Jump to content

DB 605A-1 1.42 ata (WEP) duration


Recommended Posts

Just now, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

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

How can it be? Power = torque x rpm. Power would be constant, so would rpm, so torque would be the same, surely?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 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 less stress on the crankshaft. 

I've never seen a bench test done without the prop on. 

:salute:

skud 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ATAG_SKUD said:

I've never seen a bench test done without the prop on. 

:salute:

skud 

I've never seen a bench test, so I might be wrong :blush:

 

 

 

Does anyone know if C3 of B4 fuel was used?

Edited by 41Sqn_Skipper
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

I've never seen a bench test, so I might be wrong :blush:

 

 

 

Does anyone know if C3 of B4 fuel was used?

On page 1 of this thread there's a line which someone translated as the 5 min / 5 min test requires B4 fuel. I've no idea if that's correct as I can't speak German.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

On page 1 of this thread there's a line which someone translated as the 5 min / 5 min test requires B4 fuel. I've no idea if that's correct as I can't speak German.

 

At least is mentiones that for the 2nd 5 min test the B4 fuel injections have to be used, but it doesn't explicitly mention the actual fuel to be used. 

 

So what also interesting:

 

a.jpg.18e8647a9efb20fa07557b65470471fa.jpg

 

Effective October 1944

 

b.jpg.633cdb87caa7506aefb78562b67cdf31.jpg

 

After conversion of the engine for MW operation the use of "Start- und Notleistung" no longer possible.

 

c.jpg.825f8f7380b1fffb2a448fe10015a208.jpg

 

With B4 fuel, make sure that when "Sondernotleistung" is used the MW-supply doesn't stop, or otherwise the engine is destroyed immediately.

 

d.jpg.f46186ecbf4f6af3201eb0e6ff9b24ac.jpg

 

- ... is no pressure indicated (= no MW supply), then throttle immediately back to "Steig und Kampfleistung" (1.3 ata).

- Attention! With B4 fuel it is in no case allowed after disabeling or ceasing of the MW additive to further fly with Sondernotleistung. Throttle immediately to "Steig- und Kampfleistung", otherwise engine destruction.

 

So basically when B4 fuel is used without the MW50 additive, the use of more than "Steig- und Kampfleistung" (1.3 ata) literally causes the destruction of the engine. I don't think there are many manual that explicitly warn about the actual destruction of the engine when a certain limits is exeeded. This implies that only with C3 fuel a boost above 1.3 ata can be used without MW50.

 

 

Questions:

a) If the use of 1.42 ata with B4 fuel was really uncritical for 3, 5 or 10 minutes (as is claimed here based on a bench test protocol using B4 fuel), why does the October 1944 manual state that the throttle must be moved to 1.3 ata? Why doesn't it allow the further use of 1.42 ata for "minimum amount when deemed operationally essential"?

Of course there would be difficult to keep the boost exactly below 1.42 ata when only a small throttle movement range is available. Not worth the risk for a power setting allowed for 1 minute only, but certainly worth it if the power can by increased for 5-10 minutes.

 

b) The bench test protocol limites the use of "Steig und Kampfleistung" (1.3 ata) to 25 minutes, while it was allowed in-flight for 30 minutes. Is there really a correlation between the time limits used during a bench test and the time limits during flight?

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the MW50 tanks will get added to the damage model as part of the fuel system.  While the MW50 itself probably isn't all that flammable (along the lines of 100 proof liquor presumably?) from what I've read the 109 tanks were simply pressurized with bleed air from the supercharger.  I'd bet a couple holes in the tank would prevent any pressurization, and thus cut off MW50 flow.  I wonder what type of delivery system was used in the D9 or P-47.

 

With regard to using bench tests to justify extended engine timers over the published limits, it's a tough choice.  On the one hand, if you really did have a perfect factory fresh engine in your airplane it could almost certainly take the extra stress.  But on the other hand that's a slippery slope that leads to stuff like this: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/44-1_Fuel-16March44.pdf

Now players are just flying these aircraft around in WEP with essentially no limit, which is definitely not how they were operated in real life.  I'm not sure what the right answer is there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings Developers!

I looked through it in detail this 2 topic:

 

There are historical documents, pictures of the 109 instrumental panel, what says the 1.42 could be used for 3-5 minutes.
I suggest to check those reports again, and if they are right, implement it into the game, if the developers still want call this game a simulator.
Or if somehow all of those pictures and document are fake, please prove them wrong.

