303_Kwiatek Posted March 29, 2018 Posted March 29, 2018 8 minutes ago, L3Pl4K said: Kwiatek can you show the us the document for the 5 min time limit? Just google La5FN manual. There is english translated version and original cirilic around. I showed it in topic about 3.01 new planes performanace.
=362nd_FS=RoflSeal Posted March 29, 2018 Posted March 29, 2018 Also add how Western allies are getting shafted by time limits Spitfire Mk Vb has 16lbs for only 3 minutes when the manual gives 5 minutes, and combat power is for 30 minutes ingame when the manual gives 1 hour. Then when you look at AP. 2095 Pilot's general notes Part II, Paragraph 3ii on interpreting engine limitations 1
Bearcat Posted March 29, 2018 Posted March 29, 2018 Let's keep the personal stuff out of this thread guys.
Panthera Posted March 30, 2018 Posted March 30, 2018 19 hours ago, Dakpilot said: 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 Please list them? The DB605 was able to run at 1.8ata via the use of C3 alone, all it required was some adjustments to the engine.
Dakpilot Posted March 30, 2018 Posted March 30, 2018 26 minutes ago, Panthera said: Please list them? The DB605 was able to run at 1.8ata via the use of C3 alone, all it required was some adjustments to the engine. "some adjustments to the engine" If you think that the DB605 DB/DC series of engines (1,8ATA on C3) that took several years of development are the same as the 'standard' DB605A then I can't help, it is considered a basically completely different engine and was intended as replacement for the A series, there was very little component follow on although a lot of the ancillaries were carried over The DB605 ASM series (developed concurrently with 'D' series due to development difficulties with that engine) that could produce 1.7 ATA on C3 had different (higher) compression ratio, different on each bank, changes to cylinder heads increased oil capacity cooler and many other changes, it took development until june 1944 for the first evaluations on G6 W/Nr 16550 If you really think that it took 2 years of development for Daimler Benz to figure out all you had to do was top up a DB605A with C3 and "make some adjustments" and voila! then your understanding of engines are just too simplistic, and many of your 'assumptions' are based on supposed opinion and not facts at all (I am no DB series engine expert and some of the finer details may not be perfect but I hope you get the gist of what I said, there are some very good and detailed books on Daimler Benz WW2 engines to get the full picture and details) Cheers Dakpilot 1
Panthera Posted March 30, 2018 Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, Dakpilot said: "some adjustments to the engine" If you think that the DB605 DB/DC series of engines (1,8ATA on C3) that took several years of development are the same as the 'standard' DB605A then I can't help, it is considered a basically completely different engine and was intended as replacement for the A series, there was very little component follow on although a lot of the ancillaries were carried over The DB605 ASM series (developed concurrently with 'D' series due to development difficulties with that engine) that could produce 1.7 ATA on C3 had different (higher) compression ratio, different on each bank, changes to cylinder heads increased oil capacity cooler and many other changes, it took development until june 1944 for the first evaluations on G6 W/Nr 16550 If you really think that it took 2 years of development for Daimler Benz to figure out all you had to do was top up a DB605A with C3 and "make some adjustments" and voila! then your understanding of engines are just too simplistic, and many of your 'assumptions' are based on supposed opinion and not facts at all (I am no DB series engine expert and some of the finer details may not be perfect but I hope you get the gist of what I said, there are some very good and detailed books on Daimler Benz WW2 engines to get the full picture and details) Cheers Dakpilot I am definitely no engine expert, that is true. I must go by what I read on that subject, and according to that the DB605 was adjusted to run on C3, which also falls under the category of changing some parts.That said increasing the compression ratio could be done via valve timing, changing the air/fuel mixture and adding more supercharging pressure as a first, or modifying the piston heads and combustion chamber as a second. I don't see this as suddenly making a new engine. I never implied that you could simply take a DB605A and fill it up with C3 and voila you'd have 1.8ata capability. To claim so is putting words into my mouth and a very rude way of conducting a debate. I am not surprised LukeFF features as a supporter of such conduct however. Edited March 30, 2018 by Panthera 1
1CGS LukeFF Posted March 30, 2018 1CGS Posted March 30, 2018 25 minutes ago, Panthera said: I am not surprised LukeFF features as a supporter of such conduct however. Yes, I'll gladly support the person who has years of experience operating high-performance engines in hostile environments, in arguments like this. Simple choice, really.
Panthera Posted March 30, 2018 Posted March 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, LukeFF said: Yes, I'll gladly support the person who has years of experience operating high-performance engines in hostile environments, in arguments like this. Simple choice, really. I don't see what that has to do with the DB605. I've understood what you're all about at this point however and why you like certain posts.
=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 9 hours ago, LukeFF said: Yes, I'll gladly support the person who has years of experience operating high-performance engines in hostile environments, in arguments like this. Simple choice, really. Yes, you are talking about the 3 minute marking in the pictures right? Nice you have finally realized you are wrong.
