AFAIK, Full performanced La-5FN produced in september 1943.

[Agilepig]

 

 

But not allowed MW50 which flied september 1943. Yeap. It even used in Bf109G-4.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Gomwolf

[FTC_DerSheriff]

Testdate =! Frontline availability. The G-6 we have ingame doesn't have the AM or AS engine. Do you have a source where it gets more clear when G-6 were equipped with MW50 at the eastern front?

[Willy__]

A little off topic, but whats up with the first two ? Am I reading it wrong ? Does it say FW190 with a DB603A ? 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Willy__

[CrazyDuck]

59 minutes ago, Willy__ said:

A little off topic, but whats up with the first two ? Am I reading it wrong ? Does it say FW190 with a DB603A ? 

Probably Fw 190 B/C prototypes (featuring a DB 603).

[I./ZG1_Radick]

3 hours ago, DerSheriff said:

Testdate =! Frontline availability. The G-6 we have ingame doesn't have the AM or AS engine. Do you have a source where it gets more clear when G-6 were equipped with MW50 at the eastern front?

 

the Bf 109 has the DB 605 A! the "M" in "AM" means MW50

[FTC_DerSheriff]

26 minutes ago, III./ZG1_Radick said:

 

the Bf 109 has the DB 605 A! the "M" in "AM" means MW50

Yes but the Modification to install everything for to make the engine a "M" was not used before 44. According to a couple of sources I read so far. and according to this book:
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/messerschmitt-bf-109-g-1-to-k-4-engines-fittings-pdf.222471/

Furthermore the manual from June 43 doens't mention anything for MW50.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/BF109_G-2-4-6_Bedienungsvorschrift_June43.pdf

Interesting that we have here by the way our 1min limit, which is bs on Gustavs according to some posts on the forum. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by DerSheriff

[Sgt_Joch]

unless someone is an absolute noob or just being disingenuous, it should be obvious that the date an item is "tested" is absolutely meaningless in terms of when it was available on the frontline in production aircrafts.

 

In WW2 typically, you see a delay of 12-18 months between the earlier tests of prototypes and their appearance at the frontline as production AC.

 

MW50 appears on the frontline in the summer of 1944.

 

around 200 LA5-FN had been delivered to frontline units by june 1943 and some were used in combat at Kursk in july 1943.

 

apples and oranges...as usual. 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Sgt_Joch

[Kurfurst]

G4 did not have MW50 fitted. It is probably a testbed aircraft.

 

Also, the 605 AM was a later designation for the A engine equipped with MW 50 boost, the earlier designation was sometimes 605 A/m, or even earlier, they referred to that engine as 605G.

 

In any case the earliest data of methanol boosted 109Gs in service was around March/April 1944, namely G-5/AS on the Western Front. The Eastern Front saw their use a bit later AFAIK.

[FTC_DerSheriff]

3 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

unless someone is an absolute noob or just being disingenuous, it should be obvious that the date an item is "tested" is absolutely meaningless in terms of when it was available on the frontline in production aircrafts.

 

In WW2 typically, you see a delay of 12-18 months between the earlier tests of prototypes and their appearance at the frontline as production AC.

 

MW50 appears on the frontline in the summer of 1944.

 

around 200 LA5-FN had been delivered to frontline units by june 1943 and some were used in combat at Kursk in july 1943.

 

apples and oranges...as usual. 

 

 

That would fit to the information in that book above, where a official manual for the use of MW50 was issued at 8th of may 44. Not that it isn't possible that Mw50 was installed before, but yeah. An indication we are not talking September 43. 

[303_Kwiatek]

41 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

Interesting that we have here by the way our 1min limit, which is bs on Gustavs according to some posts on the forum. 

 

Limit is when engine was de facto blocked for use 1.42 Ata. Manuals where emergency power was allowed to used dont say anything about limit.

I think Kurfurst could say something about these

[Sgt_Joch]

27 minutes ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

 

Limit is when engine was de facto blocked for use 1.42 Ata. Manuals where emergency power was allowed to used dont say anything about limit.

I think Kurfurst could say something about these

 

false.

[303_Kwiatek]

 

BTW i doubt tha 109 pilots or mechanic which pointed 3 minutes emergency power on RPM or ATA guages went against rules and limitations from manuals.

Edited March 27, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[Agilepig]

6 hours ago, DerSheriff said:

Testdate =! Frontline availability. The G-6 we have ingame doesn't have the AM or AS engine. Do you have a source where it gets more clear when G-6 were equipped with MW50 at the eastern front?

