DB 605A-1 1.42 ata (WEP) duration

[LukeFF]

 

 

so 1,42 ATA G-4s are hardly ahistorical in the Kuban just because Soviet historians in the Hrucshev Era deciced that the Kuban Battle was suddenly over in June 1943 despite the Germans still very much in the game there, and because their phasing of the GPW follows with the ‘Battle of Kursk’ in July.

 

Huh? The newspapers of the time (i.e., 1943) made it clear the Soviets didn't consider the Kuban battle over until October. 

[Dakpilot]

" The latest variant, the DB 605 was essentially the same DB 601 that had powered the 109 at the outbreak of the war. While the engine had been overhauled it was very vulnerable and breakdowns and failures piled up. When we flew for just three or four minutes at full-throttle and with emergency power, the engine was finished. "

 

Walter Wolfrum 137 credited aerial victories 

 

from his book 

 

"Unbekannte Pflicht"

 

Does not specify whether he is talking about G6, G14, G10 or K4 or generally about ' latest' DB605?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Corsair]

"thé engine was finished" = did it break apart in midair? Did it still operate during the flight but needed replacement? Did it need minor maintenance back home? Extensive maintenance? Did its TBO fall from 100 hours to 15?

 

That's very moderately informative.

Edited January 7, 2018 by EC.5/25.Corsair

[Panthera]

" The latest variant, the DB 605 was essentially the same DB 601 that had powered the 109 at the outbreak of the war. While the engine had been overhauled it was very vulnerable and breakdowns and failures piled up. When we flew for just three or four minutes at full-throttle and with emergency power, the engine was finished. "

 

Walter Wolfrum 137 credited aerial victories 

 

from his book 

 

"Unbekannte Pflicht"

 

Does not specify whether he is talking about G6, G14, G10 or K4 or generally about ' latest' DB605?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

Considering he mentions "while the engine had been overhauled", suggests it was when it was completely new, which makes sense considering the 1.42ata ban at that time. 

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Even considering all other arguments brought fourth, still 3-4 minutes more than we have in game. Dakpilot, looks like you are opening up your last reserve bottles of red whine...

[Sgt_Joch]

IIRC the DB technical paper of releasing 1,42 ATA was issued 8th June 1943.

 

They might have been delayed updatating the manuals (especially since some of the planes were already out of serial production, it was almost only G-6 produced by then) and have issued just short memos to the units. They might have waited until about September to run a couple of additional tests.

 

In any case, releasing a G-4 that is exactly the same thing as the G-2 you already have (as their only difference IRL was the radio type) does not make much sense.

 

Thirdly the Kuban bridgehead was not even cleared until mid-October so 1,42 ATA G-4s are hardly ahistorical in the Kuban just because Soviet historians in the Hrucshev Era deciced that the Kuban Battle was suddenly over in June 1943 despite the Germans still very much in the game there, and because their phasing of the GPW follows with the ‘Battle of Kursk’ in July.

 

But that’s kinda offtopic is it not.

 

This topic has been beaten to depth for years without being resolved.

 

As I understand it, the ban was provisionally lifted for a few weeks in June 43, before being reinstated, but it has been some years since I looked at this. From the Goring conference minutes of September 1943, it does not look like a final decision to clear 1.42 has yet been made. You also have documents dated June 43, October 43 and February 44 which all show 1.42 still being banned.

 

so no, it is not anywhere as clear as you imply. You have documents showing the ban in place during most of 43, including October 43, which includes all the timeframe of BOK, i.e. spring-fall 43.

 

but as I said, that is academic since the Devs have "cleared" 1.42 for the G4 and G6. 

 

and yes it is off topic, but I am not the one who keeps bringing this up. 

[Dakpilot]

Considering he mentions "while the engine had been overhauled", suggests it was when it was completely new, which makes sense considering the 1.42ata ban at that time. 

 

I think in the book he is discussing/meaning the entire DB605 series when compared to DB601 series rather than an individual engine

 

I would replace 'overhauled' with 'updated' as an alternate translation for better context, one would not say that "breakdowns and failures piled up" with respect to a single engine, and as I said there is no way of knowing which model of DB605 he is specifically referring to, but it is one/or all  of the 109's he mentioned.

 

But I am simply quoting a book so people may and will interpret it as they choose

 

Even considering all other arguments brought fourth, still 3-4 minutes more than we have in game. Dakpilot, looks like you are opening up your last reserve bottles of red whine...

