BF109 Engine Damage in boost/emergency mode

[303_Kwiatek]

So these photos is quite good proof for 3 minutes emergency power rating  for 109 F and probably G also not 1 minutes like we got in game

Edited February 20, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[Panthera]

Indeed, 3 min at the very least if we need to keep the limits. 

 

This goes hand in hand with the 3 min limits for the Spitfire & Fw190.

[ZachariasX]

Indeed, 3 min at the very least if we need to keep the limits. 

 

This goes hand in hand with the 3 min limits for the Spitfire & Fw190.

You‘re that quick in assuming that rating markings applied for one specific engine apply for any engine as well?

[Panthera]

You‘re that quick in assuming that rating markings applied for one specific engine apply for any engine as well?

 

No, but 3-5 mins seems to have been the general rule used. In reality the engines could run at max boost for much longer without issue, these "limits" were listed for longevity reasons.

[unreasonable]

Indeed, 3 min at the very least if we need to keep the limits. 

 

This goes hand in hand with the 3 min limits for the Spitfire & Fw190.

 

The actual Combat limit by the manual for the Spitfire is 5 minutes, not 3. This is both for the Mk V and Mk IX.  3 minutes for the Spitfire in the game seems to be something the developers just made up.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

The actual Combat limit by the manual for the Spitfire is 5 minutes, not 3. This is both for the Mk V and Mk IX.  3 minutes for the Spitfire in the game seems to be something the developers just made up.

Same with combat/climb setting being 30 minutes instead of 1 hour in the manual

[Panthera]

The actual Combat limit by the manual for the Spitfire is 5 minutes, not 3. This is both for the Mk V and Mk IX.  3 minutes for the Spitfire in the game seems to be something the developers just made up.

 

At +16 boost?

Edited February 21, 2018 by Panthera

[unreasonable]

At +16 boost?

 

Yes. Or at +18 for "M" type engines: I expect an engine maniac could tell you more. The Pilots' Notes are easily available, this is not sekrit knowledge. 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

At +16 boost?

Yes

[Panthera]

Well then that needs fixing

[Panthera]

Well looking at the new aircraft data we're getting 5 min at +16 boost, so that's good:

 

 

 

Engine:
Model: Merlin 46
Maximum power in Take-off mode (3000 RPM, boost +12) at sea level: 1100 HP
Maximum power in Emergency Max All Out mode (3000 RPM, boost +16) at 14000 feet: 1400 HP
Maximum power in International power mode (2850 RPM, boost +9) at 19000 feet: 1115 HP

Model: Merlin 45
Maximum power in Take-off mode (3000 RPM, boost +12) at sea level: 1185 HP
Maximum power in Emergency Max All Out mode (3000 RPM, boost +16) at 9000 feet: 1455 HP
Maximum power in International power mode (2850 RPM, boost +9) at 14200 feet: 1170 HP

Engine modes:
Max Cruising power (unlimited time): 2650 RPM, boost +7
International power (up to 30 minutes): 2850 RPM, boost +9
Emergency Max All Out power (up to 5 minutes): 3000 RPM, boost +16

[ACG_Smokejumper]

Bies, great post bud.

[Dakpilot]

Well looking at the new aircraft data we're getting 5 min at +16 boost, so that's good:

 

Nothing has changed regarding 'new' Spitfire data,  and is currently the same in game as regards data

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Nothing has changed regarding 'new' Spitfire data,  and is currently the same in game as regards data

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Yeah, and the "5 min limit" that you see in the aircraft stat page is a filthy lie. Load up the Spitfire and time it yourself, I've just done so on Stalingrad autumn. Timer exceeded message at 3 minutes, engine damage occurs at 3:35.

[unreasonable]

Yeah, and the "5 min limit" that you see in the aircraft stat page is a filthy lie. Load up the Spitfire and time it yourself, I've just done so on Stalingrad autumn. Timer exceeded message at 3 minutes, engine damage occurs at 3:35.

 

That could just be that the stats page now reflect 3.00 but we do not have the update yet?

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

That could just be that the stats page now reflect 3.00 but we do not have the update yet?