Sincerely, Roland_HUNter

PS:Original document(from the topics)

1124930375_originaldocument.thumb.jpg.7ca5020d2545e3fa520f39de5aed0d12.jpg

Edited by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

I suggest to check those reports again, and if they are right, implement it into the game, if the developers still want call this game a simulator.
Or if somehow all of those pictures and document are fake, please prove them wrong.

 

Statements like that aren't really going to help your case.

Edited by LukeFF
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Statements like that aren't really going to help your case.

Its harsh or not.

But its make me angry, those guys opened that topic 5 years ago, and nothing happened. And I believed for the developers so I was not upset.
Now I see the Tobruk DLC F-4 has 5 min engine limitations, and they working with historical sources aswell.

I do not like it when we are playing with simulators but starting behaving like War Thunder, when devs accept  some things what they like and some things what the devs maybe not like, and its not gonna be accepted.
I don't know, what is really happening behind, but: There is no answer from the devs on both topic, or anything to prove them wrong, and its started 5 years ago..not 5 months...

And As I said in some topic: they can say we not implemented it because of balance, but then stop calling the IL-2 to a simulator.

I always gonna support both side in the game, if we talking about technic. Please be objective in history.

Edited by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

There are historical documents, pictures of the 109 instrumental panel, what says the 1.42 could be used for 3-5 minutes.

 

I tried to find these pictures in both topics but couldn't find them. In which post are they? 

Edited by 41Sqn_Skipper
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

 

 

These are linked to the comments.

 

 

Sorry that's all not useful.

 

1) Is a British test document that gives wrong time limit for DB601E. It's not 5 min but instead 3 min (according to secondary sources you have posted below post-17024-0-50271500-1444865554.jpg). 

I don't have a primary source for DB601E limit, so I'd take that 3 min with a grain of salt.

Anyway, if limit for DB601E is clearly wrong you can't trust the DB605 limit at all.

 

2) Is some aircraft card (?) dated 29.8.1941 so that's clearly not an operational Bf 109 G. And it doesn't state a time limit for 1.42 which can mean unlimited, 1 min, 3 min, 5 min, x min or not useable because its mechanically blocked. Considering that it's dated before autumn 1943 when 1.42 was cleared ... It most likely means it's blocked and thus no limit was be given on the card.

 

3) engine bench running. Maybe devs can add a bench simulator in the next patch so we can run the DB605 for 5 mins at 1.42 ATA.

 

4) pictures mainly of Bf 109 F. For the only intersting one the caption says its a cockpit pictues of a Bf 109 E from 1940. I'm not an expert on Bf 109 cockpits but IMHO it looks more like a later Bf 109. Maybe a F2, known to have 3 min limits for Notleistung? Can someone identify the exact version?

 

8-jpg.4367305

 

 

Edited by 41Sqn_Skipper
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

Sorry that's all not useful.

 

1) Is a British test document that gives wrong time limit for DB601E. It's not 5 min but instead 3 min (according to secondary sources you have posted below post-17024-0-50271500-1444865554.jpg). 

I don't have a primary source for DB601E limit, so I'd take that 3 min with a grain of salt.

Anyway, if limit for DB601E is clearly wrong you can't trust the DB605 limit at all.

 

2) Is some aircraft card (?) dated 29.8.1941 so that's clearly not an operational Bf 109 G. And it doesn't state a time limit for 1.42 which can mean unlimited, 1 min, 3 min, 5 min, x min or not useable because its mechanically blocked. Considering that it's dated before autumn 1943 when 1.42 was cleared ... It most likely means it's blocked and thus no limit was be given on the card.

 

3) engine bench running. Maybe devs can add a bench simulator in the next patch so we can run the DB605 for 5 mins at 1.42 ATA.

 

4) pictures mainly of Bf 109 F. For the only intersting one the caption says its a cockpit pictues of a Bf 109 E from 1940. I'm not an expert on Bf 109 cockpits but IMHO it looks more like a later Bf 109. Maybe a F2, known to have 3 min limits for Notleistung? Can someone identify the exact version?

 

8-jpg.4367305

 

 

Can you please read the whole topic and not start debating with me, when both topic talking about G series and 605 aswell? Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Can you please read the whole topic and not start debating with me, when both topic talking about G series and 605 aswell? Thank you.

