before being able to use it again).

Edited January 1, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Panthera]

I have been told that a feature the Bf 109 Es and Fs had IRL was a clock timer attached to a button/lever needed to engage the 1.42 ata regime. The engine throttle would normally go up to say 1.30 or 1.35 ata, then if the pilot wanted more power he activated this lever/button which allowed the throttle control to go beyond that, while activating it a 1 minute timer would engage in the pilot's clock in the cockpit. Once the time was over the throttle setting would return to Combat Power. This would be modelled in Cliffs of Dover.

 

Don't know if the Bf 109G had this feature as well, but if we had this ingame it would be handy for the pilots to avoid surpassing the time limit at high boost. The only downside is that it wouldn't make possible to use the intermediate boost settings like we can do now. For example in the 109 F-4 you can use 1.37 for around 7 mins, and 1.39 for around 4 minutes, which although they don't give as much power as the full 1.42 ata setting, it's still more than the combat power 1.3 ata. With this system everything past combat power would be forcefully limited to 1 minute of use (don't know how many times or which cooldown it had before being able to use it again).

 

Who told you this?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Who told you this?

JG4_Karaya, he has a nice YT channel mostly about CloD but also some BoS and DCS, he knows quite a bit about the 109.

Edited January 1, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Panthera]

JG4_Karaya

 

Ok, never heard of this before. I've mostly concentrated on the F series onwards where I haven't come across this.

 

Will be interesting to know where he's got it from.

Edited January 1, 2018 by Panthera

[curiousGamblerr]

Sure, id be all for more complex engine managements.

 

But in the meantime, they should get rid of the limits as a step in the right direction.

They do that and people will fly on emergency all the time. That's a step in the wrong direction.

[Panthera]

IMO simply increase the limit to a more realistic 10 min, which I am quite sure the engine could handle without any issue.

 

The real pilots used 1.42ata in combat all the time, so why should it be any different for us?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

They do that and people will fly on emergency all the time. That's a step in the wrong direction.

 

Without any limits the P-40 at max throttle and RPM does 580 km/h at the deck, as fast as the Fw 190 A-5 with closed cowling shutters, they would destroy everything in sight xD

 

[Panthera]

Without any limits the P-40 at max throttle and RPM does 580 km/h at the deck, as fast as the Fw 190 A-5 with closed cowling shutters, they would destroy everything in sight xD

 

That sounds pretty crazy considering the real performance of that aircraft...

 

The real P-40E managed some 460 kph at SL at 47" Hg, and 505 kph at 57" Hg.

 

Meanwhile here's actual Fw-190A5 performance at 1.42ata (which btw is listed with a 3 min recommendation):

Edited January 2, 2018 by Panthera

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

The P-40E at sea level in game does (with cowling flaps in neutral position):

Continuous mode (2600 RPM, 37"): 445 km/h (276.5 mph)

Combat Power 5 min limit (3000 RPM, 42"): 475 km/h (295 mph)

Take Off Power 2 min limit (3000 RPM, 45.5"): 494 km/h (307 mph)

 

The real P-40E managed some 460 kph at SL at 47" Hg, and 505 kph at 57" Hg.

 

Where is this from? it seems a little low...there is this report www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/AL229-flame-damping-exhaust.pdf testing different exhausts, I think our P-40E would be the one with "individual stub exhaust"? With that report if you extrapolate the speed curve to sea level it would be around 310 mph (499 km/h) at sea level with 41.5" at 3000 RPM?


About the A-5, at 1.42 ata it does 560 km/h if you have the cowling flaps opened at 55%, If you close them more you can get faster (up to 580), I don't know which configuration they had the in the real test. For the 190 ingame the time limit is 3 minutes as well.

Sorry for the offtopic.

Edited January 2, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[LColony_Kong]

They do that and people will fly on emergency all the time. That's a step in the wrong direction.

