DB 605A-1 1.42 ata (WEP) duration

[Stig 92]

 

 

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.

 

As an offliner you can choose to turn off the engine limits in the options,can't you? 

[Blutaar 205]

As an offliner you can choose to turn off the engine limits in the options,can't you? 

 

Nope, there is no engine option! Only thing you can do is to select invulnerable option but that is not what we want.

[LColony_Red_Comet 642]

Additionally I don't think this is something mission editors should be able to change. The multiplayer mechanics should be fairly consistent when it comes to how the planes work as max real settings

[Sgt_Joch 284]

One thing I can guarantee is that the Devs will never, ever consider just removing the time limits, so you can forget that wet dream.

 

What you may get is a "realism option" so you could turn off engine limits. Players could then set up MP servers with that option if they wish. Good luck getting any players to fly Russian planes on those servers though.   

 

What I think would be the most realistic method would just be a variation of the existing limit, i.e. keep the official 1 minute limit on 1.42 ata on the DB60x, but change the way it works when you exceed it, so:

 

1. free ride for the 1st minute as now;

 

2. when you exceed the 1 minute, the engine temperature would spike up, based on speed, altitude with a random factor. When you get an overheat message, you could back off, cool the engine and repeat 1 and 2 all over again;

 

3. However, if you ignore the overheat message and stay at WEP, then the random destruction timer would kick in and you run the risk of blowing the engine.

 

This would give players longer and more usable time at WEP, but prevent players from always running at WEP.

 

what gave me the idea was a recent QMB I ran 109F2 vs AI Mig-3, winter map high altitude 5-6 km. Pushing the F2 into the lower reaches of WEP, i.e. 88-90% throttle, I was getting engine overheat messages way before I exceeded the time limit, so the basic code would already appear to be there.

[Venturi 450]

I guess you should ask yourself, if "overheat" of coolant, is actually the way engines work when at the performance limit.

 

Or if it is just something that is easier for sim purposes, to "convince" it is correct to lay people.

 

The reality is that when you start modelling engines with manifold pressures, mixture controls, and MP regulators / no MP regulators - a CORRECT simulation decision would be to emulate the CORRECT ways in which mis-handling the engine produces consequences.

 

Not just "looking" right to players who don't *yet* understand the way things ACTUALLY work in real life... that way lies the gaming mentality and WarThunder. Simulations aim to educate... as well as entertain.

[Stig 92]

Nope, there is no engine option! Only thing you can do is to select invulnerable option but that is not what we want.

 

Nope, invulnerable option has no effect on engine limits; but it seems you are right, I can't find an engine option that turns off engine limits. 

[Corsair 46]

i.e. keep the official 1 minute limit on 1.42 ata on the DB60x

 

the whole (valid) point of this thread is that the 1 minute figure, the 1, is nonsense.. and we are not talking about "DB60x", as you seem to incorrectly generalize.. but the 605 A specifically. I have not yet dug into the 601 characteristics and how it operated to have an opinion on it, although it appears it was more restricted on boost power than its later brother.

 

whether an temporary removal awaiting an accurate engine model is a wet dream or not is your very own judgement.. it does not invalidate the fact that it would be the best way to get rid of this unsatisfactory current model. I'm not looking for a permanent remove of engine limitation, at all (as I previously stated). But to keep and/or tweak the current model as you suggest will only bring it further away from what it should be and would be a waste of ressources.

 

and I still hope the whole DB 605 A family (thus all the current G ingame, and the upcoming G-6) should get an engine mod to either allow or completely ban the 1,42 ata boost setting, in the same way they added the M-82F modification - but this is a separate issue from the 1 minute discussion.

Edited January 12, 2018 by EC.5/25.Corsair

[Panthera 528]

A 5 min limit for the DB605 would work for me considering the 2x 5 min run in procedure. 10+ min would be more realistic, but 5 min is probably a good mean value for a well used engine.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Panthera

[Venturi 450]

Just to get an idea of the issues, here is a (more) complex guide to operating a turbo-supercharged engine on the B17 — somewhat similar to the P47.