Holtzauge Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 Just looked at the specs of the DB605DB: Apparently the same engine supports "Sondernotleistung" either with B4 fuel and MW50 or you can run it straight on C3 (See 4th and 5th line from the bottom on attached spec sheet). No modifications needed as far as I can see.... 3
Dakpilot Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Holtzauge said: Just looked at the specs of the DB605DB: Apparently the same engine supports "Sondernotleistung" either with B4 fuel and MW50 or you can run it straight on C3 (See 4th and 5th line from the bottom on attached spec sheet). No modifications needed as far as I can see.... Absolutely But the DB605 D series is a completely different engine to 605A series, it had different cylinder head configuration totally new type of valve train (3 valves instead of four) and was under development for several years since 1942, as a replacement for the A series, the changes are not trivial at all To say that the 605 we have required just C3 fuel and adjustments to get 1.8 ATA is a very far (unreasonable) stretch especially when this "fact" is used in the context of why DB605A is durable enough to maintain 1.42 ATA indefinitely as Panthera maintains with his comments that "Clearly solved any of the issues that had previously been observed running at that boost pressure. " and then goes on to say "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" and "The DB605 was able to run at 1.8ata via the use of C3 alone, all it required was some adjustments to the engine." Quite simply to get 1.8 ATA on C3 required a complete redesign resulting in the D series engine used in G10 and K4 Due to complications in bring the D series to production the A series was modified/developed over several years (concurrently with D series program, sharing some components) extensively to create the AS and AM,ASM series which never produced 1,8 ATA on C3 alone So Yes the D series could run on C3 at 1.8 ATA and with some adjustments be made to run on B4 as well which was useful in the chaotic Luftwaffe fuel situation at the end of the war but all of this is quite irrelevant as to how durable a DB605A was in 1943 running at 1.42 ATA Cheers, Dakpilot Edited March 31, 2018 by Dakpilot 1
JtD Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 Well, the context was that as opposed to B4 with 26 minutes total of MW50 provided, C3 could run 1.8ata for as long as there was fuel. Which is totally correct. It's not his fault you make connections where there are none. As you pointed out, irrelevant as they are 1945, but the ASB/ASC series were DB605A based engines that obtained exactly the same power output as the DB605D. Just like with the DB605D, the B could run 1.8ata on B4+MW50 or on C3 alone, the C was 1.98ata for C3+MW50. These engines powered Bf109G-14's. 1
Blutaar Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 12 hours ago, Panthera said: there are some very good and detailed books on Daimler Benz WW2 engines to get the full picture and details How many books of yours have the 1 min timer mentioned and if so, what do they say about the consquences? 2 hours ago, Holtzauge said: Just looked at the specs of the DB605DB: Apparently the same engine supports "Sondernotleistung" either with B4 fuel and MW50 or you can run it straight on C3 (See 4th and 5th line from the bottom on attached spec sheet). No modifications needed as far as I can see.... And again a document where no time limits for 2600rpm are listed, which should be 1.42 ata or not? I mean sure, Höchstleistung 1.65 ata @ 2800rpm (Max performance) and Kurzleistung 1.43? ata @ 2600rpm (Short power) dosent translate into forever but it either didnt mean your limit is just 1 mins. And if the DB605DB has no time limits, even on B4 fuel, what is the reason for it? I thought B4 fuel is the reason for limited power settings? The one minute destruction timer gets more and more rediculous while still no one seems to have a problem with the cooling efficiency of the La5FN. But 1 min time limit is more reasonable then a never overheating, ever lasting and much more HP producing engine. Sure! This is more of a general answer and not aimed at you Holtzauge.
Holtzauge Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) To me it seems that in the break in procedure the DB605A runs both on gas (Vorlauf 5 min) and B4 fuel (Nachlauf 5 min) at 1.42 ata without blowing up? When I read the break in procedure it seems to say that after the gas “Vorlauf” the gas gear in the test stand is removed and the engine modified by removing the test valves (Einlaufventilen) and exchanging these for “normal” chromated valves. “Einspritzpumpe fur B4-Betrieb” is also mounted and then the engine is run at 1.42 ata for 5 mins with B4 fuel. At least that's how I read the bullets D. E. and F. in the “Pruflaufprogram” but then my English reading skills are far better than my German so I may have misinterpreted something. So with the above in mind I can’t really say I’m surprised if a cockpit dial picture shows up indicating a 3 min limitation. Edited March 31, 2018 by Holtzauge 1
Blutaar Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) Ups i made mistake and have to correct my self. It is not 1.43ata @ 2600 rpm or 1.65ata @2800 rpm for that engine. Its the horsepower which is listed, my bad. So 1850hp @2800 rpm and 1430hp @2600 rpm. Does anyone know at what pressure the 2600rpm setting is? I assume 2800 rpm is 1.8ata and 2600 rpm is 1.42ata then? If it is 1.3 ata combat power why is it listed as Kurzeistung (kurz stands for short)? Edited March 31, 2018 by Ishtaru
Panthera Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 5 hours ago, Dakpilot said: Absolutely But the DB605 D series is a completely different engine to 605A series, it had different cylinder head configuration totally new type of valve train (3 valves instead of four) and was under development for several years since 1942, as a replacement for the A series, the changes are not trivial at all To say that the 605 we have required just C3 fuel and adjustments to get 1.8 ATA is a very far (unreasonable) stretch especially when this "fact" is used in the context of why DB605A is durable enough to maintain 1.42 ATA indefinitely as Panthera maintains with his comments that "Clearly solved any of the issues that had previously been observed running at that boost pressure. " and then goes on to say "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" and "The DB605 was able to run at 1.8ata via the use of C3 alone, all it required was some adjustments to the engine." Quite simply to get 1.8 ATA on C3 required a complete redesign resulting in the D series engine used in G10 and K4 Due to complications in bring the D series to production the A series was modified/developed over several years (concurrently with D series program, sharing some components) extensively to create the AS and AM,ASM series which never produced 1,8 ATA on C3 alone So Yes the D series could run on C3 at 1.8 ATA and with some adjustments be made to run on B4 as well which was useful in the chaotic Luftwaffe fuel situation at the end of the war but all of this is quite irrelevant as to how durable a DB605A was in 1943 running at 1.42 ATA Cheers, Dakpilot You really need to stop putting words into my mouth, it's an incredibly rude and childish way to conduct a debate. Instead take note that where you qouted me I was clearly talking about the later DB605 engines, specifically about their use of MW50 and time limits. At no point did I as much as imply that the DB605A could achieve 1.8ata by simply feeding it with C3 without any modifications. I made that rather clear in my latest response to you as well, and yet you ignore this and proceed to carry on as if I was talking about the DB605A. With that said the DB605 D series doesn't seem to have featured a completely different valve train as you claim, according to engine specification charts it still retained the 4 valves pr. cylinder just as the A series. Instead as I mentioned earlier valve timing was probably adjusted for increased compression ratio, along with possibly modified cylinder heads & combustion chamber.