 

Bf109G-6 with MW50 produced early 1944. Yeap it is true. But Rüstsätz field modification kits was used quite early. Actually, MW50 was invented 1942, even they tested it to Fw190 1942. Even Franz Stigler said every Gustav he flew had MW booster.

 

I don't have specific documents about MW50 equipped in eastern front. But as you said before, La-5FN and Bf109G-6 is "Collector's plane". If full performanced La-5FN start producing in sep 1943 can placed on BoK, why Bf109G-6 with MW50 couldn't?

Edited March 27, 2018 by Gomwolf

[FTC_DerSheriff]

Then I demand a Yak-3 :D and why not the D-9 right with it? 
If Kuban is the cut off as a timeframe, i fear you have to live with that. The G-14 comes soon. With MW50.

[I./ZG1_Radick]

kwiatek give up,  pointless to consume time here.

[FTC_DerSheriff]

2 hours ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

 

 

 

BTW i doubt tha 109 pilots or mechanic which pointed 3 minutes emergency power on RPM or ATA guages went against rules and limitations from manuals.

I wouldn't mind to drop that limit. Actually I think 3 minute would be more practical.

But the wording is still the same. "highest permissible cruise" "Climb and Combat" "Emergency Power"
As an engineer you don't write five classes of engine states if everything doesn't matters. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by DerSheriff

[Dakpilot]

5 hours ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

 

BTW i doubt tha 109 pilots or mechanic which pointed 3 minutes emergency power on RPM or ATA guages went against rules and limitations from manuals.

 

Must have missed the pics of 3 minute limit marked on ATA gauge  care to repost?

5 hours ago, Gomwolf said:

 

 

I don't have specific documents about MW50 equipped in eastern front. But as you said before, La-5FN and Bf109G-6 is "Collector's plane". If full performanced La-5FN start producing in sep 1943 can placed on BoK, why Bf109G-6 with MW50 couldn't?

 

No problem with 1944 MW-50 G6..but then you would need the full performance La-5FN 1944 'standard' model (basically La-7)

 

and no maps or scenario to fly them in currently

 

but this has been discussed ad infinitum and as said the G14 is coming and no one would choose an MW-50 G6 in Bodenplatte scenario

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

Confirmed F4 from early 1942

Edited March 27, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[Dakpilot]

ATA Gauge

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Panthera]

7 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

false.

 

And that comment is based on what exactly?

 

Fact is no limit is mentioned in any manual past August 1943.  Furthermore piston burn throughs are never mentioned again as a source of concern after strengthened piston heads are installed, the last concern regarding DB605 reliability solely revolving around issues with the oil cooler.

 

You're basically defying all logic if you were to claim that 1.42ata was still banned by August 1943.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Panthera

[Dakpilot]

The premise that after August 1943 1.42 ATA/2800 rpm on 87 octane  is time unrestricted is just not supported by literature or combat reports/performance observations (from both sides) outside gaming forums and those campaigning for it..unless I have been seriously missing something

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[1stCL/Werner]

3 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Must have missed the pics of 3 minute limit marked on ATA gauge  care to repost?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

 

[Panthera]

1 hour ago, Dakpilot said:

The premise that after August 1943 1.42 ATA/2800 rpm on 87 octane  is time unrestricted is just not supported by literature or combat reports/performance observations (from both sides) outside gaming forums and those campaigning for it..unless I have been seriously missing something

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

Unrestricted? No, not in terms of the general guidelines instructed at the squadron level I'd say, and I'd also venture the claim that it was more or less like that in every airforce in order to prolong engine life. You simply didn't just abuse an engine "cause you could", that wouldn't make any sense. Logically pilots would be instructed to use max boost only when in absolute need, and this would've been esp. true for the LW as they knew they couldn't wreck the amount of engines the Allies could allow themselves to do whilst still being able to meet the demand for new ones.

 

Simply put German pilots were more than likely instructed at their squadrons to use their engines as sparingly as possible in order to prolong engine life, and that should be where those 3 min markings are coming from. It's the "general rule" so to speak, that the pilot should strive to keep within. Officially however, by August 1943, the engine was fully cleared for 1.42ata with no specific time limit, this seemingly being left as up to the individual squadrons to decide upon, and based on experience they look to have landed on a general 3 min rule in order to stay at the same pace as replacement engines could be delivered.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Panthera

[Dakpilot]

I'd say

Also venture 

More or less like that

More than likely

Should be

General rule 'so to speak'

No specific

Seemingly

They look to have

..... 