 

I would suggest that it fits better than the alternate proposed 5 minute limit being considered accessible

 

and looking from the other point of view it makes the 1 minute handbook version more likely, if using this as a sole reference (which would be silly, you need more info to state a fact)

 

people so readily want to 'grab' one piece of data and present it as a "fait accompli" 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

it makes the 1 minute handbook version

I have to ask again: Please provide a single reference for this. Just one. A Bf109 manual that permits Notleistung on a DB605A for just one minute, or a DB605A manual showing the same. I just checked the first twelve manuals I could find and NONE of them do. All of them either ban the use completely or permit it without a time limit. Edited January 7, 2018 by JtD

[Panthera]

I think in the book he is discussing/meaning the entire DB605 series when compared to DB601 series rather than an individual engine

 

I would replace 'overhauled' with 'updated' as an alternate translation for better context, one would not say that "breakdowns and failures piled up" with respect to a single engine, and as I said there is no way of knowing which model of DB605 he is specifically referring to, but it is one/or all  of the 109's he mentioned.

 

 

Why would you replace a word? Seems abit odd to me and like you're wanting it to sound a certain way.

 

It's quite clear that he's talking about when the DB605 first came out, hence why he says "while the engine had been overhauled it was very vulnerable", which obviously means it was during the period where it was being fixed that problems were abound.

 

No need to make things more complicated than they really are. The initial issues with the DB605 are well known, hence the 1.42ata ban as the engine at that point could probably only be run at 1.42ata for 3-4 min before overheating led to damage, which in the field is NOT acceptable.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Panthera

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Dakpilot, I would agree with you but for consistencies sake, either manuals or tests/accounts should used as a standard. Devs have - in other cases also deviated from manuals and taken pilot accounts as reference (see dive limits). Taking different standards for different aspects of the game is probably not the most sensible approach IMO

I missed you fiercely defending the dive limits in manuals in the dive speed thread. Just saying.

Edited January 7, 2018 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[Corsair]

so no, it is not anywhere as clear as you imply. You have documents showing the ban in place during most of 43, including October 43, which includes all the timeframe of BOK, i.e. spring-fall 43.

It's not like we have handful of August '43 flight manuals both clearing the 1,42 ata Notleistung and showing no word on a time limit.

 

 

but as I said, that is academic since the Devs have "cleared" 1.42 for the G4 and G6. 

With the current 1 minute limit that is not really consistent with all the evidence we have.

 

 

and looking from the other point of view it makes the 1 minute handbook version more likely, if using this as a sole reference (which would be silly, you need more info to state a fact)

I really fail to see how could you understand that a 1 minute limit was EVER enforced.

 

JtD showed this very clearly. From the gathered documents, there has been two different stances regarding the DB 605 A engine on the 109 during 1943:

 

1) the 1,42 ata Start und Notleistung setting is completely banned. There is a 1 minute limit that is mentioned, but it cannot be enforced, since as said just before, the setting is purely banned. The limit was probably only for provision.

 

2) the 1,42 ata Start und Notleistung setting is cleared. No time limit ever mentionned, probably because engine overhauls (oil pumps, etc.) allowed such lift.

 

Whether this clearance was massively enforced or not comes to individual units, aircraft and engines. But it is clear that the ban was allowed to be lifted from June 1943.

____

 

Now some words on Wolfrum's quote.

It would be hardly satisfactory to introduce a 3-4 minute limit with the catastrophic blowup as implemented in the game.

 

First because the "engine is finished" quote is very, very uninformative. It could be a drastic decrease in TBO, or a need of replacement, without implying a instantaneous midair self destruct of the engine. In the French Air Force today, we have aircraft that we say "are finished", because they are at the end of their lifetime and maintenance has gone more and more restrictive. That does not mean they will break apart during the next takeoff.

 

Second, because the quote "When we flew for three or four minutes in Notleistung" implies a certain recurrence of such an event. Much more than if he would have said "If we flew...". It also shows that it is something the pilots would have allowed themselves to do, if needed. It would also imply that the engine would continue to function satisfactorily during the remaining of the flight. It is probable that it means the engine would have to be overhauled/replaced shortly after.

 

But it leaves little room for the interpretation "the engine would blowup after 3-4 minutes of 1,42 ata".

____

 

In some of my previous post I have mentioned the possibility of including a DB 605 in game modification allowing the use of the 1,42 ata Notleistung.

Without the modification, the 109 would be modeled as if it wasn't cleared for 1,42 ata (only 1,3 ata/2600 U/min).