Willy__ Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 2 hours ago, Panthera said: You really need to stop putting words into my mouth, it's an incredibly rude and childish way to conduct a debate. Thats standard procedure for the forum police, its how they operate. 1
VesseL Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 Well, its very easy to separate manipulation from the real discussion really. Sure nowadays everybody know the diversion tactics that highly manipulative ( or even disordered ) personalities use?? 1
1CGS LukeFF Posted March 31, 2018 1CGS Posted March 31, 2018 14 hours ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said: Yes, you are talking about the 3 minute marking in the pictures right? Nice you have finally realized you are wrong. Where in the world have I ever disputed the evidence regarding that tachometer marking? For the record, I think it's a good piece of evidence for revised engine limits, but that's obviously not my decision to make.
Dakpilot Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 14 hours ago, Panthera said: You really need to stop putting words into my mouth, it's an incredibly rude and childish way to conduct a debate. Instead take note that where you qouted me I was clearly talking about the later DB605 engines, specifically about their use of MW50 and time limits. On 3/29/2018 at 10:17 AM, 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. To get higher boost pressures than 1,42 required 2 years of development and engine changes not just C3, I am not putting words in your mouth merely correcting what I think is another one of your assumptions or generalisations, you never later mention which series of DB605 you are talking about 14 hours ago, Panthera said: With that said the DB605 D series doesn't seem to have featured a completely different valve train as you claim, according to engine specification charts it still retained the 4 valves pr. cylinder just as the A series. Instead as I mentioned earlier valve timing was probably adjusted for increased compression ratio, along with possibly modified cylinder heads & combustion chamber. You mention adjusting valve timing as a way to increase Compression ratio first this does not change static compression ratio which is what is used in engine data, and the only way you get a higher dynamic C/R is by removing all valve overlap which is not something you would do on a high performance engine, here you are just guessing (probably and possibly) and I would say very wrongly, you also mention earlier changing fuel air mixture and blower pressure, this does not change the stated C/R of an engine. If you dont know what you are talking about don't use vagaries and guesses to try and support your argument (do not worry I am not a DB605 expert either) but I do know enough not to use 2017 motorcycle engine as an example of how to run in a 1940's aero engine (hint there are some big differences) As for valve train changes on DB605 D models I got my information from Messerschmitt Bf 109K by Janda and Poruba, but there is no question that the D series had large amount of changes in it's 2+ year development cycle and was not just "possibly modified cylinder heads and combustion chambers" as you so doubtfully explain ( and here you are definitely talking of 'D' series) https://www.japo.eu/products.php?cat=4 I don't have a copy as is out of print and $200+ second hand but a quote is produced here Whether the valve train is 3 or 4 valve I am not knowledgeable enough to say without physical evidence but their books on 109 history and seem to be legit and of sufficient details The second part of special serie “Luftwaffe over Czech territory 1945”. One of the main producers of Messerschmitt 109, Wiener Neustädter Flugzeugwerke and its branch plant Diana located in railway tunnels near Tišnov produced and delivered the famous fighter Bf 109 in G-10/U4 variant nearly until last days of WWII. The new title describes mentioned variant from technical point of view, it brings information about production system in Diana plant, about test flights in Protektorat area and about service by combat units including actions over Czech and Slovak territory. The text part is accompanied by photos and by color profiles of planes from ex-II./JG 51, II./JG 52, ex-I./JG 53, Hungarian 101.vadaszezred and Jagdstaffel ROA, 6 of them are described in detailed 4view drawings Perhaps Janda and Poruba made a mistake ..but they seem to be more informed than me As to a hostile tone, your constant arguing over several pages on MW 50 use on G6 in Kuban time frame with many different posters and seeming endless insistence about use of high ATA/MW 50 on FW 190 A5 fighter version does not give you credibility, neither does using 9 different ways of saying "I am probably guessing" in a single post IF you stopped trying to post in a way that your personal opinions/guesses appear as facts in the FM section (or preferably anywhere) it would be much easier, and I am sure we would agree on more than we disagree, after all is it not a love of aviation in general that brings us here Now as to the 3 minute engine limit, we all know that the 1 minute limit is a 'game function' to stop unrealistic use of 'WEP' and taken from manual of 601 and early/mid 605 up to G6 (with the boost restriction) 3 mins sounds very plausible but a couple of pics with zero context are not really enough for Dev's to make changes The lack of limits in some documents does not make sense in engineering or 'interpretation' of manuals, terms. Should combat power also be unlimited instead of the 30 min limit also? a lack of info is not an absolute that there is no limit As has been said pistons were reinforced to deal with burning through from detonation, this is established knowledge at 1,42 ATA due to the ban, detonation is not normal wear and tear, and to suppose that in latter half of 1943 with the DB605A this issue of 1.42 on B4 being on the edge of reliability disappeared and now was fine for unlimited use, the only downside being overall quicker wear (as suggested by many) does not follow engineering logic I have no issue of 3 mins, but more specific info is needed, however another 90 seconds of boost will not have a great effect as people think, or even be a game changer as regards to flying and fighting in 109G4/G6 that we have have said it before but I have no side in this argument, but it is very tiring when ignorant "Luftwaffe gamers" jump on every thing I ever say that does not support their "cause", there are some who just see bias behind every Dev and server operator and anyone who does not see their point of view on a subject..now that is childish Cheers, Dakpilot 3
JtD Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) It is my impression that it is you who jumps on everything people who you think to be "Luftwaffe gamers" say which does not support your view on what the game / interpretation of history should be like. You appear to be frequently looking for a fight, and it doesn't appear to be for anything but for just antagonizing other people. Sarcastic and/or arrogant remarks mixed with faulty facts is hardly the best way to try and help other members to develop a better understanding of a matter and to eventually possibly reach a common point of view. Not saying that everybody else is charming or that anyone is always right. It is also true that some people see things through tainted spectacles. Still, posting facts, sharing knowledge and patiently explaining things is always the best way for a debate. Which you can do, as you've shown. So I don't get why you frequently don't. 1 hour ago, Dakpilot said: The lack of limits in some documents does not make sense in engineering or 'interpretation' of manuals, terms. Should combat power also be unlimited instead of the 30 min limit also? a lack of info is not an absolute that there is no limit The power settings are not unlimited, they are limited to take off and emergency or combat and climb situations. Pilots who use these power levels without restrictions would much more frequently have to leave/return the aircraft due to mechanical trouble, without enemy interference. This is what the game should try to simulate, instead of taking time limits from manuals and treat them as if they actually were limits back then. One minute, three minutes, five minutes - I don't care, it's all nonsense. Edited April 1, 2018 by JtD 5 1 1