Nope it is the current stats

[unreasonable]

I am aware that the stats pages in game have changed. My question was more whether the actual modeling has been changed yet. From the stats page:

 

Note: Data in this thread is updating in cases when something was changed in game. Last update: February 22th 2018. Actual for version 3.001. 

 

When I start my game it says version 2.012d - and yes I have update on automatic. So the stats are for 3.001 - which you do not have: at least I do not!

 

So I think everyone should just wait for the full 3.001 release before making judgements. 

Edited February 24, 2018 by unreasonable

[Panthera]

Nothing has changed regarding 'new' Spitfire data,  and is currently the same in game as regards data

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

That's not what I said, I said "we're getting".  The updated data is for 3.001, which is not the version of the game we're running.

 

In other words: Keep calm, we're getting a 5 min +16 boost rating.

 

 

What you should really be upset about is the lack of a similar time limit for the Bf-109's in the same update. They still have their ahistorical and absurd 1 min limits.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Panthera

[Dakpilot]

Well looking at the new aircraft data we're getting 5 min at +16 boost, so that's good:

 

You are mistaken there is no new Spitfire data

 

That's not what I said, I said "we're getting".  The updated data is for 3.001, which is not the version of the game we're running.

 

In other words: Keep calm, we're getting a 5 min +16 boost rating.

 

 

What you should really be upset about is the lack of a similar time limit for the Bf-109's in the same update. They still have their ahistorical and absurd 1 min limits.

 

The Spitfire data was not updated on the 22nd for 3.001 , the only updated info was for the new aircraft,

 

I've posted flight performance for 5 new airplanes of 3.001:

 

I think Han also answered this question fairly clearly when asked about any changes/updates to older aircraft specs  ... "Just for new ones "

 

it is also currently the same in game on the aircraft data page, (5 min) which has also not been recently updated unless a stealth patch was deployed

 

this is simply what I was saying, going from what Han said, nothing more. The information is not new, changed or updated, you are inferring something that never happened 

 

I am very calm 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Panthera]

I'm confident we'll see a 5 min +16 boost rating in 3.001, it's clearly the intention of the devs, otherwise it wouldn't be on the stat sheet.

 

Thus if it's always been 5 min on the stat sheet then a bug is causing the 3 min limit, and hopefully said bug will be gone by 3.001.

 

Let's just hope the 109's engine limits will be solved alongside this.

[303_Kwiatek]

I wonder if anyone have send raport with documented by historical photos 3 minutes emergency power rating or 109 F and G?

[Dakpilot]

You mean the photos of hand painted RPM limits? on how many aircraft

 

better gather more info before sending report

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[303_Kwiatek]

You think German pilots or mechanics painted these for fun or joke? Or maby these was Russian spy sabotage

Edited February 26, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[Dakpilot]

No, but if you are going to present a case that Dev's will take notice of out of their busy schedule it is better to have more than a couple of out of context photos as a fait accomplis for the point you are trying put across

 

there is no point in being half arsed about it, just a waste of everyone's time

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[303_Kwiatek]

Well there are historical photos and Kurfurst document about tested in fabric Db605 engines at emergency power for 5 minutes before send to frontlines. I think its much more proof for 3 minutes emergency power for 109 then speed data used by developers for serial production incoming La5FN. Expecially when VVS test serial LA5FN show much worse maximum speed range

[Dakpilot]

And who is to say that the 'Bench testing document" instructions for example did not result in the banning of 1.42 on DB605 engines for nearly one year..there is always a bigger picture to be considered, rather than grasping at a single instance or document or photo..it is just the basis of good research

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[303_Kwiatek]

Initialy ban for 1.42 Ata in 605 is known fact nobody deny it but when engine was cleared for it there is now more evidence thats it was allowed for 3 minutes not only 1 minute. Also photos from 1942 109 F-4 show also 3 minutes emergency power.

Edited February 26, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[Dakpilot]

Initialy ban for 1.42 Ata in 605 is known fact nobody deny it but when engine was cleared for it there is now more evidence thats it was allowed for 3 minutes not only 1 minute. Also photos from 1942 109 F-4 show also 3 minutes emergency power.

 

No the photo's only show an RPM limit...

