Huge problem with throttle function on all aircraft with time limited settings.

[LColony_Kong]

I can't believe I never noticed this before, but the way the throttle works in this game with respect to engine restrictions is completely ridiculous.

 

When you are flying above an altitude where the supercharger can actually achieve max power, the game still limits your throttle based on your percent, and that percent appears to be dictated by whatever it was a sea level. 

 

For example, a Bf109 F4 with 1 min at 1.42 ata at 500m (100%) and 30 min at 1.31 ata (84-85%) will STILL be restricted to a mere 85% of throttle at 6000 meters where the most it can pull is about 1.25 ata. 

 

Seriously? How is this is even a thing. 

 

 

[FTC_DerSheriff]

Because the limits are for the RPM as well and the RPM are correlating with the throttle "%" Setting.

The engine limits are less strict higher up you can run the engine on higher settings longer.

Edited March 26, 2018 by DerSheriff

[LColony_Kong]

3 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

Because the limits are for the RPM as well and the RPM are correlating with the throttle "%" Setting.

The engine limits are less strict higher up you can run the engine on higher settings longer.

Yes, the are longer, but there should not be any limit at all above FTH. I could go about 3 min a max power instead of 1. 

 

This business of RPM's is irrelevant. The 109 governs both automatically and the engine limits prescribed IRL having got absolutely nothing to do with the "percentage". This is game cheese to the max.  

[FTC_DerSheriff]

1 minute ago, Fumes said:

 

 

This business of RPM's is irrelevant. The 109 governs both automatically and the engine limits prescribed IRL having got absolutely nothing to do with the "percentage". This is game cheese to the max.  

Again. Yes the RPMs are governored automatically. But the engine limits stated in the aircraft sheets are refering to RPM and a manifold pressure in combination. The manifold pressure drops at alitude, but the RPM stays the same at a given throttle setting. So for example instead of 1.3 ata and 2400RPM at the deck, 1.2 ata and 2400RPM at 6k(or so). 

Since the engine runs on a lower manifold pressure but on the same RPM the game gives you more time. The RPM is a limiting factor as well but usually not as strict as manifold pressure.

[LColony_Kong]

2 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

Again. Yes the RPMs are governored automatically. But the engine limits stated in the aircraft sheets are refering to RPM and a manifold pressure in combination. The manifold pressure drops at alitude, but the RPM stays the same at a given throttle setting. So for example instead of 1.3 ata and 2400RPM at the deck, 1.2 ata and 2400RPM at 6k(or so). 

Since the engine runs on a lower manifold pressure but on the same RPM the game gives you more time. The RPM is a limiting factor as well but usually not as strict as manifold pressure.

I understood what you meant the first time. That is not how the prescribed limits work. This is game-nonsense on top of the already problematic time-based system. The limit of 1.31 ata with its associated RPM is only for that setting. There is no esoteric carry over to lower powers at the same RPM. Above the critical altitude of the aircraft there would have been NO restriction on the operation of the engine with the throttle quadrant fully forward. 

[Willy__]

Thats because of the RPM restrictions like Sheriff said, since the 109s have auto prop, it will try to stay on the rpm for that setting (combat, continuous or whatever). You can bypass that by switching to manual prop pitch and manually controlling the rpm's and then you can crank the throttle to 100% but you must set lower rpms. Just saying, it wont make a lot power, the rpm needs to be higher to keep the manifold pressure up, and if you manually set the rpms higher you end up with the "problem" you came up initially, with engine breaking if you leave the throttle at max.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Willy__

[LColony_Kong]

Just now, Willy__ said:

Thats because of the RPM restrictions like Sheriff said, since the 109s have auto prop, it will try to stay on the rpm for that setting (combat, continuous or whatever). You can bypass that by switching to manual prop pitch and manually controlling the rpm's and then you can crank the throttle to 100%. Just saying, it wont make a lot power, the rpm needs to be higher to keep the manifold pressure up, and if you manually set the rpms higher you end up with the "problem" you came up initially, with engine breaking if you leave the throttle at max.

Again, this is not how the limits are supposed to work. 

 

There is a limit on a G-6, for example, of 1.3 ata at 2600rpm and 1.42ata at 2800rpm. 

 

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Limit. At. 1.3ata. And. 2800rpm. THIS IS MADE UP.

 

Operating at full forward throttle above FTH is NOT restricted. 