Panthera Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dakpilot said: To get higher boost pressures than 1,42 required 2 years of development and engine changes not just C3, I am not putting words in your mouth merely correcting what I think is another one of your assumptions or generalisations, you never later mention which series of DB605 you are talking about Again you wish to pull stuff from out of thin air, as I again at no point suggested the use of C3 alone allowed the boost pressure to be raised to 1.8ata. What I did say was that to obtain a higher boost pressure demanded the use of C3 or MW50 injection, which is 100% correct. 1 hour ago, Dakpilot said: You mention adjusting valve timing as a way to increase Compression ratio first this does not change static compression ratio which is what is used in engine data, and the only way you get a higher dynamic C/R is by removing all valve overlap which is not something you would do on a high performance engine, here you are just guessing (probably and possibly) and I would say very wrongly, you also mention earlier changing fuel air mixture and blower pressure, this does not change the stated C/R of an engine. If you dont know what you are talking about don't use vagaries and guesses to try and support your argument (do not worry I am not a DB605 expert either) but I do know enough not to use 2017 motorcycle engine as an example of how to run in a 1940's aero engine (hint there are some big differences) Yes there's a very big difference, the main one being that the run in period was a lot more strainful and critical to engines back then than it is nowadays. In other words if a 1940's engine was safely run for 2x 5 min at 1.42ata during its run in period, then you can be sure that it would have handled the same boost pressure even better once properly broken in. As for the compression ratio you should note the following: DB605A Bore: 154mm Stroke: 160mm Displacement: 35.7 L Valves: 2 intake 2 exhaust C/R = 1:7.5/7.3 DB605AM Bore: 154mm Stroke: 160mm Displacement: 35.7 L Valves: 2 intake 2 exhaust C/R = 1:8.5/8.3 DB605AS Bore: 154mm Stroke: 160mm Displacement: 35.7 L Valves: 2 intake 2 exhaust C/R = 1:7.5/7.3 DB605ASM Bore: 154mm Stroke: 160mm Displacement: 35.7 L Valves: 2 intake 2 exhaust C/R = 1:7.5/7.3 DB605DB Bore: 154mm Stroke: 160mm Displacement: 35.7 L Valves: 2 intake 2 exhaust C/R = 1:8.5/8.3 DB605DC Bore: 154mm Stroke: 160mm Displacement: 35.7 L Valves: 2 intake 2 exhaust C/R = 1:8.5/8.3 The above is directly from the engine specification charts, and I hope looking at these you can see where I am coming from in regards to valve timing, boost pressure and air/fuel mixture, as well as the possible modification of the cylinder heads. Finally I think that before you start accusing others of guessing you should stop and consider what it is you're doing yourself, because fact is neither us are sitting with an original DB605 right infront of us that we can simply dissect to answer all possible questions. As such you are as guilty of guessing and going of what you read on this subject as I am, your mistake regarding the valve train being a good example of this. 1 hour ago, Dakpilot said: As to a hostile tone, your constant arguing over several pages on MW 50 use on G6 in Kuban time frame with many different posters and seeming endless insistence about use of high ATA/MW 50 on FW 190 A5 fighter version does not give you credibility, neither does using 9 different ways of saying "I am probably guessing" in a single post I never argued for MW50 in the Fw190. I've argued for 1.65ata Fw190A5's for Kuban, and still am because we have performance charts dating from then (August), the 801D2 also being tested and run at 1.65ata for 10 min without issue. Yet instead we're flying around in 190's limited to 3 min at 1.42ata, whilst La-5FN's are flying around at 1.6ata for 10+ min. As for the 109 I don't remember saying we should have 109's with MW50 for Kuban. I probably asked when MW50 first became available. 1 hour ago, Dakpilot said: have said it before but I have no side in this argument, but it is very tiring when ignorant "Luftwaffe gamers" jump on every thing I ever say that does not support their "cause", there are some who just see bias behind every Dev and server operator and anyone who does not see their point of view on a subject..now that is childish Branding all of those who disagree with you as "Luftwaffe gamers" hardly helps you come across as anything but heavily biased yourself Dak. I can tell you for a fact I am not biased toward any side and fly just as much on the Allied side as I do on the Axis side. Edited April 1, 2018 by Panthera
Dakpilot Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) JTD Well I usually give people at least three goes at ridicule and or rudeness before I "jump on them" you just may not have seen all the sides But then you have also had your fair share of heated arguments and grudges, pot...kettle...black lol hopefully the more detailed interpretation of detonation and engine heating that is planned will help in this regard, however I do feel that if they made it truly realistic as regards engine management a lot of people would be screaming for the old 1-3-5 min limits to come back there comes a point where too much sim gets in the way of an enjoyable experience and random variables are certainly not fun no matter how much "realism" one enjoys Cheers, Dakpilot Edited April 1, 2018 by Dakpilot
Stig Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, JtD said: The power settings are not unlimited, they are limited to take off and emergency or combat and climb situations. Pilots who use these power levels without restrictions would much more frequently have to leave/return the aircraft due to mechanical trouble, without enemy interference. This is what the game should try to simulate, instead of taking time limits from manuals and treat them as if they actually were limits back then. One minute, three minutes, five minutes - I don't care, it's all nonsense. However, this does not take into account other factors that also separate a 'simgame' from RL, such as: Fuel consumption goes up dramatically with the use of higher engine settings; probably modeled, though I've no idea how correctly. RL WWII pilots didn't fly missions where the enemy was met after 5 mins, as a norm; often missions were required flying a longer distance to possibly engage the enemy, and if that went well, they then had to fly home. Using combat or emergency power uncritically, might put you in a precarious position; particularly if there is a considerable stretch of ocean, jungle or barren desert that has to be traversed. Having a refly button in the cockpit, makes a lot of difference for 'virtual' pilots. Edited April 1, 2018 by Stig 1
JtD Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 38 minutes ago, Dakpilot said: hopefully the more detailed interpretation of detonation and engine heating that is planned will help in this regard, however I do feel that if they made it truly realistic as regards engine management a lot of people would be screaming for the old 1-3-5 min limits to come back there comes a point where too much sim gets in the way of an enjoyable experience and random variables are certainly not fun no matter how much "realism" one enjoys Well, this is what difficulty/realism settings are there for. There's no need to top out complexity at a level which in fact isn't 'full real', but just 'most convenient for online play', is there. @Stig: True, fuel consumption plays a minor role in online play, as opposed to real life, where it was hugely important - even on a strategic level. WRT how correctly modelled, in an early version I tested a couple of planes and found near perfect matches with specified historical data. Since then I didn't check any more, because I'm confident the devs get this right.
