Can't boil the water in the Spit IX :-)

[69th_chuter]

7 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

The point is that game instrument  IAS =/= RL IAS, because while RL instruments are subject to position error the game ones are not. ...

 

Ahhh - YES, you are absolutely correct.  (I commented just before going to bed.)  Along these lines another thing we don't have in game is Magnetic Variation (Declination).  How convenient is it for navigation to have magnetic north be true north instead of about -7°.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

1 hour ago, =FEW=Herne said:

Thinking about it, if it was a known problem, wouldn't you expect to see some reference in the pilot notes ? something like "Be careful to keep an eye on your temperature while climbing vertically" ?

You mean a note like "remember to keep sufficient airflow to radiators to provide optimal cooling ?". You dont need note or paper for that. You need brain. Every engine, be it air-cooled radial or liquid-cooled inline engine will overheat eventually under conditions such as indicated in OP. 18 lbs / 3000 RPM with a climb only a bit above stall speed is not a smart idea.

[Herne]

3 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

You mean a note like "remember to keep sufficient airflow to radiators to provide optimal cooling ?". You dont need note or paper for that. You need brain. Every engine, be it air-cooled radial or liquid-cooled inline engine will overheat eventually under conditions such as indicated in OP. 18 lbs / 3000 RPM with a climb only a bit above stall speed is not a smart idea.

 

For extended periods I would agree, for maximising an emergency climb, yes I'd expect the temperature to be above nominal, but I wouldn't expect it to die within seconds. Otherwise they would never be able to "scramble"

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, I dont think engine should immediately fail either. Problem is that OP cant overheat Spitfire at all and that is something very different. Another example could be P-40 E, where Allison also doesnt overheat.  

[Herne]

12 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Well, I dont think engine should immediately fail either. Problem is that OP cant overheat Spitfire at all and that is something very different. Another example could be P-40 E, where Allison also doesnt overheat.  

 

P40 went into the red for me last night on coconuts server. I had to open the radiator a little. 
or are you saying that you cannot damage the Allison through overheating ?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yeah, occasionally it does. But its generally set and forget aircraft, where you open radiator flaps to 10-13 % and can forget about it. And try to overheat it on the ground. 

And yes, fact that your engine will seize to operate due to artificial limits before any indication of problems appears due to excessive oil or coolant temperatures or excessive oil pressure also dont seem to be most accurate. 

[Herne]

Wasn't there a real danger of using too much boost or over revving at low level with the Allison engine ? throwing a cam rod, or damaging pistons or valves ?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Sure. But you get no feedback in form of detonations or other effects pilot could notice. Thats why this timer feels artificial. 

 

But all that is unrelated to Spitfire thread. 

[Panthera]

5 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

Yes, and TBH my impression is that the overheating has historically been a bit overmodeled in general in flight sims from the very beginning. I would guess that IRL overheating is in general not much of a problem unless you are going really slow on a hot day with high boost. So the reason you don't have any pilot complaints is most likely due to them not going that slow and most likely not climbing at WEP for prolonged periods of time. What I do find strange though is the ability right now to climb the in-game Mk9 and G14 at speeds where you are hanging by the prop and  barely have roll control from SL to 5000 m at WEP without overheating.

 

Yes that is indeed a bit strange, makes you wonder how or wether they at all have modelled the effects that changes in airflow has on the radiators cooling capacity.

 

 

[Ehret]

28 minutes ago, =FEW=Herne said:

Wasn't there a real danger of using too much boost or over revving at low level with the Allison engine ? throwing a cam rod, or damaging pistons or valves ?

 

Over-rev would seize the engine quickly. However, the V-1710 has quite high red-line at over 3100rpm so this shouldn't happen that often. (in the game you can use the extra 100rpm for an advantage in P-40 and P-39 if you are careful)

Low revs + high-boost mean detonation and engine seizure, shortly.

High revs + even more boost - the same as above.

Anything below but over the nominal would accelerate engine wear - shouldn't result in catastrophic failure, thought.

 

To go away with timers we need modeled detonation and logistic between sorties. So, you could fly whole sortie on the WEP but the next one would be with weaker engine.