 

I've read the whole topics before and as I didn't see any Bf 109 G cockpit pictures that proof 3-5 min limit for 1.42 - as you claimed to be present in the topics - I was asking which posts exactly you are referring to. I just wanted to make sure I'm not missing any substantial proof, but turns out there's none. 

 

 

I was expecting something like this when I read "pictures of the 109 instrumental panel, what says the 1.42 could be used for 3-5 minutes"maxresdefault.jpg

 

There's a "3xxx" (no idea what the xxx is supposed to mean) marked at 2,800 RPM, but unfortunately this photo is from a replica. 

Edited by 41Sqn_Skipper
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

I've read the whole topics before and as I didn't see any Bf 109 G cockpit pictures that proof 3-5 min limit for 1.42 - as you claimed to be present in the topics - I was asking which posts exactly you are referring to. I just wanted to make sure I'm not missing any substantial proof, but turns out there's none. 

 

 

I was expecting something like this when I read "pictures of the 109 instrumental panel, what says the 1.42 could be used for 3-5 minutes"maxresdefault.jpg

 

There's a "3xxx" (no idea what the xxx is supposed to mean) marked at 2,800 RPM, but unfortunately this photo is from a replica. 

Why just instrumental picture could prove it? o.O

2 hours ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

I've read the whole topics before and as I didn't see any Bf 109 G cockpit pictures that proof 3-5 min limit for 1.42 - as you claimed to be present in the topics - I was asking which posts exactly you are referring to. I just wanted to make sure I'm not missing any substantial proof, but turns out there's none. 

 

 

I was expecting something like this when I read "pictures of the 109 instrumental panel, what says the 1.42 could be used for 3-5 minutes"maxresdefault.jpg

 

There's a "3xxx" (no idea what the xxx is supposed to mean) marked at 2,800 RPM, but unfortunately this photo is from a replica. 

And still you wasn't attentive while reading those topics...

post-17024-0-60934900-1454571925.png
G-6 cockpit.

Again G-6:
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/tachometer-german-fl-20286/nasm_A19600646000
 

G-14:
AJHS№1p.64.png

This was my last comment, please read the topics with more attention.

Edited by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

сколько вы всего понаписали. надо же. продолжим дискуссию.

 

есть такая книга издание 1944 г. НКАП СССР. называется "немецкие самолёты". там пишут, что все трофейные двигатели имели отключённый форсаж. плюс на испытаниях этого мотора наблюдалось множество дефектов. картинки в пристёжке.

 

при рассмотрении работы на 1.42 вы ссылаетесь на то. что на стенде он на этом режим работал 5 минут. а какая там система охлаждения? вы ведь не сравниваете систему охлаждения на мессере и на стенде.

 

обратимся к "тактике истребительной авиации. 1943 г.". что там пишут? вот что:

Цитата

Кроме того, нужно иметь в виду, что указанную выше максимальную скорость истребитель Me-109 может дать в горизонтальном полете только на очень короткое время (1—2 минуты), после чего жидкость в системе охлаждения мотора закипает.

 

вы рассматривали эти моменты?

 

 

 

how much you just wrote. wow. let's continue the discussion.

 

there is such a book published in 1944 by the NKAP of the USSR. it's called "German planes". they write that all captured engines had the afterburner disabled. plus, there were a lot of defects in the tests of this engine. images in the seat belt.

 

when reviewing the work on 1.42, you refer to the. that on the stand he worked on this mode for 5 minutes. what's the cooling system like? you don't compare the cooling system on the Messer and on the stand.

 

let's turn to the "tactics of fighter aviation. 1943". what do they write there? that's what:

 

Цитата

In addition, it should be borne in mind that the above-mentioned maximum speed of the Me-109 fighter can only be given in horizontal flight for a very short time (1-2 minutes), after which the liquid in the engine cooling system boils.

 

 

have you considered these points?

 

Packet290001.jpg

Packet290024.jpg

Packet290025.jpg

Edited by Gimpel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 8/5/2020 at 3:56 PM, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

Questions:

a) If the use of 1.42 ata with B4 fuel was really uncritical for 3, 5 or 10 minutes (as is claimed here based on a bench test protocol using B4 fuel), why does the October 1944 manual state that the throttle must be moved to 1.3 ata? Why doesn't it allow the further use of 1.42 ata for "minimum amount when deemed operationally essential"?