Blutaar Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Dakpilot said: The lack of limits in some documents does not make sense in engineering or 'interpretation' of manuals, terms. Should combat power also be unlimited instead of the 30 min limit also? And what about no limits in Ash82F/FN and M-105PF? Does that makes sense from an engineering perspective? The problem is not the limits per se it is a problem when you apply double standards. Its totally unlogic that these two engine types are completely different limit wise then all other comparable engine types. So how much sense does it make to you with all your knowledge, that you can abuse these two engines like hell without any downside or negative side effect when pretty much all other enignes cant do that? Just compare continues powermodes and you must see how wrong it is. The current system implys that all other engines are inferior quality wise, even when they can produce more power for a very short duration. Thats insulting to all the great engine manufacturers of the time. And to allow power modes that have a high chance of killing you is not very smart especially in aircombat where you have other things to do like surviving instead of looking at a stopwatch. And guess what the germans did, they reacted to a problem with 1.42 ata and disabled it mechanically. And i guess in certain cases, it was allowed to use but just for one minute. Otherwise the stated limit makes absolutely no sense when you cant use that boost setting anyway, because it is mechanically blocked. So if there are manuals without timelimits out there, just apply them where they belong just like it is done with some russian engines. I think combat modes should only be limited heat wise and not per a detonation timer. And yes, the same for takeoff power, just make it so that such modes produce more heat then they can dissapate in a reasonalbe time for all engines including russian ones if you want to keep some kind of ballance. This would assure that nobody flys at max throttle all day long and would make people actually think and care about how they use the engines. If thats to much to ask for and time limits stay as they are, then i would think we deserve an option to disable engine timer completely in the game options. This wouldnt affect anyone who thinks the timers are realistic but it would affect people in a positive way who dont believe in strict time limits like a religious dogma because of reason. 1 hour ago, Dakpilot said: however I do feel that if they made it truly realistic as regards engine management a lot of people would be screaming for the old 1-3-5 min limits to come back If it would be really realistic, mainly the reds would cry out loud and of course wishes that the old system comes back because they acually benefit from the current system. Or do you think closing rads in a FN makes any sense while running max boost like it is now or that a Yak1 can constantly run at 114° water temp and oiltmeps without any donwside? Edited April 1, 2018 by Ishtaru 1
Dakpilot Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 31 minutes ago, Panthera said: Yes there's a very big difference, the main one being that the run in period was a lot more strainful and critical to engines back then than it is nowadays. In other words if a 1940's engine was safely run for 2x 5 min at 1.42ata during its run in period, then you can be sure that it would have handled the same boost pressure even better once properly broken in. This was discussed in a thread before, running an aero engine in at high power is a critical part of the process to avoid glazing and to seat the rings properly, I posted details on this, and still stand that running on a bench is very different to operational, and correct running in is not going to make it handle boost pressure any more than it was designed to 31 minutes ago, Panthera said: The above is directly from the engine specification charts, and I hope looking at these you can see where I am coming from in regards to valve timing, boost pressure and air/fuel mixture, as well as the possible modification of the cylinder heads I still don't get what you are on about regards air fuel mixture boost pressure and valve timing changing the C/R, or your doubt that the cylinder heads were modified/changed during the two + year development of D series and AM 38 minutes ago, Panthera said: Finally I think that before you start accusing others of guessing you should stop and consider what it is you're doing yourself, because fact is neither us are sitting with an original DB605 right infront of us that we can simply dissect to answer all possible questions. As such you are as guilty of guessing and going of what you read on this subject as I am, your mistake regarding the valve train being a good example of this. I don't think quoting a respectable source is the same as guessing, but if they are wrong fair enough, where did you get the Original DB605 series spec charts am sure they would be valuable info to all 44 minutes ago, Panthera said: Branding all of those who disagree with you as "Luftwaffe gamers" hardly helps you come across as anything but heavily biased yourself Dak. saying "when ..."some" jump on everything I ever say" is not the same as branding anyone or everyone who disagrees with me, maybe it is my language However, if the shoe fits, then wear it I am just as intolerant of P-51 won the War/Spitfire is the best aircraft ever built/P-40E should be an equal to 109 because flying tigers/ P-40F/N performance and the overly patriotic Russian who believes too much propaganda or is a bit revisionist with Stalin/T-34/Yak-3/Soviet history but the overwhelming noise here is about luftwaffe aircraft/bias so it is not surprising it crops up more 1 hour ago, Panthera said: I can tell you for a fact I am not biased toward any side and fly just as much on the Allied side as I do on the Axis side. Glad to hear it Cheers, Dakpilot
Holtzauge Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 12 minutes ago, Dakpilot said: <snip> This was discussed in a thread before, running an aero engine in at high power is a critical part of the process to avoid glazing and to seat the rings properly, I posted details on this, and still stand that running on a bench is very different to operational, and correct running in is not going to make it handle boost pressure any more than it was designed to Sorry I find that hard to believe: An engine is run in at 2 x 5 min at 1.42 ata and then after it get’s delivered, installed and operational it has to be babied and on no account run for more than 1 min at 1.42 ata or else it get’s ruined? Really? 5