 

This is in my opinion a good compromise, allowing for some historical accuracy during the campaign (the modification would be locked out during a certain period) and missions, if the mission maker wishes so.

 

It would also be similarly implemented than the M-82F engine modification on the La-5.

 

> Would this implementation be reasonable?

Edited January 7, 2018 by EC.5/25.Corsair

[Sgt_Joch]

 But it is clear that the ban was allowed to be lifted from June 1943.

 

no, it is not. If it was clear you would have a german document clearly stating that the ban was no longer in effect.

 

instead you have official german documents all the way to feb. 44 clearly stating that the ban IS STILL IN EFFECT.

 

you guys can try to cherry pick documents all you want, but the issue is not that clear, if it was, it would have been resolved a long time ago.

[ZachariasX]

 

 

In some of my previous post I have mentioned the possibility of including a DB 605 in game modification allowing the use of the 1,42 ata Notleistung. Without the modification, the 109 would be modeled as if it wasn't cleared for 1,42 ata (only 1,3 ata/2600 U/min). This is in my opinion a good compromise, allowing for some historical accuracy during the campaign (the modification would be locked out during a certain period) and missions, if the mission maker wishes so.

 

I think that is an elegant solution, especially based on the documents gathered so far.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, the La-5 M-82 has the same Problem as the 109G-2 before Full Power Release, and that's Local Oil Overheat Crank and Camshaft Bearings and subsequent Oil Fires mostly due to Low Oil Pressure and Oil Flow due to undersized Oilpumps.

 

A Hard Limit on those Engines is justified and abuse of these Engines would cause either Major Bearing Failure and Stoppage of the Engine, or a pretty nasty Engine Fire, in which the Engine Oil Burns.  

 

So even if you had a 1.42ata cleared Engine in an early Gustav, using it would be risky for anything over 3 Minutes. 

 

The Damage Model for the cleared 109s though should be far more forgiving and based on Engine Intake Parameters. 

Edited January 7, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

[Corsair]

no, it is not. If it was clear you would have a german document clearly stating that the ban was no longer in effect.

 

instead you have official german documents all the way to feb. 44 clearly stating that the ban IS STILL IN EFFECT.

 

you guys can try to cherry pick documents all you want, but the issue is not that clear, if it was, it would have been resolved a long time ago.

This document is quoted in W. Otto & W. Radinger's book, page 23, as a directive from Daimler Benz.

I believe JtD (or someone else) has more details about this specific directive.

 

Its effects can be seen on the 'Stand August 1943' (as of August 1943) Bf 109 G-2, 4 and 6 Flugzeug Hanbücher.

 

As I said, and as common sense dictate, in war time, such a lift would most likely be inconsistent across individual units, aircraft and engines. The Feb. 1944 issue manual shows this. It is also a specific manual regarding a very modified 109 version (/R3).

 

And we are definitely not cherry picking. In fact I'm proposing a solution conciliating both banned and cleared Notleistung setting, which would depict the technical reality of 109 through 1943-44.

Edited January 7, 2018 by EC.5/25.Corsair

[Dakpilot]

Why would you replace a word? Seems abit odd to me and like you're wanting it to sound a certain way.

 

It's quite clear that he's talking about when the DB605 first came out, hence why he says "while the engine had been overhauled it was very vulnerable", which obviously means it was during the period where it was being fixed that problems were abound.

 

No need to make things more complicated than they really are. The initial issues with the DB605 are well known, hence the 1.42ata ban as the engine at that point could probably only be run at 1.42ata for 3-4 min before overheating led to damage, which in the field is NOT acceptable.

 

 

In the book he is talking about 1944, in the context it would be more likely, read the entire sentence as one sentence, I am not going to publish the whole book   But he is talking generally about 109

 

 It's development had reached its high point with the agile 'Friedrich'. Since then every planned upgrade and improvement was actually a step backwards. During the summer of 1944 I flew the G-6, in 1945 I flew the G-14, the G-10 and finally the K-4. The fuselage was strengthened, armament was increased and each time the engine had to be up-rated  to compensate. But the DB engine had reached the end of its development potential. The latest variant, the DB 605 was essentially the same DB 601 that had powered the 109 at the outbreak of the war. While the engine had been overhauled it was very vulnerable and breakdowns and failures piled up. When we flew for just three or four minutes at full-throttle and with emergency power, the engine was finished. The average engine life under front conditions was in any case only around 40 hours....In addition, we had not made any decisive progress in the armament. The 30 mm cannon MK 108, which fired through the propeller hub of the Me 109, was on paper an absolutely lethal gun and appeared mainly suited to combating the ubiquitous Il-2, but the weapon tended to jam easily. It fired shells weighing 480 grams at a muzzle velocity of only 550 meters per second and at a rate of 660 rounds per minute. One could almost observe the trajectory of these heavy, slow projectiles falling away without ever reaching their target - unless you were at very close range. I preferred the old MG 151/20, despite its smaller caliber. You could shoot much more accurately with it .."