Of course there would be difficult to keep the boost exactly below 1.42 ata when only a small throttle movement range is available. Not worth the risk for a power setting allowed for 1 minute only, but certainly worth it if the power can by increased for 5-10 minutes.

 

b) The bench test protocol limites the use of "Steig und Kampfleistung" (1.3 ata) to 25 minutes, while it was allowed in-flight for 30 minutes. Is there really a correlation between the time limits used during a bench test and the time limits during flight?

 

Hey Skipper, not a pro anyway, but since nobody else has bothered to answer here's my shot:

 

a) The 1.42 ata stop seems to be taken out of the system, when installing the MW Anlage.

Hence, going to the original Start&Not stop (originally at 1.42), the engine now goes to 1.7 instead and injects MW (if system is engaged).

Seems like by re-rigging the engine for 1.7 ata with MW, they just lost the original Start&Not rating altogether and hence they're not allowed to used the significantly higher rating for take-off.

Makes sense to me. Unless I'm missing something.

 

Also, when operating B4 and running out of MW (and not throttling back right away), the engine immediatey knocks itself apart at 1.7 ata.

 

b) Might be a cooling issue on the bench. Maybe due to airflow-limits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

B) I think the run in times are basically not correlated to what the max times in a settings is, so running it in for 25 mins has nothing to do with what I can maximally run for at that setting, however if you say the upper limit for a setting is 1 min and then run in is at 4 mins, it makes you wonder whether this limit is accurate.

Regarding the pictures of the cockpit, the mark is always below 2800 rpm. So I think you get 3 mins anywhere from 2650 to 2800 rpm, which is actually what we have in game now ( if you run at around 90% you’ll get about 3 Mins of emergency mode time). So I think it is probably not wrong in judging by the pics alone.

About the in game cockpit pic of 2700 rpm and 1.42 ata again I think 3 mins makes sense b/c that’s what you get at 2700 rpm (but I might have to check again) but not at 2800 rpm. Even though ata should not be identical for both...right?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2020 at 3:56 PM, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

Questions:

a) If the use of 1.42 ata with B4 fuel was really uncritical for 3, 5 or 10 minutes (as is claimed here based on a bench test protocol using B4 fuel), why does the October 1944 manual state that the throttle must be moved to 1.3 ata? Why doesn't it allow the further use of 1.42 ata for "minimum amount when deemed operationally essential"?

Of course there would be difficult to keep the boost exactly below 1.42 ata when only a small throttle movement range is available. Not worth the risk for a power setting allowed for 1 minute only, but certainly worth it if the power can by increased for 5-10 minutes.

 

 

Because Pilots are Idiots and complicated "if-then" Rules make their Heads hurt.

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2021 at 1:22 PM, =EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand said:

B) I think the run in times are basically not correlated to what the max times in a settings is, so running it in for 25 mins has nothing to do with what I can maximally run for at that setting, however if you say the upper limit for a setting is 1 min and then run in is at 4 mins, it makes you wonder whether this limit is accurate.

Regarding the pictures of the cockpit, the mark is always below 2800 rpm. So I think you get 3 mins anywhere from 2650 to 2800 rpm, which is actually what we have in game now ( if you run at around 90% you’ll get about 3 Mins of emergency mode time). So I think it is probably not wrong in judging by the pics alone.

About the in game cockpit pic of 2700 rpm and 1.42 ata again I think 3 mins makes sense b/c that’s what you get at 2700 rpm (but I might have to check again) but not at 2800 rpm. Even though ata should not be identical for both...right?

F-4 can run the engine with 2700 RPM. Still only 1 min maximum.
After F-4, the Gutavs has upgraded engines, so the 2800 RPM should be the same "exertion" as 2700 RPM for the F-4.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Issues with the DB605 were Pistons burning and Lubrication.

 

Reinforced Pistons were introduced very soon in the initial Production run. So Power Loss and Knock shouldn't occur as long as the intake Manifold Air Temperature is low enough, meaning the more Ram Air releases Pressure of the Supercharger, the longer you can run high Power, means in a High Speed Scenario, to continue high Speed, High Power shouldn't damage the Engine.

Low Speed Climbs are bad though, and Knock should reduce Power.

 

The Issues identified with Lubrication were Oil Capacity, Oil Cooler Size and weak Oil Pumps. 