No it wouldnt. It matters alot less what setting people use in route, and alot more what setting they have available when they actually are fighting someone. And there are still other issues to consider when cruising at WEP, such as extreme fuel consumption. And in most cases this would produce little to no change tactically because airplanes that were faster in cruise are likely the same at full power.  

 

 

 

It is completely absurd that aircraft with much higher top end speed get run down by ostensibly slower planes because the pilot is forces to back off the throttle in a manner he would never do if his life depended on it. It completely castrates the the modeling of the aircraft to go to such lengths for the FM only to hamstring the plane when its main advantage actually would matter. 

 

This doesn't just apply to the 109. It applies to everything. We shouldn't be seeing aircraft that have real advantages in some respects not be able to use those advantages because of some quasi-arbitrary number that is being applied in a manner that it never was IRL. 

Edited January 2, 2018 by Fumes

[SAS_Storebror]

It is completely absurd that aircraft with much higher top end speed get run down by ostensibly slower planes because the pilot is forces to back off the throttle in a manner he would never do if his life depended on it. It completely castrates the the modeling of the aircraft to go to such lengths for the FM only to hamstring the plane when its main advantage actually would matter. 

 

This doesn't just apply to the 109. It applies to everything. We shouldn't be seeing aircraft that have real advantages in some respects not be able to use those advantages because of some quasi-arbitrary number that is being applied in a manner that it never was IRL. 

 

I have to say, I fully agree.

In real life an engine damage event would not kick in exactly at a specific time.

It would become more likely the more you extend the official's engine operation limits. Other factors like the engine's age, general maintenance status etc. will likely have an even larger effect IRL.

Nevertheless, engines should become prone to "internal" damage more likely the longer you run them beyond limits, but the probability should stay reasonable, e.g. you double the emergency boost time, so you get a 50/50 chance for engine damage or the like.

Problem is: All of this is a "bums feeling" discussion. I doubt there are dependable hard facts and values concerning the probability of an engine damage at certain stages/ages/conditions of such engines.

 

Cheers!

Mike

[=RvE=Windmills]

I'm pretty sure it's going more off of what was prescribed by the designers as limits, at least with the 801 the 3 minute limit at emergency is actually there on paper. I think in that sense the goal is more to get people to follow the limits that pilots would likely have adhered to most of the time in real life. Obviously they would not always do that, but how do you make people somewhat follow these limits without allowing them to just firewall the throttle and forget about it? Certainly overheat doesn't really stop anything, and I feel that that's more where the issue lies.

 

In any case, I do think 1 minute of emergency is very tight for the DB engine. An increase to 2 minutes would make emergency a bit more usable while still restricting you from just firewalling it.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Windmills

[LColony_Kong]

I'm pretty sure it's going more off of what was prescribed by the designers as limits, at least with the 801 the 3 minute limit at emergency is actually there on paper. I think in that sense the goal is more to get people to follow the limits that pilots would likely have adhered to most of the time in real life. Obviously they would not always do that, but how do you make people somewhat follow these limits without allowing them to just firewall the throttle and forget about it? Certainly overheat doesn't really stop anything, and I feel that that's more where the issue lies.

 

In any case, I do think 1 minute of emergency is very tight for the DB engine. An increase to 2 minutes would make emergency a bit more usable while still restricting you from just firewalling it.

You dont force them, and trying to do so is folly. 

 

 

Here is the thing. When you simulate a plane, you can only do just that. (as computers allow for anyhow)

 

When you try to abstract things that do not exist in game (such as a [Edited] mechanic) it can only be done as a net benefit in game when it does not directly alter the "1 to 1" simulation of the hard object in game. ie:planes. 

 

The thing is, you cant even come close to simulating all the extraneous factors at the operational and strategic level that would have affected how people actually use their airplanes. All you will end up getting is some bastardized nonsense that will be wildly inconsistent and not actually simulate anything what so ever. At the same time, you will have actually damaged how correct the aircraft model is, which was the only thing that was doable in the first place. 