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Corsair]

When we flew for just three or four minutes at full-throttle and with emergency power, the engine was finished. The average engine life under front conditions was in any case only around 40 hours

 

 

What I underlined, confirming what I would suspect. 

 

Notleistung "abuse" would result in drastically decreased shelf life and maintenance, which is expected - but not modeled in BOX (unless a certain engine life management in career is implemented). Maybe the engine would be replaced after the flight. Wouldn't surprise me, in the worst case. But very unlikely not on-the-spot blowup after immediate use, as we have in the current features.

Edited January 7, 2018 by EC.5/25.Corsair

[Kurfurst]

instead you have official german documents all the way to feb. 44 clearly stating that the ban IS STILL IN EFFECT.

 

you guys can try to cherry pick documents all you want, but the issue is not that clear, if it was, it would have been resolved a long time ago.

The only one cherry picking documents is you (and the site you are qouting). You have been presented several manuals for the fighter variants, all amended in September/October 1943 and clearing the 1,42 rating.

 

What you can show is a fraction of an operational manual for the RECCE /R3 versions, not the fighters, from November 1943 (NOT February 1944) and without knowing if there was an amendment for it or not.

[Sgt_Joch]

 

____

 

Now some words on Wolfrum's quote.

It would be hardly satisfactory to introduce a 3-4 minute limit with the catastrophic blowup as implemented in the game.

 

First because the "engine is finished" quote is very, very uninformative. It could be a drastic decrease in TBO, or a need of replacement, without implying a instantaneous midair self destruct of the engine. In the French Air Force today, we have aircraft that we say "are finished", because they are at the end of their lifetime and maintenance has gone more and more restrictive. That does not mean they will break apart during the next takeoff.

 

Second, because the quote "When we flew for three or four minutes in Notleistung" implies a certain recurrence of such an event. Much more than if he would have said "If we flew...". It also shows that it is something the pilots would have allowed themselves to do, if needed. It would also imply that the engine would continue to function satisfactorily during the remaining of the flight. It is probable that it means the engine would have to be overhauled/replaced shortly after.

 

But it leaves little room for the interpretation "the engine would blowup after 3-4 minutes of 1,42 ata".

____

 

 

 

or it could just mean what it actually says, that the engine self destructs from detonation/excessive heat after 3-4 minutes and you you have a dead engine on your hand. 

 

again you guys are trying to cherry pick evidence to suit the result you want. You can find anecdotes of pilots who exceeded the limits without a penalty, just like you can find anecdotes of pilots who destroyed their engine when the exceeded the operating limits. That is why limits are there.

 

i.e.: 

 

anecdote from "Bodenplatte", John Manhro and Ron Putz, 2004 (excellent book btw)

 

p. 137. Unteroffizier Micheal Vogl of 10/JG 3 is egressing back to base after the attack in a Me109 K4:

 

"..I took a quick look over my shoulder and was just able to see that two aircraft had jumped on me from behind. I immediately recognized them as enemy fighters who tried to intercept us on the way back. From then on I did not look back and only with emergency power and flying on the deck could I be saved. ... Because I flew too long with emergency power, the engine quit and I had to pull up and looked for a place to land. I belly-landed my aircraft south of Kalkar..."

 

or

 

 

 

"I pulled 67 inches for 30 seconds and when I got detonation reduced throttle to 55 inches"

https://books.google.ca/books?id=ccVUI85IcFoC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=me109+detonation+engine&source=bl&ots=lXL2chKKLo&sig=7MqkK2bRmky_7ibajgEp_bzMowc&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiJqe3PiNLKAhUIwj4KHYNRCkkQ6AEIPjAF#v=onepage&q=me109%20detonation%20engine&f=false

The only one cherry picking documents is you (and the site you are qouting). You have been presented several manuals for the fighter variants, all amended in September/October 1943 and clearing the 1,42 rating.

 

What you can show is a fraction of an operational manual for the RECCE /R3 versions, not the fighters, from November 1943 (NOT February 1944) and without knowing if there was an amendment for it or not.