Edited June 2, 2018 by Ehret

[Herne]

Ok, I just did some testing with the intention of breaking the spit. Quick mission start from parked I basically tried to keep it in a stalled state with max throttle and rpm, even with the steep attitude on the edge of the stall it climbs too well for the purposes of the test. At 9k Boost was dropping off, kind of ruining the test.

I was able to get the temperature above 130, but not approaching 135. 

Second test on a hunch I climbed to 40k with the merlin 66 starting from 6k meters. Full RPM full throttle, about 0 boost at this alt I pulled the stick right back and held it there.

I couldn't get the temperature into the danger zone riding the spin all the way down to 1k feet. I did have to reduce rpm though due to dangerous oscilations on the RPM, it was going well above 3k rpm at high altitude.

 

This was on kuban summer map

[unreasonable]

If you set up a mission on a nice hot day in the ME - I chose 35 deg C, take off, and then climb as close as you can to the climb settings +12/2850 at 160-180 IAS your coolant temperatures will rise to about 120 degrees and oil to 90. The PN limits for these are 125 and 90.  When I tried on the Winter Moscow QMB map the temps reached about 117 and 87.

 

So in normal use - a long climb to altitude - the temperatures get up to about the maximum allowed on a hot day. If they went over in RL, this would probably indicate a fault. This is exactly what I would expect given that the Spitfire was designed as an interceptor capable of sustained climb. The recommended settings are given so that the aircraft does not overheat, among other things.

 

If it is thought that the more extreme tests show a problem - and I am going to inanely ask for data showing that RL Spitfires overheated in these test regimes - then the question has to be asked: can changes be made that will not wreck what appears to be entirely predictable behaviour when the Spitfire is flown as intended?  There is absolutely no point modeling extreme and bizarre circumstances if that makes the sim incapable of modeling normal operational flying.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by unreasonable

[unreasonable]

I always wondered about the utility of these extra reaction emoticons.  If Dr_Molem is confused, could he not simply ask for clarification about the specific point(s) that he finds confusing?

 

 

[Guest deleted@50488]

Well,  I see your point unreasonable, but when I used these extreme showcases I was just trying to push the simulation engine to a limit that could actually make it "come alive"

 

I started by flying the aircraft in less than recommended ways, like low speed in Summer days, or abusing power settings... Since it didn't produce any nasty effects, I wanted to check how far I could go unpunished, and I found I could actually go very far.

 

For me, and from a systems simulation perspective, and since I believe in the heat of a dogfight or in a "desperate mission" scenario,  pilots can be tempted to take their machines to the limits, or in cases they are beginners and forget to adhere to the best practices, I find important that such decisions can simulate the plausible outcomes.

 

I really don't even guess how BoX implements these particular aspects of engine modelling, how deep it goes in the simulation of the various subsystems and their interaction, the thermodynamics, etc..., but since in other models we can see it working more effectively, like in the Yaks, why not in other models too ? I also miss these "hot" effects in the MEs and in the FWs.

Edited June 3, 2018 by jcomm-in-combat

[unreasonable]

I expect no-one has an issue with the sim replicating overheating in conditions where overheating was observed in RL - either in tests or even anecdotally.  In the case of the Mk I or V Spitfire, for instance, I am fairly sure I have read accounts where exactly that happens either on waiting for take off or in flight when full power is applied and the pilot forgets about his radiators.

 

The Spitfire IX has an enlarged cooling area and fully automatic radiators. I assume because the designers learned for earlier incidents, as well as in adjusting for the greater heat output of a more powerful engine.  If anyone has tests or anecdotes about Spitfire IXs overheating, they have yet to be posted on the forum. 

I welcome anyone testing the sim in any way they want if that is how they like to have fun with the sim: I do it too. Done well, it acts to establish what happens in the sim in a systematic and repeatable way.  I have no issue with your tests - obviously they have stimulated me to go and do a few of my own.  It is perfectly OK in my book to ask the question 'Is this XYZ in the sim right?"     All part of the fun for those of us who have tired of pretending to kill one another.   

 

What I have a problem with is people assuming certain outcomes, claiming that they are "common sense", and then assuming that if the test does not match their assumptions, the sim is incorrect.  It is much more likely, ceteris paribus, that their assumptions are incorrect. Which is why people who think the modeling is in some way incorrect need to justify their assumptions. 