 

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/mn/b17_18.shtml

[Sgt_Joch 284]

I guess you should ask yourself, if "overheat" of coolant, is actually the way engines work when at the performance limit.

 

Or if it is just something that is easier for sim purposes, to "convince" it is correct to lay people.

 

The reality is that when you start modelling engines with manifold pressures, mixture controls, and MP regulators / no MP regulators - a CORRECT simulation decision would be to emulate the CORRECT ways in which mis-handling the engine produces consequences.

 

Not just "looking" right to players who don't *yet* understand the way things ACTUALLY work in real life... that way lies the gaming mentality and WarThunder. Simulations aim to educate... as well as entertain.

 

100% agree with you. If the Devs want to actually model how the engines really worked, I would obviously have no issue with that.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard 1462]

Nope, invulnerable option has no effect on engine limits; but it seems you are right, I can't find an engine option that turns off engine limits. 

 

Unbreakable option makes the engines invulnerable to time limits.

[Blutaar 205]

Nope, invulnerable option has no effect on engine limits; but it seems you are right, I can't find an engine option that turns off engine limits. 

 

it seems i confused invulnerability with the unbreakable option. Sorry for the confusion!

[YSoMadTovarisch 54]

What you may get is a "realism option" so you could turn off engine limits. Players could then set up MP servers with that option if they wish. Good luck getting any players to fly Russian planes on those servers though. 

So what you are saying that the devs should artificially gimp German planes with BS engine time limit to make it fair for the Russians?

 

7. Comments containing profanity, personal insults, accusations of cheating, excessive rudeness, vulgarity, drug propaganda, political and religious discussion and propaganda, all manifestations of Nazism and racist statements, calls to overthrow governments by force, inciting ethnic hatred, humiliation of persons of a particular gender, sexual orientation or religion are not allowed and will result in a ban.

Violations of this rule will result in the following:

 

First warning

Edited January 15, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[Venturi 450]

It’s not about factionalism.

 

It’s about realism.

 

Simulation.... remember?

[ACG_Smokejumper 275]

No, engineers didn‘t want to deliver broken engines. They simply knew they would be delivering duds if they did more. And now you‘re taking the same bet on engines that have seen use in combat and installed in aircraft and not in a test bench.

 

That doesn't sound like any engineering practice incorporating safety factors I've ever seen. Before they picked a five minute test I would bet a large sum of money they ran other engines to the point of disintegration. I would assume they took an average of the time it took to blow one up then divided that into a safety factor. Common safety factor of 4 across multiple industries today. This is all from my own experience in mining I could be talking out my butt.

 

I would guess that it's 15 to 20 minutes before a new one made properly blew up. A gaming compromise of a 5 min WEP and then an increasing chance of detonation up to a 10 min maximum would in my opinion be a fair representation in light of this research.

Edited January 18, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann 1842]

That doesn't sound like any engineering practice incorporating safety factors I've ever seen. Before they picked a five minute test I would bet a large sum of money they ran other engines to the point of disintegration. I would assume they took an average of the time it took to blow one up then divided that into a safety factor. Common safety factor of 4 across multiple industries today. This is all from my own experience in mining I could be talking out my butt.

 

I would guess that it's 15 to 20 minutes before a new one made properly blew up. A gaming compromise of a 5 min WEP and then an increasing chance of detonation up to a 10 min maximum would in my opinion be a fair representation in light of this research.

Well, on the Engine Break In they ran it for 5 Minutes continuous on 1.42ata several times. And unlike Herr Murf put it, no, the Break In isn't there to find faults, it's there to increase Engine Life. A well Broken and Run in Engine will outlive it's Counterparts (the "Plug and Play" Engines) by a Factor of 5 or more. 