Dakpilot Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ishtaru said: And what about no limits in Ash82F/FN and M-105PF? Does that makes sense from an engineering perspective? The problem is not the limits per se it is a problem when you apply double standards. Its totally unlogic that these two engine types are completely different limit wise then all other comparable engine types. So how much sense does it make to you with all your knowledge, that you can abuse these two engines like hell without any downside or negative side effect when pretty much all other enignes cant do that? Just compare continues powermodes and you must see how wrong it is. The current system implys that all other engines are inferior quality wise, even when they can produce more power for a very short duration. Thats insulting to all the great engine manufacturers of the time. And to allow power modes that have a high chance of killing you is not very smart especially in aircombat where you have other things to do like surviving instead of looking at a stopwatch. And guess what the germans did, they reacted to a problem with 1.42 ata and disabled it mechanically. And i guess in certain cases, it was allowed to use but just for one minute. Otherwise the stated limit makes absolutely no sense when you cant use that boost setting anyway, because it is mechanically blocked. So if there are manuals without timelimits out there, just apply them where they belong just like it is done with some russian engines. I think combat modes should only be limited heat wise and not per a detonation timer. And yes, the same for takeoff power, just make it so that such modes produce more heat then they can dissapate in a reasonalbe time for all engines including russian ones if you want to keep some kind of ballance. This would assure that nobody flys at max throttle all day long and would make people actually think and care about how they use the engines. If thats to much to ask for and time limits stay as they are, then i would think we deserve an option to disable engine timer completely in the game options. This wouldnt affect anyone who thinks the timers are realistic but it would affect people in a positive way who dont believe in strict time limits like a religious dogma because of reason. If it would be really realistic, mainly the reds would cry out loud and of course wishes that the old system comes back because they acually benefit from the current system. Or do you think closing rads in a FN makes any sense while running max boost like it is now or that a Yak1 can constantly run at 114° water temp and oiltmeps without any donwside? I can understand the frustration But let's just look at the Klimov M105PF for example Vs DB605A It is of similar cubic capacity to DB605 but makes 1250hp maximum on 95 or 100 octane fuel whereas the DB605A makes 1475 hp on 87 octane fuel if you were to put 95 octane in the DB and run it at 1250hp (about 1.27-8 ATA?) it will also run all day there is no magic Russian "Stalinium" engine tech, the klimov is just less stressed and running on better octane fuel allowing fairly high MP without detonation, one can also reason that the 605 is basically a bored out 601 which had come to the end of its performance design limits at that cubic capacity There is a reason for the performance difference between German and Russian in climb and many other important regimes Russian engines (most) were designed for more basically trained aircrew and for simple operation 29 minutes ago, Holtzauge said: Sorry I find that hard to believe: An engine is run in at 2 x 5 min at 1.42 ata and then after it get’s delivered, installed and operational it has to be babied and on no account run for more than 1 min at 1.42 ata or else it get’s ruined? Really? We all know that the 1 minute is a 'game function' timer and how this also works on British and American engines but there is plenty of evidence of 601 and 605 engines self destructing due to detonation to enforce bans of 1.42 ATA and a 1 minute limit in manual at times in their lives, it was close to engine design limits, and even clockwork limited on 601 Cheers, Dakpilot Edited April 1, 2018 by Dakpilot 1
Holtzauge Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Dakpilot said: <snip> but there is plenty of evidence of 601 and 605 engines self destructing due to detonation to enforce bans of 1.42 ATA and a 1 minute limit in manual at times in their lives, it was close to engine design limits, and even clockwork limited on 601 Is there? I thought the reason 1.42 ata was blocked early on the DB605 was due to problems with the oil pump not detonation? Edited April 1, 2018 by Holtzauge
Dakpilot Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 15 minutes ago, Holtzauge said: Is there? I thought the reason 1.42 ata was blocked early on the DB605 was due to problems with the oil pump not detonation? DB605A Pistons were changed with thicker crowns due to burning through from detonation, there is also some evidence that spark plugs that could cope with 1.42 ATA were not available until Aug 43 which also caused detonation issues until implemented, and were also a problem for 1,8ATA until new plugs were available for that purpose in late 44 The oil issues and oil aeration problems were separate and as you say not detonation related **edit** I think I need to stop with the DB stuff as people will start to think I am obsessed Cheers, Dakpilot
Stig Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 1 hour ago, JtD said: True, fuel consumption plays a minor role in online play, as opposed to real life, where it was hugely important - even on a strategic level. WRT how correctly modelled, in an early version I tested a couple of planes and found near perfect matches with specified historical data. Since then I didn't check any more, because I'm confident the devs get this right. Good to know, my own 'tests' have been of a less scientific standard However, did your test start with cold engine, thus include warming up and taxiing? I ask because there is a P-39 debate raging in another forum and here it is mentioned that the P-39 with 87 gallons internal used about 1/3 of it's fuel warming up, taxiing, takeoff and climb to 25,000 ft (from memory)! I haven't tried with the P-39, but my initial impression when trying with the say the Fw 190 cold start, that the fuel consumption during warmup- takeoff is not that great. Different engines, so that may play a role. Sorry for the topic diversion.