 

 

[Willy__]

Yes above FTH its not restricted if you ignore the RPMs. But you wont be able to reach that ata (1.3) above FTH. The engine breaks because if you push the throttle forward 100% the auto prop will set it to 2800rpm, which is only good for a limited time before it burns the engine. Thats why I said that you can use the manual prop pitch to set safe rpms and use throttle "freely", but then the manifold pressure will be even lower....

Edited March 26, 2018 by Willy__

[LColony_Kong]

11 minutes ago, Willy__ said:

Yes above FTH its not restricted if you ignore the RPMs. But you wont be able to reach that ata (1.3) above FTH. The engine breaks because if you push the throttle forward 100% the auto prop will set it to 2800rpm, which is only good for a limited time before it burns the engine. Thats why I said that you can use the manual prop pitch to set safe rpms and use throttle "freely", but then the manifold pressure will be even lower....

NO. This NOT how it works. 

 

There is no need to manually adjust the RPM. 

 

Im going to say this as clearly as can: There is no restriction on using high RPM above critical altitude when the manifold pressure is not at the restricted setting. The engine will not "burn through" because you ran 2800rpms and 1.25ata. 

 

There is a restriction on 1.42 ata and 2800 rpms. And that is it. Any thing else is MADE UP. 

[Ehret]

I can not relate to the subject precisely, but engines have mechanical limits for rpm. Once over the threshold they may get damaged or seize, no matter the MP.

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, Ehret said:

I can not relate to the subject precisely, but engines have mechanical limits for rpm. Once over the threshold they may get damaged or seize, no matter the MP.

Yes. But made up operating limitations are something else entirely. 

[FTC_DerSheriff]

Can you provide some sources on this? You seem pretty sure. So you mist have some references or physics you can explain. 

Edit:
I mean the RPMs are stated with the pressures in the old official engine limitations for a reason i guess. If you are right that would mean they just could state pressures without RPMs.
Same goes for the american planes. Why do they bother to mention different RPMs if only the manifold pressures are important?

Edited March 26, 2018 by DerSheriff

[Dakpilot]

No, you can overclock them just like a graphics card.. No worries 

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

[LColony_Kong]

20 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

Can you provide some sources on this? You seem pretty sure. So you mist have some references or physics you can explain. 

Edit:
I mean the RPMs are stated with the pressures in the old official engine limitations for a reason i guess. If you are right that would mean they just could state pressures without RPMs.
Same goes for the american planes. Why do they bother to mention different RPMs if only the manifold pressures are important?

My source is the same engine limitations you are looking at and just quoted. The limits in question are specifically for a manifold pressure, and an associated RPM. Assuming an arbitrary failure at a randomly determined time is not justified. We have a limit at 1.3 ata and a limit at 1.42 ata. Whether or not the RPM itself will also cause a failure is being assumed. 

 

There is no positive evidence for a failure at 1.25 ata but full RPM. To justify this failure, there needs to be proof. Otherwise this is just rubbish. Rubbish on top of rubbish since the time-limits have nothing to do with immediate failure in the first place. 

 

3 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

No, you can overclock them just like a graphics card.. No worries 

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

You know full well that that was used as a illustrative analogy, not a literal one. Its been said before. A necessary analogy since so many of you have absurdly read into the in game results the INTENT of said limits. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Fumes

[Ehret]

4 minutes ago, Fumes said:

There is no positive evidence for a failure at 1.25 ata but full RPM. To justify this failure, there needs to be proof. Otherwise this is just rubbish. Rubbish on top of rubbish since the time-limits have nothing to do with immediate failure in the first place.

 

There is no evidence that those settings are capable of continuous running, neither.

 

[Dakpilot]

12 minutes ago, Fumes said:

So many of you have absurdly read into the in game results the INTENT of said limits. 

 

I have blown up quite more than my fair share of RL large piston aero engines to have a reasonable idea of why engine limits are specified and why they should be adhered to

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

[LColony_Kong]

14 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

There is no evidence that those settings are capable of continuous running, neither.

 

I don't need any. 

 

If there is no positive evidence, then there is no justification for create a BS failure. 

 

I find it incredible how many people on these forums do not understand the distinction between positive and negative evidence and its logical ramifications. 

4 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

I have blown up quite more than my fair share of RL large piston aero engines to have a reasonable idea of why engine limits are specified and why they should be adhered to

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

Sounds like you are a bad pilot. And it also sounds like you are really good at reading into your own anecdotal experiences, and then even worse extrapolating them out ad infinitum. 