 

One of the Reasons old Mercedes Diesels outlived their Competition by so much wasn't necessarily higher Quality as such, but the Factory would run Engine Break Ins of 8 to 24 hours (Cars shorter and Truck Diesels longer) at which they would Violently Kick them in the Teeth (after a proper Warm Up) at varying RPMs and in the End you had a professionally run in Engine that could live on minimal Maintenance for a very long time. 

 

Engine Limits should be based on Real Life Failure Points. In case of the La-5 and 109G that would be Engine Oil Fires from burnt Bearings, or just Bearings failing, Rods going through the Block etc. 

Prop Drive on Jumos, Cylinder Heads on the Klimovs etc. 

[Panthera 528]

Well, on the Engine Break In they ran it for 5 Minutes continuous on 1.42ata several times. And unlike Herr Murf put it, no, the Break In isn't there to find faults, it's there to increase Engine Life. A well Broken and Run in Engine will outlive it's Counterparts (the "Plug and Play" Engines) by a Factor of 5 or more. 

 

That this has to be rehashed over and over again is a sad thing to behold....

 

Anyone who lived and owned any form of motor vehicle from before the time of robot manufacturing will know how important the run in period was and that this was THE most vulnerable period for the engine as a whole. In other words this was theperiod of time you definitely didn't want to push the engine to its actual limits.

 

So why the temporary 1.42ata ban? Simple, oil cooling was initially insufficient, once this problem was solved the ban was lifted and you could safely run the engine at 1.42ata pretty much for as long as their was fuel in the tank. Sure you'd be shortening the TBO the longer you ran it at 1.42ata, but for an engine midway through its TBO there'd litterally be almost zero chance of failure.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Panthera

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand 791]

This discussion could come to an end of you guys simply wrote a report to the Devs...

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann 1842]

That this has to be rehashed over and over again is a sad thing to behold....

 

Anyone who lived and owned any form of motor vehicle from before the time of robot manufacturing will know how important the run in period was and that this was THE most vulnerable period for the engine as a whole. In other words this was theperiod of time you definitely didn't want to push the engine to its actual limits.

 

So why the temporary 1.42ata ban? Simple, oil cooling was initially insufficient, once this problem was solved the ban was lifted and you could safely run the engine at 1.42ata pretty much for as long as their was fuel in the tank. Sure you'd be shortening the TBO the longer you ran it at 1.42ata, but for an engine midway through its TBO there'd litterally be almost zero chance of failure.

Well, depends on what you define as "Actual Limits". 

 

What the Run In intends to do is to relieve the internal Tensions of the Engine Block, Pistons, Rings, Head etc. in a Controlled Environment in which the Block undergoes only a 2 or 3 Heat Cycles, Several Oil Changes and is run under Full Load except for 30 Minute Warm Ups and Cool Downs. Between those it's run under Full Load while the different Oils manage the initial Rough Break in, the Fine Hone and the Polishing. 

 

If you are too kind to a new Engine you'll run the Cams Flat, the Rings won't Seat properly and develop Hot Spots and Blow By, Rod Bearings will wear out quickly etc. 

 

This is for Beetle and Porsche Engines for Example: http://www.trikersnews.de/index.php/Thread/8128-Motoren-einfahren-INFO-sehr-guter-Bericht/

 

There are Pages upon Pages, Books etc. on how to run in an Engine, everyone does it a little differently but none of them would seem kind to the Layman. 

Edited January 19, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

[Panthera 528]

Well, depends on what you define as "Actual Limits". 

 

What the Run In intends to do is to relieve the internal Tensions of the Engine Block, Pistons, Rings, Head etc. in a Controlled Environment in which the Block undergoes only a 2 or 3 Heat Cycles, Several Oil Changes and is run under Full Load except for 30 Minute Warm Ups and Cool Downs. Between those it's run under Full Load while the different Oils manage the initial Rough Break in, the Fine Hone and the Polishing. 

 

If you are too kind to a new Engine you'll run the Cams Flat, the Rings won't Seat properly and develop Hot Spots and Blow By, Rod Bearings will wear out quickly etc. 