 

You really need to stop doing this 

(in FM section) 

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by Dakpilot

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

12 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

ATA Gauge

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

Yeah! „Get them rpms up and your ata low“ was a common LW proverb at the time. That 3 minute marker is there to remind the pilot to only stay at 2750 rpm for 3 minutes when he put his prop pitch to manual to piss off his mechanic with a worn engine while not wrecking the engine with too high ata. *IRONY OFF*

 

your comical posts get better by the week Dak!

Edited March 28, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[Barnacles]

11 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

The premise that after August 1943 1.42 ATA/2800 rpm on 87 octane  is time unrestricted is just not supported by literature or combat reports/performance observations (from both sides) outside gaming forums and those campaigning for it..unless I have been seriously missing something

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

What is supported by literature is that *some* 1942 and beyond manuals say emergency power should be used "sparingly as when necessary" rather than giving a time limit. This is whilst the same manuals do give a time limit for other, lower power, engine settings. This contrasts with pre war and early war engines which specify 1 minute for emergency power. Also Kurfurst I think said he could not find any late war manuals which said one minute for emergency power.

 

People suggested that this should be interpreted in game by having less restrictive limits on these engines, but I can't remember anyone suggesting it should be unlimited.

[Dakpilot]

Not sure I would call G4 and G6 pre  or early War,  which are mentioned with the limit in manuals posted above, 

There have been many calling for no limits in plenty of threads, it crops up all the time, not going to bother to list names 

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

[JtD]

No one minute limit in any G model manual shown so far. Either banned, or without an explicit time limit. You and Sgt_Joch keep claiming otherwise, but neither of you have managed to provide a single source showing a one minute limit (at least not where I have seen it and still remember), while I've seen more than a dozen showing the banned/no time limit cases.

 

Please finally provide a source to support your case.

[Panthera]

18 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

I'd say

Also venture 

More or less like that

More than likely

Should be

General rule 'so to speak'

No specific

Seemingly

They look to have

..... 

 

You really need to stop doing this 

(in FM section) 

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

 

 

I don't like talking in absolutes when I cannot 100% positively state that I am all right and you are all wrong. There simply isn't enough information out there to be so cocky. I wish a few others in here would follow the same approach once in a while.

 

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Panthera

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

 

I don't like talking in absolutes when I cannot 100% positively state that I am all right and you are all wrong. There simply isn't enough information out there to be so cocky. I wish a few others in here would follow the same approach once in a while.

 

Speaking in vague terms like @Dakpilot pointed out does nothing to help bolster your arguments.

[Panthera]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

Speaking in vague terms like @Dakpilot pointed out does nothing to help bolster your arguments.

 

My arguments are based on facts where any is available (1.42ata clearance, no official limits listed etc.), and logical thinking where specific information is lacking/incomplete or downright missing (reason for 3 min on cockpit gauges, impact of germany's situation on engine operating procedures etc). 

 

In short I am not going to start presenting anything as fact before I am positive it is true. IMHO following such a rule helps keep debates civil and down to earth - and btw so does generally coming across as positive, open minded & friendly as opposed to negative, close minded and aggressive all the time, the latter of which I am sad to say you often having come across as.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Panthera

[Vitali_Acote]

14 часов назад, JtD сказал:

a one minute limit

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/BF109_G-2-4-6_Bedienungsvorschrift_June43.pdf

[Panthera]

1 hour ago, Vitali_Acote said:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/BF109_G-2-4-6_Bedienungsvorschrift_June43.pdf

 

Again, note "1) Darf nicht benutz werden, ist blockiert", in other words this is one of the manuals where 1.42ata is still listed as altogether banned.

 

In every G series manual without the ban however no time limit is listed, indicating there was no official time limit once 1.42ata was finally cleared. The reengineered engine with its new strengthened piston heads and improved oil cooler (plus perhaps some retiming of the ignition) clearly solved any of the issues that had previously been observed running at that boost pressure. 

 

1.42ata was however probably the highest RELIABLE boost pressure that the DB605 could be use running solely on std. B4 fuel. To run reliably at even higher boost pressures than 1.42ata demanded either higher octane C3 fuel or a combination of water methanol injection + B4 fuel, where AGAIN no time limit was given, and in the case of MW50 a full 40 min worth was provided. 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Panthera

[1stCL/Werner]

14 minutes ago, Panthera said:

1.42ata was however probably the highest RELIABLE boost pressure that the DB605 could be use running solely on std. B4 fuel. To run reliably at even higher boost pressures than 1.42ata demanded either higher octane C3 fuel or a combination of water methanol injection + B4 fuel, where AGAIN no time limit was given, and in the case of MW50 a full 40 min worth was provided. 