[Herne]

Random thought. At 25 IBS boost I assume the cooling system was pretty much unchanged ? Stands to reason at full power in abusive situations that it would run hotter ?

[unreasonable]

4 hours ago, =FEW=Herne said:

Random thought. At 25 IBS boost I assume the cooling system was pretty much unchanged ? Stands to reason at full power in abusive situations that it would run hotter ?

 

Perhaps. I hesitate to get in between the experts and their food, but a quick search provides this test of Spitfire IX speed and climb trials. They do not even bother to mention temperatures. Note that they include tests of a climb to 30,000ft with the radiators fully shut.

 

Sometimes absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html 

[Herne]

11 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Perhaps. I hesitate to get in between the experts and their food, but a quick search provides this test of Spitfire IX speed and climb trials. They do not even bother to mention temperatures. Note that they include tests of a climb to 30,000ft with the radiators fully shut.

 

Sometimes absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html 

 

 

woah !!

[Holtzauge]

5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

Perhaps. I hesitate to get in between the experts and their food, but a quick search provides this test of Spitfire IX speed and climb trials. They do not even bother to mention temperatures. Note that they include tests of a climb to 30,000ft with the radiators fully shut.

 

Sometimes absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html 

 

Maybe you should read through the "evidence" before you post it: The temperature is as you say not listed but the trials took place from 24th November to 5th January 1944 which does provide a clue to what the temperatures encountered during the climb tests were and that most likely they were more concerned with encountering icing than cooling problems.

 

So how does this piece of data prop up that the in-game Spitfire Mk9 does not overheat while prop hanging in summer conditions again? I probably missed something with the smug expert reference and "Sometimes absence of evidence really is evidence of absence" part because I can't connect the dots between the data here. But maybe that is due to my simplistic common sense approach when I should in fact be looking at the "data"......

[unreasonable]

Instead of speculating about the effect of the temperatures at the time the tests were made, why not look at the data? 

 

UK average temperatures for January - the coldest month - are 6 degrees C. That is for the whole 24 hours: daily highs are typically 8 degrees.  August average is 19, typical highs 21: ie about 13 degrees higher for both average and daily high.  The UK climate is not very extreme. If you want you can even read the monthly weather reports for 1944 - they are all online, in which case you will find that January 1944 was the mildest for a decade or so.

 

That is roughly equivalent to a 6 - 7,000ft difference out of a climb test to  30,000ft compared to the tests taking place in August, using the 2 degrees per 1,000ft rule of thumb.   We are not talking about a test on a winter Moscow map here: I very much doubt that the date would have made any material difference for tests in the UK unless the conditions were quite exceptional.  

 

But as I can see that you have got cross, I will not reply further. If you think there is something wrong go ahead, document it and send it in. 

[Holtzauge]

Oh nice, a Parthian arrow! Anyway, thanks for the UK climate info: January test data at 6-8 deg C sounds like just the thing to prop up the current Spitfire Mk9 in-game overheat modeling for prophanging in summer conditions.

[thrila]

The report linked below isn't the one I recall reading a few years ago which gave radiator suitability figures for the spitfire IX operating at +25 boost with radiators closed. This was in the form of a ratio (a figure higher than 1.00 was deemed suitable).  I had hoped it was floating on the internet somewhere but I cannot find it. However the report below does touch on cooling suitability.

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/JL165-Rolls-Royce.pdf

 

 

[unreasonable]

Certainly relevant - thanks for link.

 

I note on page 2 "Test carried out to date have shown that the cooling at combat ratings is satisfactory for Tropical Summer Maximum conditions." and also "This feature is also noticeable ..... operating at +25lbs boost".

 

But I agree that it is still possible that if anyone had ever climbed a Spitfire IX at only 100mph for several minutes they might have had a problem. But how can we ever know? Did it ever happen?

 

 

 

[ACG_Smokejumper]

On 6/1/2018 at 10:26 AM, LukeFF said:

 

ww2aircraft.net has almost all the pilot manuals you'll ever want to download, free of charge. There's no reason to pay for them somewhere else.

 

 

Neato!

 

Thanks for that.

On 6/2/2018 at 8:06 AM, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Yeah, occasionally it does. But its generally set and forget aircraft, where you open radiator flaps to 10-13 % and can forget about it. And try to overheat it on the ground. 