 

This is for Beetle and Porsche Engines for Example: http://www.trikersnews.de/index.php/Thread/8128-Motoren-einfahren-INFO-sehr-guter-Bericht/

 

There are Pages upon Pages, Books etc. on how to run in an Engine, everyone does it a little differently but none of them would seem kind to the Layman. 

 

Actual limits I define as running the engine at max rpms for extended periods of time (5 min is not a long time).  For example in the manual for my latest motorcycle, a 2017 Triumph Street Triple, it was advised that you do NOT run the engine above 75-80% of max rpms until after the first 100 km of travel (the digital dashboard even warned you when u did), and after that you only go there for short durations/dashes at a time for the next 500 km of travel. At the 1,000 km mark the engine is considered "broken in" and you can run it as you see fit.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Panthera

[Dakpilot 2204]

Running in aero engines has nothing in common with car or motorcycle engines, especially modern ones.

 

If anything they should be run harder at higher cruise settings only and definitely used at max power for takeoff and climb initially

 

If anything the 1.42 bench runs on DB605 are done in aiding bedding in, and have no bearing whatsoever on later use or limits.

 

General consideration for bedding in

 

"The use of low power settings does not expand the piston rings enough, and a film of oil is left on the cylinder walls.  The high temperatures in the combustion chamber will oxidize this oil film so that it creates a condition commonly known as glazing of the cylinder walls. When this happens, the ring break-in process stops, and excessive oil consumption frequently occurs"

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Edited January 19, 2018 by Dakpilot

[Panthera 528]

What you just described you definitely do not want to do with engines from that time period. The tolerances are simply too tight. Also "low power settings" isn't 75-80% of max rpms.

[JtD 2459]

There were restrictions on the use of high power settings (WEP, Forzash, Notleistung, whatever) for several WW2 engines in their first hours of use. Just check the manuals. 75%-80% - absolutely. 100+% - absolutely not.

Edited January 19, 2018 by JtD

[Dakpilot 2204]

Actual breaking in of aero engines should be done at a Minimum of 75% power settings

 

during bench running in you need to run hot and hard enough to break down the oil film to allow direct metal to metal contact at about 600 C to bed in the rings initially

 

75% of ring/cylinder wear takes place during break in period

 

I am certainly no expert, but I have helped rebuild a number of WWII era high power engines

 

there is lots of info out there for research, but it is best not to compare to any form of modern engine , or non aero engine, combat engines would more than likely be run in harder, they did not want to spend many hours preparing engines for operational use 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[ACG_Smokejumper 275]

Well, on the Engine Break In they ran it for 5 Minutes continuous on 1.42ata several times. And unlike Herr Murf put it, no, the Break In isn't there to find faults, it's there to increase Engine Life. A well Broken and Run in Engine will outlive it's Counterparts (the "Plug and Play" Engines) by a Factor of 5 or more. 

 

One of the Reasons old Mercedes Diesels outlived their Competition by so much wasn't necessarily higher Quality as such, but the Factory would run Engine Break Ins of 8 to 24 hours (Cars shorter and Truck Diesels longer) at which they would Violently Kick them in the Teeth (after a proper Warm Up) at varying RPMs and in the End you had a professionally run in Engine that could live on minimal Maintenance for a very long time. 

 

Engine Limits should be based on Real Life Failure Points. In case of the La-5 and 109G that would be Engine Oil Fires from burnt Bearings, or just Bearings failing, Rods going through the Block etc. 

Prop Drive on Jumos, Cylinder Heads on the Klimovs etc. 

 

 

No I think you've misunderstood my post. I understand engine break in running. I'm a grease monkey enthusiast and love 4x4's.

 

Before the engine limits where set and what is common today in equipment safety factors I was thinking they ran engines to the point of complete failure. This would be done multiple times to see how long it takes. They would then average the time and divide it for a safety measure which today is generally a factor of x4. This is a guess and just based on modern safety practice.