For MW 50 there was 10 minutes, than 5 minutes pause on lower setting.

[Panthera]

1 hour ago, 1stCL/Werner said:

For MW 50 there was 10 minutes, than 5 minutes pause on lower setting.

 

Yes you're right, I  forgot about the 10 min as I don't really see that as being particularly "limiting"  Also there was MW50 for 26 min not 40 min in total it seems. My mistake.

 

Ofcourse with just C3 1.8ata could be attained for 10 min at a time for as long as there was fuel, which was even better.

 

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Panthera

[Dakpilot]

I think you will find that there was a lot more than just adding C3 fuel to get 1.8 ATA..

 

plus with many of your other assumptions

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Blutaar]

The funny thing is, that the same people who think 1 min or 3 min is realistic seem to have no problem with Ash82F/FN and M-105 PF engines running at really high boost for as long as they want while other, comparable engines are restricted as hell in that comparison, not just german engines. Which is highly unrealistic. Just compare all the different engines on there unlimited power modes. A Lagg3 does 500kph unrestricted while for example the P39 does around 477kph or so at unlimited power and needs combat power to reach 501kph which is limited for 15 minutes and should be considered high stress on the engine. Now some could think the Allison engine is just inferior to the M-105 PF but i doubt that. It clearly shows the flaws of the system we have ingame. And dont tell me that russian engines are special and are not stressed to the same degree as other engines because of stalinium or something. And dont forget that we get factory fresh planes every flight.

 

And when shown photos where there is clearly a difference between what is shown in a few manuals, these people still dont start to think why at least some (few?) pilots were allowed to use Notleistung for 3 mins while a manual says 1min. Looks like some units were allowed to interpret the limits as they want, hopefully we discover more such photos with even longer times listed to make it obvious that highly restricted engines makes no sense in a game where other comparable engines are unrestricted at comparable and even higher power outputs. Set aside the fact that most manuals for 190/109s dont show any engine restriction at 1.42 ata. It is just named Notleistung which means for emergency only. What do you guys think air combat is especially when fighting superior planes who have a performance edge when not using Notleistung?

 

You dont really think that what we see ingame is anything near realistic do you? I mean aircombat every mission for example or some russian planes at max speed while cruising around. Engine limitations makes absolutely sense for out of combat situations but as soon a fight starts it should not be too restrictive and kill you if you dont have your stopwatch in sight. They never had a technochat like we have back then you know. Imagine blowing engines would really be a case for using Notleistung a bit to long especially the one minute timer for 109s, we should have numerous reports. We cant just assume that every pilot whos eninge died also died and couldnt get the message out "dont use Notleistung or you will blow". I mean look what they did when Notleistung really was a problem, they restricted its use mechanically or maybe allowed the use of it only for just one minute. Because thats where we get our 1 minute from, from manuals where Notleistung was forbidden/mechanically blocked.

 

Btw, why was it not mechanically restricted by a clocktimer like in early E series 109s and why is the reuse timer so much longer ingame? Because who in his right mind would allow overboost pressures when it is absoulutely critical to not exceed a certain time limit especially when the fatal blowup comes without any noticeable warning? It is more likely that you could use Notleistung way longer when temps and oil pressures are below limits but only in combat and not forever of course. And since we get a new plane every flight and encounter air combat in any mission, why cant we use Notleistung when its really needed for longer times, where every horsepower counts?

 

Comparing Top speeds also becomes useless when you are not able to use it for at least the same ammount of time like the guy behind you chasing you. Especially when the guy behind you dont have any limits on there maximum performance which is allways the case when flying with german engines against Ash 82F/FNs or M-105 PF. 1.3 ata is less HP, less RPM and less boost pressure and even these lower settings are limited. If we want to compare we have to compare even less performance settings. So german engines are really strong on paper but in a fight they seem to underperfrom because of time limitations. I know that 30mins is practically forever but it shows my point.

[303_Kwiatek]

The same people of course dont have problem that e.x. La5FN got 10 minutes boost in 1943 where manual says only 5  minutes. 10 minutes was allowed probably in 1944 but not yet in 1943 cause La7 with the same engine got 10 minutes allowed.

3 minutes in emergency i think is enough proved by historical photos from 109 F4 and G version cocpits and guages. Problem is for developers to accept these historical limitations other hand no problem with 10 minutes for La5FN

[L3Pl4K]

Kwiatek can you show the us the document for the 5 min time limit?