 

In short, trying to simulate strategic factors is an impossible task that will only succeed badly mimicking whatever is tries to, while at the same time ruining whatever actually could be done "1 to 1"

 

 

Video games have their own tactical situations, attempts to alter peoples tactics at the expense of the aircraft simulation are a step backwards. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Nor do you want random engine failure. No one wants killed by the random number generator any more than they want the game to change their thermostat to simulate poor cockpit heat. 

Edited January 2, 2018 by Bearcat

[=RvE=Windmills]

Sure, I don't really disagree with you fundamentally, I just see it as a design choice and from that perspective there are some merits to the idea.

 

I think in the case of the DB limits the issue is more the time for emergency than anything else, isn't the very restrictive 1 minute mostly the reason this issue is very noticeable? Already with the 3 minutes on the 190 it becomes a lot more usable. It allows you to use full power to reach top speed and maintain it for sometime, or to use it for the extent of a dogfight etc. What can you really do with 1 minute of emergency power though?

[SCG_OpticFlow]

You dont force them, and trying to do so is folly. 

 

 

Here is the thing. When you simulate a plane, you can only do just that. (as computers allow for anyhow)

 

When you try to abstract things that do not exist in game (such as a shitty mechanic) it can only be done as a net benefit in game when it does not directly alter the "1 to 1" simulation of the hard object in game. ie:planes. 

 

The thing is, you cant even come close to simulating all the extraneous factors at the operational and strategic level that would have affected how people actually use their airplanes. All you will end up getting is some bastardized nonsense that will be wildly inconsistent and not actually simulate anything what so ever. At the same time, you will have actually damaged how correct the aircraft model is, which was the only thing that was doable in the first place. 

 

In short, trying to simulate strategic factors is an impossible task that will only succeed badly mimicking whatever is tries to, while at the same time ruining whatever actually could be done "1 to 1"

 

 

Video games have their own tactical situations, attempts to alter peoples tactics at the expense of the aircraft simulation are a step backwards. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Nor do you want random engine failure. No one wants killed by the random number generator any more than they want the game to change their thermostat to simulate poor cockpit heat. 

 

Someone suggested to make an option in the game to disable the timers, so that whoever wants them can have them. That would be the best decision IMO, because otherwise we'd never reach consensus.

[Blutaar]

If the time restriction for full boost is there to prevent the engine blowing up in midflight, why is it not mentioned in the manual that you have to be pretty serious about the times given per manual? If the DB-60x for example was that fragile, Notleistung would be restricted like in the G2. It is not realistic to assume that everyone who had engine damage for using notleistung died and couldnt share his information.

This would be a serious issue and well known by the pilots and the field mechanics if engines couldnt run full boost for even reaching max speed from cruise speed! Whats the reason anyway to mention max speeds in Manuals when you cant use them in combat? One minute is just a joke and way to short to run away from a fast opponent.

 

Someone suggested to make an option in the game to disable the timers, so that whoever wants them can have them. That would be the best decision IMO, because otherwise we'd never reach consensus.

 

Yeah that would be nice before getting a more realistic approach to engine modeling. Even now it is kind of possible but you have to enable the no damage cheat in the options for that. That kinda sucks.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Ishtaru

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

It is interesting to note, that regarding the maximum dive speeds, the developers deliberately did not choose the values given in the respective manuals, because they thought that they were unrealistic and/or because of pilot accounts. Does anyone have pilot accounts stating that they could go longer than the 1 minute we have in game right now? I think this could be a solid basis for a error report then...

 

For the lagg AFAIK the devs referred to a simple pilot interview when justifying the max dive speed...

Edited January 2, 2018 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[Dakpilot]

If it was fine to run high boost all the time there would be no restriction in the manual , there are plenty of Pilot records explaining that 99% of time they stuck to the published  limits 

 

Golidnokov used WEP a single time during his career and many combats with P-39, and there are many accounts of German aces who stuck absolutely to prescribed limits

 

If it was all great these 'desired ' limits would be max continuous power

 

Pretty sure it was Tsagi testing not 'a simple pilot  interview' that was used to explain Lagg-3 dive (1942) limits

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[SCG_OpticFlow]

Maybe off topic, but I'd like to mention the Russian Wikipedia article on the M-105 engine:

 

The -PA variant (Yak-1) had 5 min limit at maximum power (1200 hp) and 125 hours TBO.