And yes, fact that your engine will seize to operate due to artificial limits before any indication of problems appears due to excessive oil or coolant temperatures or excessive oil pressure also dont seem to be most accurate. 

 

 

Which is correct. Above 175 MPH you can close the radiator fully. On hot maps I sometimes have to open it a little. I can't find exactly where I found that info as it is not in the pilots manual here:

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/35383383/Pilot-training-manual-for-the-P40

 

Page 44 is neat though. Gives you hot and cold engine tips.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Forget it guys... Now I know why I can't boil it... 

 

A whole week here at Reading, and I already found out by self experience why it's impossible to boil anything around here... Oh my Hot Portugal ?

 

Were the flight tests all run in the UK ?  It's freeeeeezing guys ! 

 

On Thursday visiting the Berkshire Aviation Museum ?  Maybe I can see some nifty ww2 stuff around there ?

Edited June 5, 2018 by jcomm-in-combat

[9./JG27MAD-MM]

The Spitfire Watercooler was more efficient then 109s, but overheat Trouble of the Spitfire not comes  from the Cooler it self, it was the placement and Construction of the Cooler.

109 use Watercooler with Boundary Layer Suction, what is the Turbulent Airstream Dissolves from the Wing. 

That's why is little bit funny when the Yak Flaps get pushed back at higher speeds in the Prop wash and Boundary Layer of the Wing in exact same Position,  would more likely a unpleasant flutter of the Flaps, but its what it is....

When you interested CFD analytics of the Planes and its aerodynamic flaws of the main western WW2 Fighter.

http://a.moirier.free.fr/Conception/Conception/Charge alaire/World War II fighter aerodynamics.pdf

 

 

[Dakpilot]

31 minutes ago, 9./JG27MAD-MM said:

 

That's why is little bit funny when the Yak Flaps get pushed back at higher speeds in the Prop wash and Boundary Layer of the Wing in exact same Position,  would more likely a unpleasant flutter of the Flaps, but its what it is....

 

 

 

 

You may feel that it is funny, but it is in the Pilot's manual (allowing the flaps to be pushed back in) as standard procedure, so I would imagine it is what it was.... 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[9./JG27MAD-MM]

20 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

You may feel that it is funny, but it is in the Pilot's manual (allowing the flaps to be pushed back in) as standard procedure, so I would imagine it is what it was.... 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

What is allowed and nice to fly at high AOA and bring beneficial effect in combat is two different part of the Story....Or is combat use also in this Manual?

Edited June 5, 2018 by 9./JG27MAD-MM

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, 9./JG27MAD-MM said:

The Spitfire Watercooler was more efficient then 109s, but overheat Trouble of the Spitfire not comes  from the Cooler it self, it was the placement and Construction of the Cooler.

109 use Watercooler with Boundary Layer Suction, what is the Turbulent Airstream Dissolves from the Wing. 

That's why is little bit funny when the Yak Flaps get pushed back at higher speeds in the Prop wash and Boundary Layer of the Wing in exact same Position,  would more likely a unpleasant flutter of the Flaps, but its what it is....

When you interested CFD analytics of the Planes and its aerodynamic flaws of the main western WW2 Fighter.

http://a.moirier.free.fr/Conception/Conception/Charge alaire/World War II fighter aerodynamics.pdf

 

 

 

That is an interesting analysis but it has has nothing to do with "overheat trouble" -  discussion of the radiator in that document relates to it's drag, in particular it's failure to achieve the desired Meredith effect, unlike the P-51.  I saw no mention  of cooling efficiency.

 

Does anyone know about the  "Tropical Summer Maximum" mentioned in the document posted by thrila?  I assume that it was a test standard temperature, but cannot find a figure.

 

edit: can we leave Yak flaps out of this thread?

Edited June 5, 2018 by unreasonable

[9./JG27MAD-MM]

10 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

That is an interesting analysis but it has has nothing to do with "overheat trouble" -  discussion of the radiator in that document relates to it's drag, in particular it's failure to achieve the desired Meredith effect, unlike the P-51.  I saw no mention  of cooling efficiency.

 

Does anyone know about the  "Tropical Summer Maximum" mentioned in the document posted by thrila?  I assume that it was a test standard temperature, but cannot find a figure.