 

 

no, I have not seen one document clearing 1.42. You have documents that do not mention a ban and you have documents, including a feb. 44 flight manual that clearly show a ban on use of 1.42.

 

I know you have a personal issue with Mike Williams and frankly, I really don't care what it is, but the feb.44 flight manual showing the ban is still an official german documents, so no the issue is nowhere as clear as you would like us to believe.

[Corsair]

Let alone the fact that the K-4 is equipped with a significantly different beast (DB 605 D, MW 50, and 1,98 ata MP, if I'm not mistaken), it is true that there are anecdotes showing both lucky and unlucky use of emergency power settings. That is not discutable.

 

What is discutable is the current implementation of the engine time limit, implying unconditional blowup after a far too restrictive timer (at least for the DB 605 A on 1,42 ata - I believe the issue is very much the same with P-40's Allison engine).

 

Such an issue would be resolved with a much more thorough engine model featuring physical parameters leading to detonation, among other. We do not have this model in game at the moment - I would gladly welcome such.

 

 

 

I really don't care what it is, but the feb.44 flight manual showing the ban is still an official german documents, so no the issue is nowhere as clear as you would like us to believe.

 

So what do you do with the late summer manuals clearing 1,42 ata without time limit ? Do you just simply discard them ? Don't you accept that the technical reality is more complex than 100% ban or 100% no ban accross the board ?

 

Cannot you conceive that different units of the Luftwaffe with different aircraft could have different engine settings and clearance at the same time ? Is it too hard to realize than a proportion of aircraft following the ban lift directive from june 1943 effectively received overhauls and got cleared for 1,42, while some other did not ?

 

If you cannot, I actually can, and I would like to see both conciliated with the proposed engine in game modification for 1,42 ata.

Edited January 7, 2018 by EC.5/25.Corsair

[Panthera]

In the book he is talking about 1944, in the context it would be more likely, read the entire sentence as one sentence, I am not going to publish the whole book   But he is talking generally about 109

 

 It's development had reached its high point with the agile 'Friedrich'. Since then every planned upgrade and improvement was actually a step backwards. During the summer of 1944 I flew the G-6, in 1945 I flew the G-14, the G-10 and finally the K-4. The fuselage was strengthened, armament was increased and each time the engine had to be up-rated  to compensate. But the DB engine had reached the end of its development potential. The latest variant, the DB 605 was essentially the same DB 601 that had powered the 109 at the outbreak of the war. While the engine had been overhauled it was very vulnerable and breakdowns and failures piled up. When we flew for just three or four minutes at full-throttle and with emergency power, the engine was finished. The average engine life under front conditions was in any case only around 40 hours....In addition, we had not made any decisive progress in the armament. The 30 mm cannon MK 108, which fired through the propeller hub of the Me 109, was on paper an absolutely lethal gun and appeared mainly suited to combating the ubiquitous Il-2, but the weapon tended to jam easily. It fired shells weighing 480 grams at a muzzle velocity of only 550 meters per second and at a rate of 660 rounds per minute. One could almost observe the trajectory of these heavy, slow projectiles falling away without ever reaching their target - unless you were at very close range. I preferred the old MG 151/20, despite its smaller caliber. You could shoot much more accurately with it .."

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

In that case he's talking about the very late war variants running with MW50 I believe, and just 40 hours of engine life also indicates it was during the very last part of the war were oil was in short supply and thus the aircraft (and all other motorvehicles) weren't getting the maintenance stops they needed. The same problem plagued the Panzers during this period, i.e. they would often run on the oil they recieved at the factory and overrun they're oil change & general maintenance schedules up to 5 times or more before finally breaking down. Hence Pz.IV reliability went from 85% in 43 to less than 25% in 45. By that time in the war the Germans simply lacked the lubricants & spare parts needed to abide by the prescribed TBOs.

 

Walter Wolfrum was probably one of the unlucky pilots when it came to experiences with the engine, or he simply didn't trust it as much anymore after perhaps one or more occurences of engines siezing. Who knows. 

Edited January 7, 2018 by Panthera

[Dakpilot]

One has to also understand a bit about physics AND engine history, the DB605 is well documented, they were trying to keep par with allied engine performance on 87 B4 fuel, this was not an easy task, along with engineering/production/material quality difficulties.