 

For the -PF variant (Yak-1b), max power was increased to 1260 hp by increasing the max. pressure from 910 to 1050 mm hg (equal to 1.4 ata) and the time limit was removed from the manual, giving 100 hours TBO (despite Klimovs protests, states the article).

 

Link: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C-105_(%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C)

[Blutaar]

If it was fine to run high boost all the time there would be no restriction in the manual , there are plenty of Pilot records explaining that 99% of time they stuck to the published  limits 

 

Golidnokov used WEP a single time during his career and many combats with P-39, and there are many accounts of German aces who stuck absolutely to prescribed limits

 

If it was all great these 'desired ' limits would be max continuous power

 

Pretty sure it was Tsagi testing not 'a simple pilot  interview' that was used to explain Lagg-3 dive (1942) limits

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Do you also know how often Notleistung was available per flight or how many minutes of full boost was possible in 150hrs before overhaul? I mean Notleistung was available for a reason, it is mentioned in the manual. So maybe these pilots never were in a life to death scenario i dont know. There are also pilot accounts were pilots did use WEP till arriving at the airfield. What about 8hrs of stresstesting at full boost, how is that possible? Did they used a stopwatch to stay in the limits? Thats ridiculous!

Edited January 2, 2018 by Ishtaru

[LColony_Kong]

If it was fine to run high boost all the time there would be no restriction in the manual , there are plenty of Pilot records explaining that 99% of time they stuck to the published  limits 

 

Golidnokov used WEP a single time during his career and many combats with P-39, and there are many accounts of German aces who stuck absolutely to prescribed limits

 

If it was all great these 'desired ' limits would be max continuous power

 

Pretty sure it was Tsagi testing not 'a simple pilot  interview' that was used to explain Lagg-3 dive (1942) limits

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Yeah, its been explained why people stuck to limits. They did so to preserve operation engine life. Your not going to run a engine on max power for no reason. What pilot did really does not matter if they were being conservative from a physics perspective. You cant tell the player how to play. And you should not introduce nonsense into the game to try to force him. 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/Allison_V-1710-91_ENG-57-531-267.pdf

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/p-47-66inch.jpg

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/353-hinchey-14nov44.jpg

 

 

Two nearly 8 hour long WEP tests on other engines. One pilot account on a third. And this manual is a perfect example of the fact that these limits were for non immediate doom reasons. Note that max power for climbing and combat are different. Weird that. clearly the Manual is simply trying to prevent the pilot not to use the power when its not needed, not because he will explode if he does. 

 

Also, note that on later 109s they strangely carry double the MW50 quantity than they could actually use if they stuck to the two period limit. And also miraculously, the 5min WEP rating on all all 3 of the major American aircraft to convert to 150 octane fuel (usually about 200bhp more power) still had 5min limits. So they had 5min with 200 hp less, and 5 min with 200 hp more. Weird.....

Edited January 2, 2018 by Fumes

[SCG_OpticFlow]

Do you also know how often Notleistung was available per flight or how many minutes of full boost was possible in 150hrs before overhaul? I mean Notleistung was available for a reason, it is mentioned in the manual. So maybe these pilots never were in a life to death scenario i dont know. There are also pilot accounts were pilots did use WEP till arriving at the airfield. What about 8hrs of stresstesting at full boost, how is that possible? Did they used a stopwatch to stay in the limits? Thats ridiculous!

 

The Bf-109 engines DB-601A, DB-601E, DB-603A have all the same 200 hours specified TBO. Don't know about the later models.