[Panthera 528]

Seems like it's been discussed before with the same points brought up:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/20079-db-601x-limitation-poweroutput/

 

Apparently the developers do not recognize the 5 min run in period as proof as it was conducted with gas instead of fuel.  

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf 1423]

"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.

 

FYI

 

"Die Maschine war fertig" = the engine was finished is the literal translation of words in Google translate, but NOT of meaning.

 

What he translated "fertig" to "finished" is false, it means "exhausted".

Seems like it's been discussed before with the same points brought up:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/20079-db-601x-limitation-poweroutput/

 

Apparently the developers do not recognize the 5 min run in period as proof as it was conducted with gas instead of fuel.

Again a translation error, "gas" is what is put into the engine chambers, when fed from fuel tank and air compressor.

 

"Gas geben" is the German term to "ramp up the throttle".

 

So if you read "gas" in any German source in context with an engind, it means fuel.

 

This is quite embarrassing. The LW engines seems to be unrealistically limited to 1min because of lack of proper translation skills..

[ZachariasX 2658]

 

 

FYI "Die Maschine war fertig" = the engine was finished is the literal translation of words in Google translate, but NOT of meaning. What he translated "fertig" to "finished" is false, it means "exhausted".

 

Wasn't he speaking English in that interview? AFAIR, it was the German pilot talking in English during the interview. Does someone have the original docuent? In that sense, he claearly meant when he stated "the engine was finished", it was in a state where it rapidly stared losing power and you could expect it to seize soon.

 

But this:

 

 

 

"Gas geben" is the German term to "ramp up the throttle". So if you read "gas" in any German source in context with an engind, it means fuel.

 

one has to clearly keep in mind. I doubt that those engines would run decently on something like LPG or whatever "gas", unless it is supplied by octane fuel.

[THERION 1211]

Well gents,

 

see the problem? That's why there are still real translators with fundamental knowledge of the language they are working with.

Imagine politicians of different countries trying to resolve conflicts without real and skilled translators but with google? I think

we'd have already started World War III a long time ago.

 

For example the phrase "Gas geben" also (and mostly often!) means to "hurry up" / "speed up". So translations should be done

very carefully and of course always in its context.

 

Try this: Make a sentence in your native language (not too simple one!), then use a virtual translator (google, bing etc.). Take your

electronically translated sentence and translate it back in your native language again. You will be very surprised what you will get

and more important what sense this result will make to you. Try, just for fun.

 

Cheerio

Edited February 2, 2018 by EAF_T_Therion

[Panthera 528]

FYI

 

"Die Maschine war fertig" = the engine was finished is the literal translation of words in Google translate, but NOT of meaning.

 

What he translated "fertig" to "finished" is false, it means "exhausted".

 

Again a translation error, "gas" is what is put into the engine chambers, when fed from fuel tank and air compressor.

 

"Gas geben" is the German term to "ramp up the throttle".

 

So if you read "gas" in any German source in context with an engind, it means fuel.

 

This is quite embarrassing. The LW engines seems to be unrealistically limited to 1min because of lack of proper translation skills..

 

So you're sure gas wasn't used as a substitute for bezin/gasoline fuel in those procedures? 

 

IIRC it was Kurfurst who suggested the run in procedures were conducted with gas instead of fuel.

 

Not that it to me would make any difference as it's quite clear that the only issue holding the DB605 back from being cleared for 1.42ata until late summer 43 was an oil cooling/foaming issue which caused bearing failure. The piston burn through problems had apparently seized to be a problem a lot sooner, either due to a piston head redesign or re-timing of the ignition.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Panthera

[JtD 2459]

Gas in this case means "75% Butan + 25% Propan". It's gas.

 

However, gas was recommended to use instead of fuel due to fuel shortages but only for the first part of the run in. The second part, also including 5 minutes at emergency power, had to be done (mandatory) with B4 fuel.

 

Use of gas 'möglichst' = 'if possible with' - for the first part of testing.