 

For DB605 to suddenly turn into totally unlimited 1.42 does not make sense considering the history, there is lots of info out there, but when people think a supercharged 1500hp wartime aero engine can be compared to running their car flat out in 2017 or is in any way similar to overclocking a GPU there seems little point in pointing it out...

 

But I think now this topic has half merged with the other thread on engine boost and how and why it is implemented in BoS  

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[LColony_Kong]

In that case he's talking about the very late war variants running with MW50 I believe, and just 40 hours of engine life also indicates it was during the very last part of the war were oil was in short supply and thus the aircraft (and all other motorvehicles) weren't getting the maintenance stops they needed. The same problem plagued the Panzers during this period, i.e. they would often run on the oil they recieved at the factory and overrun they're oil change & general maintenance schedules up to 5 times or more before finally breaking down. Hence Pz.IV reliability went from 85% in 43 to less than 25% in 45. By that time in the war the Germans simply lacked the lubricants & spare parts needed to abide by the prescribed TBOs.

 

Walter Wolfrum was probably one of the unlucky pilots when it came to experiences with the engine, or he simply didn't trust it as much anymore after perhaps one or more occurences of engines siezing. Who knows.

In addition to your points here:

 

Wolfram appears to be a pilot talking out his ass about technical things he knows nothing about. This is quite common with this sort of thing. For example, max boost on late model 109s was two ten minute periods. Not 3-4 minutes. Engine life on mw50 boosted planes was also less than 40 hours.

 

This is example is nothing more than a pilot rambling about his personal experience that probably wasn't even what it appeared to be. I'd take this about as seriously as 109 pilots who thought the K4 was junk compared to allied competition. Or P47 pilots who thought they could climb with spitfires.

 

But it appears we are going to keep on having to argue against a coconut effect induced by people not understanding the purpose of these limits in the first place.

[Dakpilot]

I guess we have both Franz Stigler and Walter Wolfrum both talking out of their ass (and possibly Michael Vogl) 

 

both successful pilots who continued flying long after the War.

 

Perhaps someone can find some Pilots and engineers saying "The DB605 was a great great engine, you could thrash it for as long as you liked at WEP, it gave us a performance edge   "

 

or something like that, it would make me feel much better about the premise of 'strong' DB605 even Daimler Benz official history is not very flattering of DB605 compared to DB601

 

some engines are better than others P&W R2800 was much more liked by all (very well documented) , than R2000, which although also was a great success, was never as good

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Panthera]

I don't believe they were talking out their ass, they were simply telling it how they experienced it based on memory, which is not the most accurate source when it comes to numbers. Both were excellent pilots, but not mechanics or statistical analysists.

 

Finnish pilots for example remarked that the engines in the G6 were much better than those in the G2 durability wise, pointing toward the same 30-40 hour life span in the G2, which again points towards the oil cooler issue whilst 1.42ata was banned.

[Sgt_Joch]

 

So what do you do with the late summer manuals clearing 1,42 ata without time limit ? Do you just simply discard them ? Don't you accept that the technical reality is more complex than 100% ban or 100% no ban accross the board ?

 

Cannot you conceive that different units of the Luftwaffe with different aircraft could have different engine settings and clearance at the same time ? Is it too hard to realize than a proportion of aircraft following the ban lift directive from june 1943 effectively received overhauls and got cleared for 1,42, while some other did not ?

 

If you cannot, I actually can, and I would like to see both conciliated with the proposed engine in game modification for 1,42 ata.

 

 

well no, you can't just dismiss the manuals that do not mention a ban, just like you can't dismiss the manuals that mention a ban.

 

that are various possibilities, some of which have been discussed here:

 

1. the ban was lifted in summer-fall 43, but there was a snafu with the printing of the documents;

 

2. the ban was not lifted until fall 43-early 44 and the documents that do not mention a ban are of a more general nature and were not meant to override the more technical "operating instructions" issued to pilots; or

 

3. there were still technical issues with the DB605 in late 43 and the documents could reflect that the ban was lifted and reimposed several times.

 

Again, this is an issue that has been looked at several times by several authors and unless someone can find some new definitive document, I don't think anyone will ever find a 100% answer either way.

 

as to the ban option, I don't think that is required, since the Devs already have a compromise that the community has readily accepted, i.e. ban on 1.42 on the G2 in BOS, but allow 1.42 on the G4/G6 in BOK.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Sgt_Joch

[Corsair]

as to the ban option, I don't think that is required, since the Devs already have a compromise that the community has readily accepted, i.e. ban on 1.42 on the G2 in BOS, but allow 1.42 on the G4/G6 in BOK.