 

I don't think you are getting my point ..I said all I intended

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Blutaar]

I read more then ones that german pilots used RPM and not ata to determine in which flight regime they were. Makes sense because the RPMs are more precise then ata. The 190 As for example couldnt be flown properly with the ata gauge because at 1700m or so you lose ata til you reach 2600m(?) while your RPM stays the same. That i think is the reason why they moved the RPM guage in later types into the upper middle of the dashboard.

[I./ZG1_Radick]

Give me back the good old IL21946   thx for this words kwiatek, you're right

[Panthera]

And who is to say that the 'Bench testing document" instructions for example did not result in the banning of 1.42 on DB605 engines for nearly one year..there is always a bigger picture to be considered, rather than grasping at a single instance or document or photo..it is just the basis of good research

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

Because instructions don't appear out of the thin blue air, instructions are in their very nature based on exhaustive preliminary testing before they themselves are ever cleared for release.

 

At this point it's beginning to seem like you're just here to argue whilst not being very interested in disclosing the truth. The evidence toward a 3-5 min "limit" for the DB605 is overwhelming at this point, the only 1 min limit being present in manuals for 1.42ata banned engines. 

[Dakpilot]

Because instructions don't appear out of the thin blue air, instructions are in their very nature based on exhaustive preliminary testing before they themselves are ever cleared for release.

 

At this point it's beginning to seem like you're just here to argue whilst not being very interested in disclosing the truth. The evidence toward a 3-5 min "limit" for the DB605 is overwhelming at this point, the only 1 min limit being present in manuals for 1.42ata banned engines. 

 

No you miss my point again, a single doc such as about running in DB605 does not give the full picture, especially when considering it's rapidly changing up and down history

 

The whole point of research is just that, not to leap at a single source that supports your theory, especially something as complex as aero engines

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Panthera]

No you miss my point again, a single doc such as about running in DB605 does not give the full picture, especially when considering it's rapidly changing up and down history

 

The whole point of research is just that, not to leap at a single source that supports your theory, especially something as complex as aero engines

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Using a 1 min limit for the DB605 in 1943 IS leaping to a single source Dakpilot, and doing so in the face of an overwhelming amount of sources to the contrary.

 

This kind of painful to watch whilst Russian planes seemingly are treated to the most optimistic of values.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Panthera

[Stig]

Well, if you're certain of your case and that you have the required info to back it up, why don't you just send it to the devs ? 

[Panthera]

Well, if you're certain of your case and that you have the required info to back it up, why don't you just send it to the devs ? 

 

Why the need to send anything? The devs should be watching this forum every now and then.

[Stig]

 

 

As I've promised - I'm responding on the Flight Model claims which were provided to my PM box in a compact form and with support of historical sources.

 

Because that is what Han has requested that you do.

[LukeFF]

Why the need to send anything? The devs should be watching this forum every now and then.

Why? Because they are busy with a thousand other things and not reading every single point and counterpoint presented here.

[Tuesday]

Why the need to send anything? The devs should be watching this forum every now and then.

 

Because a vast majority of the "evidence" submitted here are impotent cherry-pickings and personal interpretations.

 

This kind of painful to watch whilst Russian planes seemingly are treated to the most optimistic of values.

 

I can see the verbiage of one certain poster in the 3.001 parameters thread has influenced you, and that alone says quite a lot. 

[SYN_Haashashin]

Why the need to send anything? The devs should be watching this forum every now and then.

Why? Well if you ever want them to look at your data, better send the report. Todays Gavick posting is a very rare thing to happen in the forums in general.

 

Its has been the same since the beginning, and some of the members posting in this subforum are very aware of this. You can discuss all you want, nothing will be done untill you send a report in a compact format and with historical sources (note that pilots opinions/experiences are not taken into account). Send it and wait and see if the team engineers agree with it or not..

 

Haash

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

And who is to say that the 'Bench testing document" instructions for example did not result in the banning of 1.42 on DB605 engines for nearly one year..there is always a bigger picture to be considered, rather than grasping at a single instance or document or photo..it is just the basis of good research

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Hahaha, you should look at the graph that the Devs took as a basis to screw up the 190. that was evidence enough.