Blutaar Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 Why not compare it to the allison engine or a merlin or any other non german engine? Sure, 1250hp is less but you compare it with Notleistung and not with max continues. I bet that at continues you will end up with much less horsepower and even at combat power it would only produce slightly more if at all. And still the Yak1b for example is slightly faster while having bigger wings, bigger rads and is havier(?). It lose in the vertical because the 109 is lightweight and less draggy i ssume. I mean, 1475 horsepower sounds massive but its not really useful when you just have 1 minute. How much of it is left when we compare max continues mode? Or waht is left in combat mode (1310HP)? And still, the Yak1b is slightly faster at less horsepower. That would mean the 109 is a bad airframe when it comes to drag and weight i guess? But wasnt that part of the downside for the high performance of 109s, the lightweight consturction and worse turning and all that? And the fact that the 109 climbs better then the Yak1b just proofs that the 109 wasnt a draggy design but it needed more then continues power in order to do that which is limited. Shouldnt bigger wings not produce more drag? Im no expert but i allways thought that the price for better turning aircraft is less topseed. And no, i dont consider Notleistung as topspeed because its useless. I use it more for accelration at low speeds because you cant really use it otherwise. Thats why i have a probloem with these two engines. Sure, it could have something to do with a wrong heat model. If i look at the Yak7b for example, it will overheat so drastically that you can hold max speed for just a short amount of time. And look how massive the radiator is compared to the one in the Yak1b. Guess which one is faster. Its the Yak1b with its smaller radiator that is also more efficient while closing it to just 35%. And the FN is a complete different story. It not only has more horsepower but it also has no heat. This combined makes that plane just ridicolous. I mean even without boost this plane is faster then any other plane at more horsepower, rpm and boost pressure then the 190s can prduce at 30min combat mode. And the 190 uses C3 Fuel which has at least 95 octane. So there we have it again. More stress on the engine with absolutely no negative sideffect like heating, blowing up or drag. I just dont buy it. 52 minutes ago, Dakpilot said: if you were to put 95 octane in the DB and run it at 1250hp (about 1.27-8 ATA?) it will also run all day No i dont think that in real life it was really limited for 30 minutes and would blow. How would anyone make sure to not exceed the limit without a stopwatch? I mean it would be more difficult then to not exceed a 1 minute timer. After 27 mins at combat power fot example, you would might have forgotten that you are 3 minutes before the fatal blowup. That just makes no sense to me im sorry. I understand that engines are different but the is not just a small difference. I mean i really dont want to be seen as a Luftgamer/whiner, i fly all the planes and enjoy both, the Yak1b and the FN but i just cant accept the engine differences while all other engines are in line with each other more or less. They overheat or they have strict time limits. Sorry for my brain thinking different it seems. 2
Holtzauge Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Dakpilot said: <snip>DB605A Pistons were changed with thicker crowns due to burning through from detonation, there is also some evidence that spark plugs that could cope with 1.42 ATA were not available until Aug 43 which also caused detonation issues until implemented, and were also a problem for 1,8ATA until new plugs were available for that purpose in late 44 The oil issues and oil aeration problems were separate and as you say not detonation related Well I find it hard to believe it was a detonation problem that held back the 1.42 ata clearance since they ran the engine at that boost during run in for 5 min with B4 fuel. Or are you saying the run in was done with a detonating engine? No doubt there were cases in the field when you had engines that were ruined due to detonation: If you run an engine too hot for to long period of time then it may start to detonate. So I'm sure some overzealous LW pilots mistreated their engines and ruined them by running them too long and too hot so I would not be surprised that there are documented cases of burned through pistons but if you keep within limits the run in test tells us you can run a DB605A at 1.42 ata for 5 min at least without detonation. That's unless you think the run in was done with a detonating engine? 1 1 1
JtD Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 Speaking of the La-5FN, I just checked manuals about the La-5FN and Ash82FN. I found several that list 5 minute limits for WEP, dated 1944 to 1947. I found one with what could be a 5, 10 or 15 minute limit for WEP, dated 1944 (degraded original, unclear scan, can't tell). I found none that clearly states the 10 minute limit we use in game. I also have none from 1943. Can someone please point me to a primary source giving 10 minutes? I'm sure I've seen it before, I just don't remember where...while typing I remembered: a La-7 manual. So in fact I've never seen a document giving 10 minutes WEP allowance for the La-5FN. FWIW, I flew a fuel tank dry in 1st gear at maximum nominal boost/rpm and ran out of fuel after about 45 minutes. According to the manual, I should have run out after about 45 minutes. Again a good match with historical fuel consumption data. It's really not worth testing, it's just reliably well done.
Panthera Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Holtzauge said: Well I find it hard to believe it was a detonation problem that held back the 1.42 ata clearance since they ran the engine at that boost during run in for 5 min with B4 fuel. Or are you saying the run in was done with a detonating engine? No doubt there were cases in the field when you had engines that were ruined due to detonation: If you run an engine too hot for to long period of time then it may start to detonate. So I'm sure some overzealous LW pilots mistreated their engines and ruined them by running them too long and too hot so I would not be surprised that there are documented cases of burned through pistons but if you keep within limits the run in test tells us you can run a DB605A at 1.42 ata for 5 min at least without detonation. That's unless you think the run in was done with a detonating engine? I also suspect that the issue with burn throughs was due to pilots running at 1.42ata for a very long time, not thinking it would do the engine any harm. Furthermore the issue completely disappears from discussion in German reports after the addition of the new piston heads, proving that burn throughs were a thing of the past after that point. The more serious problem that kept 1.42ata from being cleared, and probably was the main reason behind the ban in the first place, was the aeration of the oil. Once this last issue had been solved with the new oil cooler the engine was not only cleared for 1.42ata, but apparently also without any time limit on its usage. It was apparently then left as being up to the individual squadrons to decide upon what instructions they would give to the pilots in order to ensure that engines weren't worn out faster than replacement engines could be delivered. 5 hours ago, Dakpilot said: I still don't get what you are on about regards air fuel mixture boost pressure and valve timing changing the C/R, or your doubt that the cylinder heads were modified/changed during the two + year development of D series and AM The compression ratio can be increased via those measures, and I never doubted that the cylinder heads were modified for the D series, instead I actually listed that as another possible modification. However as you can see the AM featured the same listed compression ratio as the D series for running on C3, the AM instead achieving 1.7ata on C3 alone and 1.8ata with MW50. Btw the engine specification charts can all be found over on Kurfurst's site. Edited April 1, 2018 by Panthera
Barnacles Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 7 hours ago, Ishtaru said: I think combat modes should only be limited heat wise and not per a detonation timer. And yes, the same for takeoff power, just make it so that such modes produce more heat then they can dissapate in a reasonalbe time for all engines including russian ones if you want to keep some kind of ballance. This would assure that nobody flys at max throttle all day long and would make people actually think and care about how they use the engines. If thats to much to ask for and time limits stay as they are, then i would think we deserve an option to disable engine timer completely in the game options. This wouldnt affect anyone who thinks the timers are realistic but it would affect people in a positive way who dont believe in strict time limits like a religious dogma because of reason. In Quick Mission you can select the 'unbreakable' option and run max power for ever without the engine incurring damage. Many planes, e.g, the P40 and 109s do incur a lot of heat. With the P40 on a hot map with unbreakable on you'll quicky overheat the engine even on 100% rad (which is really draggy). The 109s will end up with their radiators wide open too. The LA5 FN thouh is really difficult to overheat. I personally really hated the artificial increase in heat that 1946 and CloD (at some stage) did, but with a lot of the planes here you are limited by the heat generation as modelled, even if they disabled the 'engine timers'. Just not the LA5 FN Also a lot of the maps people encounter are relatively cold. On Coconut's server there was a ridiculously hot map, and it was a challenge to even keep an il2 in the air witout oveheating.