Yeah, its been explained why people stuck to limits. They did so to preserve operation engine life. Your not going to run a engine on max power for no reason. What pilot did really does not matter if they were being conservative from a physics perspective. You cant tell the player how to play. And you should not introduce nonsense into the game to try to force him. 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/Allison_V-1710-91_ENG-57-531-267.pdf

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/p-47-66inch.jpg

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/353-hinchey-14nov44.jpg

 

 

Two nearly 8 hour long WEP tests on other engines. One pilot account on a third. And this manual is a perfect example of the fact that these limits were for non immediate doom reasons. Note that max power for climbing and combat are different. Weird that. clearly the Manual is simply trying to prevent the pilot not to use the power when its not needed, not because he will explode if he does. 

 

Also, note that on later 109s they strangely carry double the MW50 quantity than they could actually use if they stuck to the two period limit. And also miraculously, the 5min WEP rating on all all 3 of the major American aircraft to convert to 150 octane fuel (usually about 200bhp more power) still had 5min limits. So they had 5min with 200 hp less, and 5 min with 200 hp more. Weird.....

 

Finally a document that points to these minutes as general guide that can be disregarded in combat!

[LColony_Kong]

More:

 

"Regarding the various comments about throttling back or up a P-38 engine to increase maneuverability I can only repeat that this was not practiced as far as I know. When I was overseas in 44 and 45, flying the J winter thru summer, the policy was to drop tanks and push up MP to 45 inches when German fighters were spotted in a position where an engagement was likely. When you actually went for them, throttle up to WEP, 60 inches or so, rpm all the way up too, up past 3000 rpm. And there it would stay until the engagement was over and you remembered to throttle back. You could easily be at WEP for 20 minutes or more."

[Dakpilot]

Having flown many aircraft with large piston engines (mostly in  war zones) I have to agree with the Pilot reports I have read of WWII veterans, and many I have spoken to and flown with

 

Use of WEP over prescribed limits would usually require a report and engine removal/inspection before further flight, there are so many reports of engines surviving abuse and then failing catastrophically on the next flight , these type of results are meant to be avoided by limits in the manual. 

 

the concept of 'balls to the wall' 'I firewalled it all the way back to base' are mostly good stories and or extreme outliers,

 

and yes you would use a stopwatch or be very aware of what a minute is, there is a convenient stopwatch fitted as standard to almost all the aircraft

 

There are also hundreds of reports of P-38 Allison engine blowing up used in ETO

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Blutaar]

 

 

The Bf-109 engines DB-601A, DB-601E, DB-603A have all the same 200 hours specified TBO. Don't know about the later models.

 

I apologise if 150hrs is the wrong time before overhaul, i just read it here in the forum somewhere, maybe later models i dont know. But the question still stands, how many minutes of Notlesitung is available in 150-200hrs before overhaul? Why did the manual say 1 min but no other restriction like "only ones per flight" or "only when your engine is fresh" or "every 10 minutes" etc?

[LColony_Kong]

Having flown many aircraft with large piston engines (mostly in  war zones) I have to agree with the Pilot reports I have read of WWII veterans, and many I have spoken to and flown with

 

Use of WEP over prescribed limits would usually require a report and engine removal/inspection before further flight, there are so many reports of engines surviving abuse and then failing catastrophically on the next flight , these type of results are meant to be avoided by limits in the manual. 

 

the concept of 'balls to the wall' 'I firewalled it all the way back to base' are mostly good stories and or extreme outliers,

 

and yes you would use a stopwatch or be very aware of what a minute is, there is a convenient stopwatch fitted as standard to almost all the aircraft

 

There are also hundreds of reports of P-38 Allison engine blowing up used in ETO

 

Cheers Dakpilot

We are not discussing the subjective risk taking notions of pilot in general. They are irrelevant. The only thing that matters here is the hard physics. 

 

And the fact of the matter is that engines do not simply implode from using the high boost for too long. If they fail it is due to another reason, which can very likely be influenced by operating at high powers. But I think we can all agree introducing a random number doom function is a bad idea. 

[Sgt_Joch]

And the fact of the matter is that engines do not simply implode from using the high boost for too long.

 

what? No, engines do fail for that reason and the fact you would make that statement just shows you don't have a basic understanding of how internal combustion engines work.