 

edit: can we leave Yak flaps out of this thread?

This is described there but difficult to understand, because under normal Flight conditions the Cooler is on the Boarder of the Boundary Layer zone, with less Speed Boundary Layer zone is moving forward to the Wing Tip and the Radiator is missing Pressure on the Cooling Duct Face. What Means the Air doesn't want to move efficient trough the Cooling Duct anymore..

Read again the Spitfire Part, there is also following the Reconstruction of the 109F Cooling Duct...

[JtD]

Temperate and tropical summer conditions are defined in ADM491. Which I don't recall reading. However, from Hurricane flight tests, sea level temperature would be around 25° in temperate summer and 40° in tropical summer condition, temperature lapse rate being about 3 degrees per thousand foot altitude down low. I haven't calculated higher up.

Edited June 5, 2018 by JtD

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, 9./JG27MAD-MM said:

This is described there but difficult to understand, because under normal Flight conditions the Cooler is on the Boarder of the Boundary Layer zone, with less Speed Boundary Layer zone is moving forward to the Wing Tip and the Radiator is missing Pressure on the Cooling Duct Face. What Means the Air doesn't want to move efficient trough the Cooling Duct anymore..

Read again the Spitfire Part, there is also following the Reconstruction of the 109F Cooling Duct...

 

I have read the whole thing - it is not about cooling, it is about drag.  There is not a single indication in this that the cooling was ever inadequate: how could there be, it is about the aerodynamics of models.    What a different design could have achieved might have been lower drag, through avoiding boundary layer separation. It is possible, if that were done, that the same cooling could be achieved with a smaller radiator area. But it does not follow that the actual cooling was in any way ineffective: it was just less efficient in drag than it could have been. 

 

Still waiting for specific examples of when Spitfire IXs actually had cooling problems.

 

1 hour ago, JtD said:

Temperate and tropical summer conditions are defined in ADM491. Which I don't recall reading. However, from Hurricane flight tests, sea level temperature would be around 25° in temperate summer and 40° in tropical summer condition, temperature lapse rate being about 3 degrees per thousand foot altitude down low. I haven't calculated higher up.

 

Makes sense - I was guessing that it might be 40 degrees C.  In that case if anyone wants to find actual examples of overheating in normal operations they should look in the Gulf or North Africa where mid 40s are not that rare, and large numbers of Spitfires operated later in the war and afterwards.   (The Editor only allows temperatures up to 40). 

Edited June 5, 2018 by unreasonable

[9./JG27MAD-MM]

When there was a document that warn Pilots of overheating Problems anyone would post this long Time ago, try only puzzle things together what I have found so far...

And none of the IL-2 Planes suffer any Temperature Problems right now,  so should be not difference for gameplay on the Spit..

But after the Spitfire Radiators work very well under normal Flight Conditions it hard to believe you found anything in this direction..

And cooling Ducts was at first only Drag, they try on all WW2 Fighters to make them small at possible...

After Radiator is nearly a solid Block, the Air is also not really interested to go the Way with the most Resistance, and main Part of the Airstream would happily Floating around of the Cooling Duct...

Spitfire Radiator is working RAM Air, in front of the Radiator would build up a high atmospheric Pressure Region, and on the back Side would be relative low atmospheric Pressure.

Pressure Systems always try to balance the difference, what means the Air Would be sucked trough the Radiator what provide effective Cooling..

So yes the CFD Fighter is mostly describe the Drag of cooling Ducts, but with missing Pressure on the Radiator Face there is also no cooling Possible..

 

The delta P

 

 

In order to cool, air must flow through a radiator, with a mass flow easily determined by calculation.

It is the pressure difference between the two faces of the radiator core, which forces air to flow through it : the ΔP. Without this pressure difference, no flow through the core, no cooling.

There is a drawback : ΔP implies higher pressure on the front face, and lower pressure on the rear face. The resulting rearward force corresponds to a drag.

 

 

 

 

 

[unreasonable]

@MAD-MM  I can see English is not your native language: I am a little unclear whether you think that documents warning of overheating have already been posted or not.  If you have a document showing overheating problems in the Spitfire IX please post it here.   So far all we have is contemporary documents which show no cooling problems for prolonged use, including in long climbs, and that the radiators provide sufficient cooling to deal with Tropical Summer Maximums - ie SL air temperatures in the range of 40 degrees C.