This leads to Oil  locally overheating, crusting up bearings, and these crusts get hot and catch 🔥.

Low Speeds lead to lack of cooling, lead to Engine Fires.

High Speeds should be Ok though.

 

Late G-6 solves that Issue entirely.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially early Gustav's should have a higher risk of Engine Fires, especially after having flown for some time, since Oil Consumption is high enough that with Drop Tanks the Fuel and Oil would run dry roughly at the same time.

Even after only 30 Minutes of Flight this should have a significant effect on duration of maximum power.

 

The Bf110s didn't suffer as much as they had much larger Oil Reservoirs. Thus Max Power was never locked.

 

The high rate of Oil burnage of all WWII Engines was always a Factor in the Range that could be achieved.

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The data sheet from August ´44 even gives us top speed and power output of the engine for the "Notleistung" at 1.42ata/2800rpm (still ingame the G-6 does not reach those ffigures (for 1.3 and 1.4 ata alike) but that I did already adressed, but no feedback thus far) .

I would asume by then the engine should be fully operational. One option would be to increase engine durability with the late war G-6 model or depending on the time frame (locked for ´43 and cleared for ´44)?

 

me109g6-glce2-13aug44.thumb.jpg.8b5a949e4918d9fa52f8c9c76ab526eb.jpg

Edited by the_emperor
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the_emperor said:

I would asume by then the engine should be fully operational. One option would be to increase engine durability with the late war G-6 model or depending on the time frame (locked for ´43 and cleared for ´44)?

It's mostly a Function of the Oil Cooler, which is significantly larger on the Late G-6.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

It's mostly a Function of the Oil Cooler, which is significantly larger on the Late G-6.

 

yes, and from what I read, the whole internal oil feeding system (e.g. the pump)for the bearings had the be reworked and was fully working in ´44. otherwise running the engine with 2800rpm for 10min with the MW50 injection would still be fatal.

Edited by the_emperor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Timer strict limit are the problem in a whole.

 

True 109 is one of the planes affected by the "to attached to manual" timers. Like P-40 which is the most affected of all.

 

Thing is how to do an entire overhaul to that old system

Edited by RoyalUrsus
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, RoyalUrsus said:

Timer strict limit are the problem in a whole.

 

True 109 is one of the planes affected by the "to attached to manual" timers. Like P-40 which is the most affected of all.

 

Thing is how to do an entire overhaul to that old system

Yes, the System should take some more Factors into account.

 

Climbing after someone at low Speeds should be discouraged by a realistic System, on all Aircraft that are Octane Limited. Low Speeds make Superchargers work harder, hard Working Superchargers heat up the Intake Manifold more, leads to Engine Knocking and Pre-Ignition at a certain Point. Given that the 109 has no Charge Air Cooling except for with MW50, this Knock is likely to occur under certain Conditions after some Time.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, as most superchargers are rigidly geared, they work the same no matter the speed and increase intake air temperature the same no matter the speed. As speed related ram effects however increase intake air temperature, internal thermal strain as well as octane limits are more critical at higher speeds.

 

That's typically more than offset by better cooling capabilities at high speeds.

 

FWIW, contemporary Rolls Royce documents calculate the ram air temperature increase as dT = (V/100)². V is speed in mph.

Edited by JtD
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

31 minutes ago, JtD said:

Actually, as most superchargers are rigidly geared, they work the same no matter the speed and increase intake air temperature the same no matter the speed

The 109 has a hydraulic clutch for (fluid coupling) witch takes only as much power from the engine as is required to reach and keep the set  ata setting. But I dont know how much stress (if any) it would take from the engine intake and combustion process compared to a traditionally geared supercharger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the fluid coupling working, the intake temperatures on a DB are indeed lower as speed increases. At low altitudes, where the supercharger on a DB is running with a fixed gear, it is not, as with all other supercharged engines of the era.

 

The higher/lower temperatures can be figured from engine power charts, that give both power with and without ram effects. For instance, the DB605 at combat power 1.30 ata loses roughly 50hp at high speed at 2km due to the fixed first gear, but gains roughly 30hp at high speed at 4km altitude, due to the liquid coupling, where it would lose 50+hp if it was rigidly geared. Net win is in the range of 80-100hp, but only on a narrow altitude band.