Dakpilot Posted April 2, 2018 Posted April 2, 2018 15 hours ago, Panthera said: I also suspect that the issue with burn throughs was due to pilots running at 1.42ata for a very long time, not thinking it would do the engine any harm. Furthermore the issue completely disappears from discussion in German reports after the addition of the new piston heads, proving that burn throughs were a thing of the past after that point. The more serious problem that kept 1.42ata from being cleared, and probably was the main reason behind the ban in the first place, was the aeration of the oil. Once this last issue had been solved with the new oil cooler the engine was not only cleared for 1.42ata, but apparently also without any time limit on its usage. It was apparently then left as being up to the individual squadrons to decide upon what instructions they would give to the pilots in order to ensure that engines weren't worn out faster than replacement engines could be delivered. The compression ratio can be increased via those measures, and I never doubted that the cylinder heads were modified for the D series, instead I actually listed that as another possible modification. However as you can see the AM featured the same listed compression ratio as the D series for running on C3, the AM instead achieving 1.7ata on C3 alone and 1.8ata with MW50. Btw the engine specification charts can all be found over on Kurfurst's site. I also suspect probably but apparently also without any time limit it was apparently then You are at it again, inventing a narrative based on guesses Your new assumption that Luftwaffe Pilots did not understand how their engines worked, as a reason for the 1.42 ban is a bit preposterous, especially seeing as there was 1 minute limit imposed in the manual at this time, or do you think the 1 minute limit was added after the addendum for the ban and lockout for possible use, which also rather begs the question why the 1 minute if it ran happily on the bench/run in for 5 as is suggested (perhaps we should actually be looking for other bench test/runs as further evidence for other engine limits or consider that the leap of logic that a single document on run in procedure is a bit of a stretch to apply it to all DB605 series engines during the long development/production cycle) It would be interesting to ponder what the max boost/ATA other countries were able to run reliably on 87 octane fuel as this is the crux of the matter Daimler Benz had to deal with (in another thread) notwithstanding the oiling issues which are not a direct issue from boost The fact that you continue to suggest C/R can be/was changed by valve timing /Fuel mixture and boost totally shows your lack of understanding/knowledge of how aero engines really work, you have also said multiple times that the heads were 'possibly' modified which in any language is implying doubt that this was a so, (not everyone is knowledgeable in all fields including me, which is fine, every pilot started from their first solo) but the continued arguing from a point of lack of knowledge and apparent habit of making thing up as you go along to support your assumptions/point of view makes any further discussion rather pointless I shall leave you to carry on Cheers, Dakpilot 1
Panthera Posted April 2, 2018 Posted April 2, 2018 (edited) Quote Your new assumption that Luftwaffe Pilots did not understand how their engines worked, as a reason for the 1.42 ban is a bit preposterous, especially seeing as there was 1 minute limit imposed in the manual at this time, or do you think the 1 minute limit was added after the addendum for the ban and lockout for possible use, which also rather begs the question why the 1 minute if it ran happily on the bench/run in for 5 as is suggested I ofcourse suspect that the 1 min limit was added after the first report on piston burn throughs since I am unable to find a manual with the 1 min limit from before the time of that report. As for the 2x 5 min run in periods, the document listing this procedure this is dated november 1943, which is well after 1.42ata was cleared for use. 1 hour ago, Dakpilot said: The fact that you continue to suggest C/R can be/was changed by valve timing /Fuel mixture and boost totally shows your lack of understanding/knowledge of how aero engines really work, you have also said multiple times that the heads were 'possibly' modified which in any language is implying doubt that this was a so, (not everyone is knowledgeable in all fields including me, which is fine, every pilot started from their first solo) but the continued arguing from a point of lack of knowledge and apparent habit of making thing up as you go along to support your assumptions/point of view makes any further discussion rather pointless That is because you keep thinking of static C/R whilst I am talking about dynamic C/R where valve timing, piston speed, fuel/air mixture & boost pressure comes into play. Finally I at no point "made anything up", but we can add this to your now increasingly long list of rash/childish insults. Infact since one can't have a debate with you without you turning it personal with insults left and right I am glad you have decided any further discussion is pointless. I just hope for your sake that you communicate differently in the real world. Edited April 2, 2018 by Panthera 1
JtD Posted April 2, 2018 Posted April 2, 2018 Most likely detonation occurred under conditions more challenging than the conditions in the lab during type testing. It's one thing to run a new, well tuned engine 5 minutes at 1.42ata under standard atmospheric conditions, it's another thing to run 1.42ata at all when outside temperatures are 25K higher and valve timing, fuel metering and ignition timing are set to be just inside the tolerances, with critical parts like spark plugs being of poor quality. You don't need the pilot to abuse an engine, you just need adverse conditions. Given that one of the first measures undertaken to remove the/a cause was to cool the spark plugs and to change the type of spark plugs, illustrates that the problem wasn't pilot abuse, but of an unexpected technical nature under front line conditions.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now