 

 

I think this is still very unsatisfying. It feels like IL-2/1946 where we had aircraft version with freezed engine ratings. Better rename BOX aircraft as 'Bf 109 G-2 (1,30 ata), 1942' and 'Bf 109 G-4 (1,42 ata), 1943', in that case.

I believe this is rather far from what BOX aims at, i.e modelling aircraft that fits a time frame but with wider scope of capabilities and modification. We have seen that with the M-82F engine on the La-5 aircraft.

 

This is a matter of consistency to include a DB 605 A w/ 1,42 ata modification to all G-2, 4 and 6, as it has been done on the La-5/M-82F.

Beyond that consistency, it would allow accurate usage of the G-2 on later stages of 1943 when the ban was lifted to some extent, and similarly the use of the G-4/6 early when the ban was not, or just began, to be lifted. An aircraft, as short its life may has been, evolves, including through its engine. It would be a great and accurate depiction of such.

_______

 

As for engine behavior w/ the 1,42 ata setting, regarding the 1 minute limit: I believe it is accepted that this limit and the results if it is overran are not appropriate :

 

First because as it has been presented many times, the 1 minute limit was never enforced when the ban was lifted on technical documentation.

 

Second because as stated earlier in this topic, Bf 110 w/ DB 605 A were cleared for 5 minute use. - this point is to consider carefully considering possible significant cooling discrepancy between 109 and 110. Whether the former had more or less cooling capacity than the latter after the oil pumps, etc. modification after the 1,42 ata ban lfit has yet to be established.

 

Third because even if considering Wolfrum's report, and other, in the more restricting way possible, it still allowed at least 3-4 minutes of boost usage. However as I have presented my arguments I believe it is doubtful that his quote is to be taken in the most restrictive meaning. Engine massive/overhaul or replacement after over use of the 1,42 ata setting, sure... midair blowup? Possible but of rare occurrence in my opinion. But either way it is inconsistent with the 1 minute limit.

_______

 

I would personally advocate a complete lift (edit: or a massive extension) of time restriction, not only for the 109 but for every aircraft that is subject to it (looking at the Allison engine).

This would be temporary, as the devs would hopefully implement a more satisfying engine model with more accurate parameters than a mere timer, such as thermal or detonation considerations. From then on, we could have credible restrictions and punishments in case of boost abuse.

Edited January 8, 2018 by EC.5/25.Corsair

[Venturi]

I believe that the best time to make things right, is the first time.

 

Poor engine modelling is something that has plagued IL-2 for many years. Engines are at least 50% of a WW2 flight sim. The effort should be expended to make the modelling correct and based on general principles, not on an ad-hoc basis. It is only by doing this, which will resolve all these issues.

[LColony_Kong]

I believe that the best time to make things right, is the first time.

 

Poor engine modelling is something that has plagued IL-2 for many years. Engines are at least 50% of a WW2 flight sim. The effort should be expended to make the modelling correct and based on general principles, not on an ad-hoc basis. It is only by doing this, which will resolve all these issues.

Except that what is being advocates is a adhoc solution to fix the current adhoc solution. The former is more realistic overall until something more precise can come along. If

[Corsair]

I believe that the best time to make things right, is the first time.   Poor engine modelling is something that has plagued IL-2 for many years. Engines are at least 50% of a WW2 flight sim. The effort should be expended to make the modelling correct and based on general principles, not on an ad-hoc basis. It is only by doing this, which will resolve all these issues.

 

Yes, and that is why the current engine limits are a poor solution, even as a stopgap solution (well, I hope it is one...). Every concerned engine would currently be better off without such, awaiting for a better (good) model.

Edited January 8, 2018 by EC.5/25.Corsair

[Panthera]

I'd say take the manual guidelines for now, i.e. 5 min for the DB605A on 1.42ata, 3min for the BMW 802D at 1.42ata and 2 min for the Ash-82 on Forzah.

[LColony_Kong]

I'd say take the manual guidelines for now, i.e. 5 min for the DB605A on 1.42ata, 3min for the BMW 802D at 1.42ata and 2 min for the Ash-82 on Forzah.

I disagree. This eschews tactical performance while simulating nothing.

[Corsair]

I would agree with Fumes. It sounds more like a balancing gameplay mechanic than a credible depiction of engine limitation.

 

There is surely a better temporary compromise than completely removing it but I would then join again Venturi's point : better no stopgap than a bad one while developing the final model (which I hope will come).