 

FWIW, the coupling was set so that at 2600rpm, it would maintain in excess of 1.4ata, not just 1.3ata. That overboost was then throttled back to 1.30ata. So it did excess work, just not as much as fixed gears would.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2020 at 1:38 PM, ATAG_SKUD said:

I've never seen a bench test done without the prop on. 

:salute:

skud 

I actually don’t think you can, since on piston engines the prop also acts as the flywheel. Not aware of any that have a separate one

Edited by Asgar
Link to post
Share on other sites

For crazy short 1min they can say its by the manuals, but whats puzling for me is that after you used 1min you have to wait 13min to get full recharg of that 1min, and on top it dosent mather if you go on 1% of power or max combat power for that 13min, from where they get that long recharg and how recharges for 109s go from 13 min for 1 min in 1942-43 to recharg time of 10min for 10min emergancy in 1944-45 must have been best technological advance in engine recharge for any ww2 reserch technology, and history books somehow omit to menchon that advance.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, CountZero said:

For crazy short 1min they can say its by the manuals, but whats puzling for me is that after you used 1min you have to wait 13min to get full recharg of that 1min, and on top it dosent mather if you go on 1% of power or max combat power for that 13min, from where they get that long recharg and how recharges for 109s go from 13 min for 1 min in 1942-43 to recharg time of 10min for 10min emergancy in 1944-45 must have been best technological advance in engine recharge for any ww2 reserch technology, and history books somehow omit to menchon that advance.

 

Next time let the smoke clear between bong hits and we might be able to understand a single damn word you are saying.

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Next time let the smoke clear between bong hits and we might be able to understand a single damn word you are saying.

I think he's trying to say that the Time/Cooldown between uses of Emergeny Power should be a lot shorter, like 1:1 or 2:1 maybe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Next time let the smoke clear between bong hits and we might be able to understand a single damn word you are saying.

Dude its simple 😄

 

in what book, manual or secret russian file does it say that if you use 1min of emergancy power you recharg it fully after 13min, how it works now in game.

And it dosent mather how cold or hot your engine is or what you don for thouse 13min, its always 13min.

And then later in war it takes 1min to recharg 1min, man that was some big breaktrough in engine power recharg technologie and no book or secret file mentioned it.

 

Edited by CountZero
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the best solution would be to increase the 109 G-6 Late engines durability and keep the more fragile engine for the early G-Models to reflect engine improvement.

Whether this should be 5min for 2800rpm/min from the factory run in or the 10min for 2800rpm/min the MW-50 models can run should be further investigatet, but the 5min seems like a good start. Maybe combined with a higher stress on the cooling system in low speed situation so you are forced to have an eye on your coolant temperatur?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, the_emperor said:

So the best solution would be to increase the 109 G-6 Late engines durability and keep the more fragile engine for the early G-Models to reflect engine improvement.

Whether this should be 5min for 2800rpm/min from the factory run in or the 10min for 2800rpm/min the MW-50 models can run should be further investigatet, but the 5min seems like a good start. Maybe combined with a higher stress on the cooling system in low speed situation so you are forced to have an eye on your coolant temperatur?

Since we are Octane Limited, yes and no. Octane Issues should do less damage over a longer Time, High Oil Temps should do more Damage over a short amount of time.

  1. The Consequences of running the Engine Hard should be milder and reflect the Consequences of a Hard Run Engine, First Rough Running with some Power Loss, but for a short Period there should be no lasting Damage. If you ignore the rough running for long enough, you get Engine Wear, Valves burning, Rings eating the Cylinder Wall, permanent Power Loss and to simulate Oil Losses and increased Friction due to Wear, you also increase the Oil Temperature somewhat.
  2. The early Gustavs should definetly have more Oil Temperature Trouble. Running Slow and Hard should cause Oil Overheat and eventual Fires. thrown Rods, Holes in Pistons etc. This kind of Catastrophic Engine Damage if you ignore Overheat.
  3. The Amount of Time available should depend on the Intake Temperature before WEP is engaged. If you were cruising around at 1.0ata your intake Air Manifold and Exhaust Valves will be significantly colder than when you were climbing at 1.3ata for 20 Minutes beforehand.
  4. The Amount of Time you have to wait to re-engage WEP should depend on how and where you cool down. At 1.3ata in a steep Climb you should be cooling down a lot slower than when diving at Idle.
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...