[Blutaar]

Now lets come back to the La5 FN. At 1000 mmHg (1.36 ata) the engine have no limitations while for example the FW190 has 1.2 ata without limitation. At 1.32 ata the FW engine gets restricted at 30 mins which is farily long but would destroy the engine in the end. The La5 FN on the other hand has even higher boost at pretty much no restriction, not one negative side effect. Even the heat produced in such power settings is laughable in the FN. You can competely close the cowl shutters and that tiny little oilradiator min halfway without overheating, even in aircombat on summer times. And so far i didnt see any complains about that. Try that in any other plane and you will overheat like crzy. Even the La5F overheats with these settings and have the same cooling system on a lower performing engine. I know there are some differences but i dont see any airflow when closing the cowls. Sure there are tiny wedges between the exhaust tubes but thats it and should not be enough to aircool a 1850HP engine. Even the 190 with its high pressure aircooling system can not do that, it will overheat in combat for sure at combat power, which is lower then La5 FNs unlimmited boost. And that tiny oilradiator is just a joke. I mean they made the oilcooler outlet flap open wider because i guess it wasnt good enough in the normal La5 with less power. And now we can nearly close that thing without any problems? 75 ish degree oil temperature at 53% radiator setting, Seriously?

 

I dont have a problem with the La5 FNs speed and performance per se i just have a problem with the redicoulisly good cooling performance at high boosts and that it can run forever with such high boost ratings while nearly all other engines are restricted at comparable boosts. As if these engines (Ash82 and-M105s) are from another reality just because they forget to put limits in there manuals lol. Same in the Yak1s for example but at least these are running hot and have to constantly watch temps when closing rads and have to cool off frequently which drops the max possible speed. Which is at least a riskfactor which is completely absent in the La5FN, you just cant overheat that thing with closed cowls and that is telling. 

 

When top speeds are listed in russian manuals, does it mean maximum possible before you overheat which comes fast with insufficient cooling or maximum speed till tank is empty? And to those who think time limits are realistic and should be forced no matter what, what do you then think about a 1min topspeed timer for Yak1bs before overheating starts and destroys your engine in 30 secs or 3min for the same to start when flying a La5 FN? I guess you would not like it and that it would seriously hinder you just like it is with most other planes with there time limits. But it would fit perfectly to this game when we want to keep engine limits. Dont you think so and if not, why? Let me guess, "because manuals" and "logic dont apply here".

 

But why is it more reasonable to model german engines with such limitations when there are contradicting manuals? One Manual mentions a time limit and the other dont. Dont you think it should be noted in every damn manual with a big fat red marker if the consequences are so drastic when not knowing or ignoring them (the time limits). Who decides which manual to use when modeling time limits? Why assume the ones with limitation are more proof then the ones without?

 

But yeah, people will come and tell us otherwise and that everything is perfect. They will lament over knocking, low octane, cylinder heat and all that stuff and that it all makes perfect sense but it just dosent apply to La5s and Yak1s. Im not ignorant and i understand that engines wear and tear but i dont think it is fair how it is modeled ingame. And to make my point clear, just compare unlimited boost pressures and how they correlate with lower RPMs and HP output and you will see a pattern. Almost all nations have restricted there engines to really low power settings but not the russians. So what does that mean? Does it mean the other nations unlimited powersettings are way to low or that the russians had special engines who can be abused all the time? If it means that other nations had them to low, wouldnt that mean it is unrealistic to keep higher boosts highly restricted like we have ingame? Or what if the russians had them to high, shouldnt there be a system that blows there engines randomly then to apply some realism? Or was engine damage for abusing just a thing of the west? Ah right, you dont consider this as abuse when its a russian engine, sure why not. :o

 

Seriuosly, i think russian engines are stressed to the maximum just like any other engine in war and the proof is that some have limitations like the Mig3 for example. And if we model engine damage how its done in the game, we should also add some restriction to the ones without limitations in form of random damage/blowup. I know i know we dont like randomness but it would be fair if we do not apply reasonable short timers to Ash82s and M-105s in any form to model engine wear and tear. Or do you really think that russian engines are so special? Pls explain why and what the difference is that makes these two engines so special amongst all the others.

 

I still think the limits are just to prolong engine life and that western engineers had a different thought then the russians had on how to use these engines. When applying that to a game where everyone has new planes every sorite, we should rethink engine limitations or apply them globally like other games did before. Best case would be some realistic thermodynamic model for every plane individually but thats a lot of work i guess. More costeffective would be to just raise the timers to reasonable times.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Ishtaru