Edited January 8, 2018 by EC.5/25.Corsair

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

Perhaps slightly off topic for simulator pilots, but what happened when a WEP timer ran out?  How did it get reset again for the next flight (not thinking of injection based systems so much as break-the-wire systems like on the Mustang and Corsair)?

[LColony_Kong]

Perhaps slightly off topic for simulator pilots, but what happened when a WEP timer ran out? How did it get reset again for the next flight (not thinking of injection based systems so much as break-the-wire systems like on the Mustang and Corsair)?

They didn't have timers. Time was kept by the pilot, and reported upon landing. Often engines checks were needed after any WEP use

[Venturi]

The devs have already stated that they want to implement detonation in engine simulation in the sim. Now that is a stated goal of the team, and anything else is simply adding to the work including "slap-patch" fixes like upping timers or mode limits.

 

It is good that they have decided to do this improvement, and it is badly needed. Because everything that people are complaining about regarding engine regimes, comes from the fact that the devs originally decided to use published manual limits to determine engine failure -- which we all know do not necessarily reflect the underlying principles of the engine limitations. Hence all this debate.

 

For reasons I have already set out, this "timer" and "mode" situation is a good enough approximation, perhaps, when dealing with older iterations of the IL-2 series (1946 et al) -- but the new gen IL-2 needs to have the engine simulation updated to match with the new gen flight modeling, and not use IL-2 1946 esque techniques...

 

WW2 flight sims are at least 50% engine simulation...

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

They didn't have timers. Time was kept by the pilot, and reported upon landing. Often engines checks were needed after any WEP use

I knew that the timer was metaphorical. I was asking about the checks. It looks like for some versions of the Mustang a tear down was required. For other versions it counted as accelerated wear against TBO, but if the engine was still running well it stayed in service.

[ZachariasX]

As son as the wire was broken, the mechanics surely cursed you and your kin for having to check the engine extra. Of the aircraft then returned to you, you could assume as in shape as specified by the documents. How long it would take to return the aircraft depended on whether damage was found or not.

[Blutaar]

If we simulate worn out engines in factory fresh planes, why not do the same for the plane itself? Random breakage under Gs and aerodynmic worsening effects over time or bad quality planes where no plane behave like another. Imagine you have 5 mins for hard maneuvering and if its gone, you lose a wing or the tail. Sounds really funny and might be legit in the context of engine breakage and randomness in this game. But sure, thats not in the manuals and manuals are like the bible.

 

For all the "1min is real" guys out there, what do you think how realistic it its, when in comparison a Yak or La5 goes max boost while cruising at 109°c water and/or oil temp or 360°c cylinderhead temp for the whole flight? Is it ok just because they perform worse then there german counterparts? Who the fuck cares about ballance? The few MP guys can have a server option if they need engine limits but give us offliners a more realistic engine behavior, at least give us longer times that makes sense.

 

One minute is just ridiculous! Why should a sane person give such restrictive restrictions without warning what happens if they get ignored for 30 secs? I dont care if real pilots didnt use Notleistung out of fear as like you dont care that real pilots didnt run there Klimovs and Ashs without issues at max power forever. It is just unrealistic according to your logic because of physics you know.

[LColony_Kong]

If we simulate worn out engines in factory fresh planes, why not do the same for the plane itself? Random breakage under Gs and aerodynmic worsening effects over time or bad quality planes where no plane behave like another. Imagine you have 5 mins for hard maneuvering and if its gone, you lose a wing or the tail. Sounds really funny and might be legit in the context of engine breakage and randomness in this game. But sure, thats not in the manuals and manuals are like the bible.

 

For all the "1min is real" guys out there, what do you think how realistic it its, when in comparison a Yak or La5 goes max boost while cruising at 109°c water and/or oil temp or 360°c cylinderhead temp for the whole flight? Is it ok just because they perform worse then there german counterparts? Who the fuck cares about ballance? The few MP guys can have a server option if they need engine limits but give us offliners a more realistic engine behavior, at least give us longer times that makes sense.

 

One minute is just ridiculous! Why should a sane person give such restrictive restrictions without warning what happens if they get ignored for 30 secs? I dont care if real pilots didnt use Notleistung out of fear as like you dont care that real pilots didnt run there Klimovs and Ashs without issues at max power forever. It is just unrealistic according to your logic because of physics you know.

I agree.

 

Additionally, all la5 pilots should be forced to fly with their canopies open losing 100mph of airspeed due to poor seals from engine and bad cooling line design