Use of B4 'wird nur' = 'done only with' - for the second part of testing.

[Panthera 528]

Gas in this case means "75% Butan + 25% Propan". It's gas.

 

However, gas was recommended to use instead of fuel due to fuel shortages but only for the first part of the run in. The second part, also including 5 minutes at emergency power, had to be done (mandatory) with B4 fuel.

 

Use of gas 'möglichst' = 'if possible with' - for the first part of testing.

Use of B4 'wird nur' = 'done only with' - for the second part of testing.

 

Alright, well in that case the developers can't really use that as an excuse for a 1 min limit.

[Roland_HUNter 267]

This topic has many-many historical evidences, still since 2016 nothing happend with it.
Devs said no or yes for it.

[E69_geramos109 867]

Maybe Devs can have a look now again when working on the new109G6

 

@AnPetrovich @BlackSix @Gavrick @Han

[desolunatic 58]

On 8/2/2020 at 2:16 PM, E69_geramos109 said:

Maybe Devs can have a look now again when working on the new109G6

 

@AnPetrovich @BlackSix @Gavrick @Han

 

I was under impression we are most likely getting G6 with MW50 anyway.

Edited August 4, 2020 by desolunatic

[GOA_Wehraboo*VR* 116]

@AnPetrovich @BlackSix @Gavrick @Han

[41Sqn_Skipper 200]

On 2/2/2018 at 3:44 AM, Panthera said:

Seems like it's been discussed before with the same points brought up:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/20079-db-601x-limitation-poweroutput/

 

Apparently the developers do not recognize the 5 min run in period as proof as it was conducted with gas instead of fuel.  

 

Running the engine in a bench is of course not comparable to operational use. In the bench the engine is running without propeller, so there is less stress on the crankshaft. 

 

Instead of spamming the devs it would be more useful to proof that the intended 1 minute limit for 1.42 ATA was lifted at one point. So far there is none ...

 

 

Edit: Disregard ... I've no clue what I'm talking about.

Edited August 5, 2020 by 41Sqn_Skipper

[216th_Nocke 306]

 

4 minutes ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

Running the engine in a bench is of course not comparable to operational use. In the bench the engine is running without propeller, so there is no stress at all on the crankshaft.

just curious - how do you then limit rpm without stress on the crankshaft?

Wouldn't running at 1.42 ATA result in immediate and catastrophic overreving without any sort of brake, be it the propeller, or whatever else?

[Barnacles 789]

21 minutes ago, 216th_Nocke said:

 

just curious - how do you then limit rpm without stress on the crankshaft?

Wouldn't running at 1.42 ATA result in immediate and catastrophic overreving without any sort of brake, be it the propeller, or whatever else?

Yeah you'd have to have a brake I think, like on a dyno machine. So I think that there would be stress on the crankshaft, as if you're running the engine at full power, that power has to be absorbed somewhere. @41Sqn_Skipper

 

31 minutes ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

Running the engine in a bench is of course not comparable to operational use. In the bench the engine is running without propeller, so there is no stress at all on the crankshaft. 

 

Instead of spamming the devs it would be more useful to proof that the intended 1 minute limit for 1.42 ATA was lifted at one point. So far there is none ...

 

In later German manuals the power setting that was labelled as "emergency power" was labelled something like "minimum amount when deemed operationally essential" whereas before it was specifically one minute. also some 109 MP indicators were labelled with d', 30', and 3'.

This would be consistent with the progressions throughout the war, but there is nothing explicitly saying 3' that I've seen.

[41Sqn_Skipper 200]

39 minutes ago, 216th_Nocke said:

 

just curious - how do you then limit rpm without stress on the crankshaft?

Wouldn't running at 1.42 ATA result in immediate and catastrophic overreving without any sort of brake, be it the propeller, or whatever else?

 

Agreed, it wouldn't work without any resistance. So something is needed, but that is potentially less stressful than an actual propeller.