 

. There is no evidence of failure due to the time limits imposed. The time limits imposed, as you well know, are for operational longevity reasons, not because the engine will explode if violated. In the absence of any evidence of a time limit that has something to do with in-mission destruction, no limit can be imposed until there is some. 

 

What you all are doing is superimposing the engine limit put in place for long term longevity reasons as limits for immediate failure. This is rubbish. I am all for real engine failure points based on actual evidence. But just because those exist is not an excuse to use arbitrary operation limits as if they were the hard limits of failure. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Fumes

[SYN_Mike77]

Fumes:  That's not how an argument works.  Whoever makes a claim must provide the backing for that claim. 

 

Otherwise, all kinds of silly things would have to be accepted.  "The Wizzard of Oz is real!"  Where's your evidence?  " I don't need evidence, you prove I'm wrong. "  That's a silly argument and structurally, the same one you are making.

 

On this specific argument;  the Devs have done massive amounts of research in writing this game.  People with real life experience with piston engine planes say they are right (Dakpilot).  This is compelling evidence.  To get people to consider your point you need to provide some backing evidence.

[LColony_Kong]

7 minutes ago, SYN_Mike77 said:

Fumes:  That's not how an argument works.  Whoever makes a claim must provide the backing for that claim. 

 

Otherwise, all kinds of silly things would have to be accepted.  "The Wizzard of Oz is real!"  Where's your evidence?  " I don't need evidence, you prove I'm wrong. "  That's a silly argument and structurally, the same one you are making.

 

On this specific argument;  the Devs have done massive amounts of research in writing this game.  People with real life experience with piston engine planes say they are right (Dakpilot).  This is compelling evidence.  To get people to consider your point you need to provide some backing evidence.

You are correct. Whoever makes an argument must show evidence. 

 

But you are confusing the fact that I started a thread with also being the original argument maker. The original argument is the in game failure mechanics. The burden of proof is on THOSE. I am very literally stated the same thing you just did, that if those limits are to exist with the results they give, then there NEEDS to be SPECIFIC evidence of them. And there is not. What we have is a lazy inference. 

 

The entire set of failures we have are made up and have no specific evidence. 

 

-Destruction after time limits exceeded (any setting). This is made up, since the time limits in aircraft manuals do not correspond to hard mechanical failure points. 

-Destruction at high RPM above FTH. Also made up, since even if we wanted for some asinine reason to presume the time limits are failure nodes, there is nothing prescribed for doing this. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Fumes

[Dakpilot]

Calm down you are going to give yourself a hernia, 

Do you go to a doctor and ignore him for using his own anecdotal experience lol.. 

 

Running a high performance 1000+hp aero engine at max revs that are time restricted will have ramifications even at lower MP, running at high MP for longer than rated CAN cause pretty much instantaneous catastrophic failure if you get detonation 

 

Edit

 

I surely am not the greatest pilot who lived, but sometimes operational situations have needed the sacrifice of an engine (would never do it in a single) and more often than not they go bang with little warning regardless of trend monitoring 

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Dakpilot

[Ehret]

You are coming from "if something is not explicitly forbidden, then surely it is allowed" - in the pure logical domain it is true, of course, but we are talking about a piece of physical equipment. Unless it was tested at given settings, we can not know for sure - this is the empirical nature of things.

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, Dakpilot said:

Calm down you are going to give yourself a hernia, 

Do you go to a doctor and ignore him for using his own anecdotal experience lol.. 

 

Running a high performance 1000+hp aero engine at max revs that are time restricted will have ramifications even at lower MP, running at high MP for longer than rated CAN cause pretty much instantaneous catastrophic failure if you get detonation 

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

That really depends on what the anecdotal experience is being used for doesn't it? This is why people get second opinions. And I have quite a few pilot opinions other than your own. 

 

Nobody is disputing that detonation can ruin engines. What is ridiculous is a assumption that detonation is occurring at an approved setting with the fuels being used at the time. And plenty of evidence that detonation is not occurring has been presented over the course of several threads. 

 

And Dakpilot: NOT having clear parameters for a potential engine problem does not give carte blanche  to use the long term limits in the manuals as stand in. If you want to justify a failure due to exceeding a real hard limit, you need proof of that failure point. And you dont have that. 