 

Theoretical speculations aside - the fact is that the Spitfire radiators worked. The radiators may have created more drag than they should have done, but that does not mean that they were ineffective. 

 

Efficiency - in this case - is the amount of cooling that you get per unit of drag.

Effectiveness is whether the amount of cooling you get is sufficient to keep the temperatures in the permitted range in a given situation - irrespective of the efficiency.

 

We are really interested in effectivenesss here, not efficiency.  Test the the cooling yourself by setting up a mission in the editor with a ground temperature of 35C, then climb to 30,000ft at best climb speed (about 165 on our instruments at SL) engine settings +12, 2850.  I found that the temperatures get up to about 120C compared to permitted maximum of 125C. Oil was at 90 - the maximum.   This seems completely reasonable given the documentation.  I will do it again at 40C when I have the time.

 

It may well be true that all planes keep cool too easily on the ground: but that does not mean that their behaviour in flight is incorrect, especially in normal use: ie not flying them while pretending to be a helicopter.  This may just be, as j-comm mentioned in another post, that the airflow when stationary or taxiing is overestimated.

 

 

[Herne]

I read something recently suggesting that the spitfire radiators, actually worked in a way that went a long way toward negating their drag. Not so efficient as the p51, let me see if I can find it

 

[unreasonable]

5 minutes ago, =FEW=Herne said:

I read something recently suggesting that the spitfire radiators, actually worked in a way that went a long way toward negating their drag. Not so efficient as the p51, let me see if I can find it

 

 

The paper MAD-MM refers to this: the Meredith effect. The Spitfire radiators were supposed to get this - but did not: the P-51 did.  Also, if you can find an old thread about the P-51 radiator (I think started by j-comm as well)  I posted an article by one of the P-51's design team that discusses the effect in a comprehensible, not too technical way.

[Herne]

16 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

The paper MAD-MM refers to this: the Meredith effect. The Spitfire radiators were supposed to get this - but did not: the P-51 did.  Also, if you can find an old thread about the P-51 radiator (I think started by j-comm as well)  I posted an article by one of the P-51's design team that discusses the effect in a comprehensible, not too technical way.

 

Yes I can't readily find it now, but I seem to remember it was applicable to "Evaporation" systems, but not after the change to water / glycol. It was in some wiki or other but I can't seem to find it right now.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire

 

Edit: looks like I remembered wrong, it did apply to glycol

Edited June 6, 2018 by =FEW=Herne
found it

[LuftManu]

All of you guys complaining about the Spitifre being an Ice queen and I am here in my Yak7b trying to get more airflow using my map on the cockpit as a fan

 

Jokes aside, I think this might or not might be correct but I always prefer a compromise. With this I mean that I read reports of bad cooling on Yak7b with the old rads and I have this in game. Also I never read problems of cooling on Spitifre and I can also find this in game. I am no expert but I find this somewhat reasonable.

I am happy as it is now but if they make some improvements for those extreme scenearios and more "common" scenarios for us, virtual ww2 pilots I would be even happier.

Edited June 6, 2018 by LF_ManuV

[unreasonable]

26 minutes ago, =FEW=Herne said:

 

Yes I can't readily find it now, but I seem to remember it was applicable to "Evaporation" systems, but not after the change to water / glycol. It was in some wiki or other but I can't seem to find it right now.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire

 

Edit: looks like I remembered wrong, it did apply to glycol

 In case PM gets messed up, check out article posted in this thread, gives a clear enough description. 

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/20609-sources-of-thrust-effectively-calculated-in-bos-fdm/

[Herne]

On 6/5/2018 at 12:07 PM, jcomm-in-combat said:

Forget it guys... Now I know why I can't boil it... 

 

A whole week here at Reading, and I already found out by self experience why it's impossible to boil anything around here... Oh my Hot Portugal ?

 

Were the flight tests all run in the UK ?  It's freeeeeezing guys ! 

 

On Thursday visiting the Berkshire Aviation Museum ?  Maybe I can see some nifty ww2 stuff around there ?

 

not sure about Berkshire, but if you can get up to Duxford, I would say that would be worth a visit.