 

Increasing compression ratio through boost generates extra pressure and heat. Both can be enough to cause mechanical failure, but the more common result is pre-detonation of the air-fuel mixture either because the octane level of the fuel is too low or heat is too high. Pre-detonation can easily cause quick destruction of the engine. Even without detonation, excessive heat can easily lead to engine failure.

[SCG_OpticFlow]

I apologise if 150hrs is the wrong time before overhaul, i just read it here in the forum somewhere, maybe later models i dont know. But the question still stands, how many minutes of Notlesitung is available in 150-200hrs before overhaul? Why did the manual say 1 min but no other restriction like "only ones per flight" or "only when your engine is fresh" or "every 10 minutes" etc?

 

Good question. I wonder where we could find the answer... The engines also didn't have any recording device, how would you keep track how many times/minutes you used emergency power? Write the times in a notebook while in combat? Check notebook and calculate if you have enough minutes in the "budget" every time you're in emergency? I'd guess if those minutes were really that important there would be some kind of indicator like the ammo counter to keep track of the remaining boosts and not run out of minutes...

what? No, engines do fail for that reason and the fact you would make that statement just shows you don't have a basic understanding of how internal combustion engines work.

 

Increasing compression ratio through boost generates extra pressure and heat. Both can be enough to cause mechanical failure, but the more common result is pre-detonation of the air-fuel mixture either because the octane level of the fuel is too low or heat is too high. Pre-detonation can easily cause quick destruction of the engine. Even without detonation, excessive heat can easily lead to engine failure.

 

I am all in favor for the overheating argument. Then we can watch Oil Temperature indicator and have realistic means to observe and control the engine.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

I think Fumes Argumentation has a solid

Foundation. If we were talking about P39s Dakpilot might habe a Point, but we are not...

You should write a report including the documents and reference other instances where they have used reports or pilot accounts instead of manual figures.

Edited January 2, 2018 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[Sgt_Joch]

 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/Allison_V-1710-91_ENG-57-531-267.pdf

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/p-47-66inch.jpg

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/353-hinchey-14nov44.jpg

 

Two nearly 8 hour long WEP tests on other engines. One pilot account on a third. And this manual is a perfect example of the fact that these limits were for non immediate doom reasons. Note that max power for climbing and combat are different. Weird that. clearly the Manual is simply trying to prevent the pilot not to use the power when its not needed, not because he will explode if he does. 

 

 

 

do you know how engine tests are done? the engine is on a test bed, out in the open and air temperature is controlled so there is no excessive heat buildup. That is why those engines can last a long time. That has minimal application to actual aircraft engine which are cooped up in a nacelle with all sort of auxiliary equipment tacked on. 

[Stig]

clearly the Manual is simply trying to prevent the pilot not to use the power when its not needed, not because he will explode if he does

 

 

That's the difference between RL pilots and virtual pilots; the latter has no reason not to use the power even if it's not needed, if there are no mechanical consequences.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

do you know how engine tests are done? the engine is on a test bed, out in the open and air temperature is controlled so there is no excessive heat buildup. That is why those engines can last a long time. That has minimal application to actual aircraft engine which are cooped up in a nacelle with all sort of auxiliary equipment tacked on.

Damage is not due to overheating in WEP.

That's the difference between RL pilots and virtual pilots; the latter has no reason not to use the power even if it's not needed, if there are no mechanical consequences.

Just like Russian planes would not go 100% all the time. Yet they do in game

[LColony_Kong]

do you know how engine tests are done? the engine is on a test bed, out in the open and air temperature is controlled so there is no excessive heat buildup. That is why those engines can last a long time. That has minimal application to actual aircraft engine which are cooped up in a nacelle with all sort of auxiliary equipment tacked 

Yes I am aware of this....

 

The WEP settings do not exceed the temp limits of the engine even in flight, so this is irrelevant. There is also little point of doing a test if it is not useful for determining its validity in flight, which is the purpose of these tests.