1 minute ago, Ehret said:

You are coming from "if something is not explicitly forbidden, then surely it is allowed" - in the pure logical domain it is true, of course, but we are talking about a piece of physical equipment. Unless it was tested at given settings, we can not know for sure - this is the empirical nature of things.

If you don't know for sure then you shouldnt make up arbitrary failures then should you? Using your logic I could just make up bs about planes in this game all day. Perhaps the Yak1b should have engine detonation at, lets see, 8min 32 seconds of full power even though I have no evidence of this. Just because "abuse" and cough "just cuz"

[Ehret]

5 minutes ago, Fumes said:

If you don't know for sure then you shouldnt make up arbitrary failures then should you? Using your logic I could just make up bs about planes in this game all day.

 

In absence of spec tables with all possible combinations of settings some intra/extrapolation had to be done. You are angry because it is not to your liking? Well... tough luck but you have to provide hard data on controversial settings. If not, then someone else may conclude the same about your argument.

 

[LColony_Kong]

6 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

In absence of spec tables with all possible combinations of settings some intra/extrapolation had to be done. You are angry because it is not to your liking? Well... tough luck but you have to provide hard data on controversial settings. If not, then someone else may conclude the same about your argument.

 

That is the most convoluted logic I have ever heard. The onus is not on me to prove the failure does not exist. You cant agree with the concept of burden of proof and used it on both sides of the debate. That is patently preposterous. 

[SYN_Mike77]

If you are arguing that the developers need to change the way the game currently is, then the burden of proof is squarely on you. 

[LColony_Kong]

2 minutes ago, SYN_Mike77 said:

If you are arguing that the developers need to change the way the game currently is, then the burden of proof is squarely on you. 

No it's not. The Burden of accuracy is on them since they are the ones making the initial argument. Their game IS an argument. 

[Ehret]

In your original post, you claim that only the ATA setting should bear on allowable running time, basically. Because it is not so, you declared "bs" notwithstanding likely explanations provided by others (like RPMs and related prop pitch, perhaps more). Next, you insisted that you don't have to provide anything in a form of hard data to strengthen your argument.

 

That is patently preposterous.

 

In this situation it is only reasonable to trust developers' choice instead of your foggy arguments.

[LColony_Kong]

24 minutes ago, Ehret said:

In your original post, you claim that only the ATA setting should bear on allowable running time, basically. Because it is not so, you declared "bs" notwithstanding likely explanations provided by others (like RPMs and related prop pitch, perhaps more). Next, you insisted that you don't have to provide anything in a form of hard data to strengthen your argument.

 

That is patently preposterous.

 

In this situation it is only reasonable to trust developers' choice instead of your foggy arguments.

That was a dishonest representation of the exegesis of this thread. The fact remains that we have a arbitrary failure that occurs without any documentation to support the specificity of the failure. 

[StG2_Manfred]

Can this contribute or being helpful?

 

 

Document: https://goo.gl/images/nZ2tQF

 

From site: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

 

It says 'from 5000m up - Full throttle'

 

 

 

 

[Talisman]

Fumes,

 

I very much sympathise with you and the points you are making, but the developers have chosen to do what they have done and we appear to be stuck with it.  I think we can all understand the reason they have done what they have done and what they are trying to achieve in an area with no easy answers.

It is difficult to accept that we have a situation of guaranteed engine failures now on stop watch settings using time limits in pilot notes; it feels very artificial.  Now the developers have gone down this route, it looks to me that to fill in the gaps between the range of engine settings available, the developers have also introduced time limit guaranteed engine failures at timings that are not covered by pilot notes (example, Spitfire engine failure after 10 minutes at 2850 rpm and 12 lbs boost).  Again, I think I can see why they have done it, but it just feels a bit over the top to me to have an engine go bang by the stop watch, particularly when, speaking for the British pilot notes only, it is documented that the boost limits are a general guide and may be disregarded by the pilot.  If applicable to engine type and historic record, I would rather see the developers introduce a system of increased risk of engine random failure on a sliding scale of abuse of combat boost settings (sometimes getting away with it, up to a point, but sometimes not).  I also think that perhaps engine cooling could be more of a factor the developers might use to more realistically model use of maximum boost settings.  For example, if a pilot is at combat boost settings and performing multiple hard turns in a dogfight at slow speed, surely the aircraft should overheat and fail due to lack of slipstream cooling?  Likewise, climbing with the nose up to high for too long.  Different engines types have different sensibilities and weak and strong points that could be modelled, rather than generic modelling, but I guess it all depends on resources available to the developer team.  

Good luck.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman    

[FTC_DerSheriff]

2 hours ago, StG2_Manfred said:

Can this contribute or being helpful?

 

 

Document: https://goo.gl/images/nZ2tQF

 

From site: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

 

It says 'from 5000m up - Full throttle'

 

 

 

 

Hint @OP that is a document. You know. Just for a heads up!.
Not only you need that to have some proofs, but furthermore it helps your arguement in a discussion. if you do a tiny bit of research so many things get so much easier. Now if we would find more of that kind we actually could open a proper FM thread with a detailed research and without insults! Wouldn't that be great? And you could be actually take seriously! And there is even the chance that something like this ends up in the game! And even other forum members could build up on your research!

And you know what's good as well? even if you are wrong and the game does it right(or right enough) you actually have learned something!
Yes that can happen. But only with less insults, more objectivity, and some proper docs. Doesnt need a degree to understand that, does it? 

 

[StG2_Manfred]

6 hours ago, DerSheriff said:

Again. Yes the RPMs are governored automatically. But the engine limits stated in the aircraft sheets are refering to RPM and a manifold pressure in combination. The manifold pressure drops at alitude, but the RPM stays the same at a given throttle setting. So for example instead of 1.3 ata and 2400RPM at the deck, 1.2 ata and 2400RPM at 6k(or so). 

Since the engine runs on a lower manifold pressure but on the same RPM the game gives you more time. The RPM is a limiting factor as well but usually not as strict as manifold pressure.

 

I think you are right here, both matters. But to what degree?

 

When we look at the chart below we see that at sealevel it was allowed to run the engine with 1.30 ATA (990 HP) and 2400 rpm for only 5 min. (Kurzleistung)

 

But at 5000m (critical height is about 4500m) we are already allowed to use half an hour 2400 rpm and 1.23 ATA (960 HP) (which I guess is or is almost full throttle for the DB601A/B at 5000m)

 

Maybe somebody could make some in-game tests to have some hard figures we could compare?

Edited March 26, 2018 by StG2_Manfred

[FTC_DerSheriff]

24 minutes ago, StG2_Manfred said:

 

I think you are right here, both matters. But to what degree?

 

When we look at the chart below we see that at sealevel it was allowed to run the engine with 1.30 ATA (990 HP) and 2400 rpm for only 5 min. (Kurzleistung)

 

But at 5000m (critical height is about 4500m) we are already allowed to use half an hour 2400 rpm and 1.23 ATA (960 HP) (which I guess is or is almost full throttle for the DB601A/B in 5000m)

 

Maybe somebody could make some in-game tests to have some hard figures we could compare?

 

Thanks, yes. I did test that for other aircraft like the FN and could achieve much longer full RPM times. But haven't tested that myself for 109s. Your document seems to be for a bf 109 E or early F.

The official manual for the Gs made no alt distinction anymore:

The RPMs are of course much higher here.

Edited March 26, 2018 by DerSheriff
added G Manual Snippet

[StG2_Manfred]

Exactly, since it is a DB601A/B it is for a 109 E or early F, as you say.

 

But as the principle was in all 109s the same (fluid-clutch super-charger, automatic prop pitch) it should only matter what the citical height was, right? From that height onwards the produced HP decrease continously with increasing height (until you reach a point where you then can give full throttle because the engine cannot produce enough HP anymore to damage the system).

[StG2_Manfred]

40 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

Thanks, yes. I did test that for other aircraft like the FN and could achieve much longer full RPM times. But haven't tested that myself for 109s. Your document seems to be for a bf 109 E or early F.

The official manual for the Gs made no alt distinction anymore:

The RPMs are of course much higher here.

 

I think they just do not mention it. Because in almost every document I found (as probably you) they give only numbers for sealevel and for critical height, not above. But as I wrote in my last post, the principle is always the same for all 109s. 

 

As I think you speak German please also read here: We already spoke about the functioning of  'automatischer Verstellpropeller' some time ago (I already had forgotten about it...): 

 

 

 

[Dakpilot]

1 hour ago, DerSheriff said:

Thanks, yes. I did test that for other aircraft like the FN and could achieve much longer full RPM times. But haven't tested that myself for 109s. Your document seems to be for a bf 109 E or early F.

The official manual for the Gs made no alt distinction anymore:

The RPMs are of course much higher here.

 

I would not assume from reading that, that 2800 rpm would be available unlimited  time 1,30 ATA just because it is not 'forbidden' 

maybe I am indeed a 'bad pilot' but limitations in manuals are just not written in the way the OP thinks

 

apart from the fact that 2800 rpm is clearly considered emergency setting with a limit, on early/mid DB605

 

8 hours ago, Fumes said:

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Limit. At. 1.3ata. And. 2800rpm. THIS IS MADE UP.

 

 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[LColony_Kong]

2 hours ago, DerSheriff said:

Hint @OP that is a document. You know. Just for a heads up!.
Not only you need that to have some proofs, but furthermore it helps your arguement in a discussion. if you do a tiny bit of research so many things get so much easier. Now if we would find more of that kind we actually could open a proper FM thread with a detailed research and without insults! Wouldn't that be great? And you could be actually take seriously! And there is even the chance that something like this ends up in the game! And even other forum members could build up on your research!

And you know what's good as well? even if you are wrong and the game does it right(or right enough) you actually have learned something!
Yes that can happen. But only with less insults, more objectivity, and some proper docs. Doesnt need a degree to understand that, does it? 

 

The conversation was mostly an issue of logic, not documentation. I presumed, accurately, that you had access and knew the engine limits. The only people who think there is some need to provide piles of documents on this are the people who keep assuming that this game is somehow a reflection of reality. 

 

You did not have so much as an ounce of evidence for supporting the in game version of things aside from your game-induced interpretation of the power settings. The higher RPM settings used at the higher boost are not so much a reflection of a limited RPM setting due to danger but rather simply taking advantage of the higher power that would now allow for the use of a higher RPM setting. 

 

You read what you wanted to read into the data. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Fumes

[StG2_Manfred]

1 hour ago, Dakpilot said:

 

I would not assume from reading that, that 2800 rpm would be available unlimited  time 1,30 ATA just because it is not 'forbidden' 

maybe I am indeed a 'bad pilot' but limitations in manuals are just not written in the way the OP thinks

 

apart from the fact that 2800 rpm is clearly considered emergency setting with a limit, on early/mid DB605

 

 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

It's not about 2800 rpm. It's about what happens above critical height. There you don't get full boost and therefore do not get full rpm with the 'Automatischer Verstellpropeller' of the 109s.

 

JtD summarized it well in the German thread I linked:

 

Der DB 605A in der 109 G hat folgende Stufen: (DB 605A in the 109 G has the following levels)

1.42 / 2800

1.30 / 2600

1.15 / 2300

1.00 / 2100

0.90 / 1900

 

So when you above critical height where you get e.g. only 1.30 ATA boost (with full throttle) you also get only 2600 rpm.

Edited March 26, 2018 by StG2_Manfred

[FTC_DerSheriff]

4 minutes ago, StG2_Manfred said:

 

It's not about 2800 rpm. It's about what happens above critical height. There you don't get full boost and therefore do not get full rpm with the 'Automatischer Verstellpropeller' of the 109s.

 

JtD summarized it well in the German thread I linked:

 

Der DB 605A in der 109 G hat folgende Stufen: (DB 605A in the 109 G has the following levels)

1.42 / 2800

1.30 / 2600

1.15 / 2300

1.00 / 2100

0.90 / 1900

 

So when you above critical height where you get e.g. only 1.30 ATA boost (with full throttle) you also get only 2600 rpm.

Oh of course you get the RPMs. You haven't understood the propeller. as the air gets thinner the propeller gets more fine and tries to grab more air while holding the same RPM.
The table you just posted is just the coresponding RPM to that manifold pressure. That "verstellpropeller" is a constant speed propeller if that is still up for debate. Its exactly that.

Edited March 26, 2018 by DerSheriff

[Ehret]

26 minutes ago, Fumes said:

The conversation was mostly an issue of logic, not documentation. I presumed, accurately, that you had access and knew the engine limits. The only people who think there is some need to provide piles of documents on this are the people who keep assuming that this game is somehow a reflection of reality.

 

So to contrary, your train of thought is to disregard the need to provide documents because you assumed that this game is a fantasy land - is it right? If not then why you deny a reasonable, empirical approach?!