Fw190 A8

[RAY-EU]

Correct : ( but only happens at sea level )> 1 kilometre.

Il2 Aircraft Flight and Technical Specifications and Operations Details : 

FW190 A5 :

500Kg General Prupose Bomb SC 500

Additional mass : 530 Kg

Ammunition mass : 500 kg

Racks mass : 30 kg

Estimated speed loss before drop: 41 km/h

Estimated speed loss after drop : 13 km/h

Edited July 24, 2018 by RAY-EU

[Blutaar]

12 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

Hi, the test is correct, but you have to apply it with a certain reserve since it was a test of a prototype, actually a A5 modified to run with the new hardware. It is not a test of a production A8. To know what the actual climbing procedure should be, one should check the A8 flight manual.

 

Of course you are right. It should be pushed to the limits then but still possible to recreate the test. Pushing to the limits, not exceeding it. And anyway this dosent mean that normal Kampflesitung cant be used to climb at 270 kph in summer. I just cant climb to 8km alt at Kampfleistung which i am perfectly able to do in the A5 and im sure in the A3 also without any issues at the same settings. Next i will test the A8 in autumn condtions and in winter also. Im curios to see what happens. 

 

In this context, i just dont believe the La5FNs cooling capacity is how it really was without any downisdes. Even low speed is no problem and thats why im so pissed about it. The 190 A8 gets the hot temps at low speeds with a more efficient cooling system for slower speeds. The 190 A8 gets hotter even at its normal powersettings while the La5FN got buffed in this regard compared to the normal La5. It just speaks against my logic. More horsepower and more everything and on top of that also no heat issues? No plane should be able to fly wih completely closed coolingsystems at full throttle in any conditions at very low speeds. Isnt that against physics? But the La5FN can do exactly that. I had to force it to a 4 or 5 km climb with everything closed and full throttle at very slow speed (230 kph or so) to get oil temp to 100°C in autumn i guess it was. Also the cylinderehad temps were far from max. But even this was not enough to cause an overehat. That is telling. I am really wondering why nobody else sees this like i do. Maybe it is just me who, again(?),  dosent understand because i am an idiot and cant see the obvious.

 

This is just generally speaking. Nothing to do with you. And sorry for bringing it up again. But im ready to learn something when someone have the arguments on his side. Didnt happen in the case of the La5FNs for now but i also didnt search for answers.

 

Edit: I had to edit my post. I said nonsense. Pls forgive me.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Ishtaru

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Did you check the testing I did with the La-5s in the manifold pressure thread? I think it has to do with how the engine itself can cool down the oil, maybe this effect is exaggerated, I don't know how we could determine wether it's accurate or not. Also there is some gap left in the exhaust shutters when at 0% so it isn't completely closed really, but the gap is small. 

Ideally we could have a document showing how the oil and cylinder temperatures are in determined situations. 

The listed top speeds are achieved with the external shutters closed, so at least I would expect the engine to mantain the upper limit temps in this setting at max speed, but having the oil radiator closed as well and mantaining temps could be too optimistic engine cooling imho.

[Blutaar]

4 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Did you check the testing I did with the La-5s in the manifold pressure thread? I think it has to do with how the engine itself can cool down the oil, maybe this effect is exaggerated, I don't know how we could determine wether it's accurate or not. Also there is some gap left in the exhaust shutters when at 0% so it isn't completely closed really, but the gap is small.

 

Yes i did and thank you for it. It sure shows how efficient the cooling system is but you tested it at high speed where the airflow is at max. My main issue is, that at low speeds the La5FN has no problems with overheating while every other plane has to adjust to it either through an automatic control or manually and that produces drag. The only plane with good slow speed cooling capabilitys should be the 190 with its cooling fan. It eats, i dont know, about 100hp from the engine just for cooling and i think sufficient pressure for the supercharger(?). It speeds faster the more power you apply which is a really cool system in my opinion. But it is inferior and more complex compared to the La5FNs system. At least ingame it seems. Imagine 100 extra hp in the 190 with a removed cooling fan when low airflow would be no problem for aircooled engines.

 

Just do a climb test in summer conditions and you will see. Let the oil cooler at 50% and close the cowls completely at about 270kph in a climb to 8km alt and watch your temps. You could close the oil cooler even further which does not produce much drag anyway at 50%. I got temps just below 100°C oil and at about 210°C cylinderhead temps as i reached 8km alt. The La5FN climbs better then the 109G2 from 0 to 6km alt. From 0 to 8k it is equal. Of course these are not official. Just the same 270 kph climb test i did with the A8 and A5s in summer condtions. Also with more practice i should get better results so keep that in mind. 

 

By the way, the 190 has also a gap between its exhaust tubes where air could go through. But i dont know if it is part of the cooling airflow or just air that missed the parts of the engine that needs cooling.

 

4 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

The listed top speeds are achieved with the external shutters closed, so at least I would expect the engine to mantain the upper limit temps in this setting at max speed, but having the oil radiator closed as well and mantaining temps could be too optimistic engine cooling imho.

 

But does that mean that you can let them closed forever or at least for 10 minutes straight? The Yak1b for example can reach its topseed only with a non sustainable radiator setting for both oil and water. Correct me if im wrong. But even if not, the temps are just before critical. Not so in the La5FN. You could even close the cowls furhter if possible.

 

But i have to correct myself. I said: "No plane should be able to fly with completely closed coolingsystems at full throttle in any conditions at very low speeds". I mean the outlet cowls of course, not the complete cooling system which would include the inlet cowls and oil radiator. Im an idiot i know.  

 

Edit: I tested the A8 in autumn and winter conditions with erhöhte Notleistung and it still overheats in autumn condition but not in winter. Test was the same. Starting from the ground and stop the time after liftoff and then climbing to 6km alt at 270kph. Finally a condtion where the A8 does not overheat. I should try spring next time.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Ishtaru

[Livai]

4 hours ago, Ishtaru said:

The only plane with good slow speed cooling capabilitys should be the 190 with its cooling fan.

 

What I don't understand how it is modeled in this game? For example the 190 I close the outlet completely so the air can't escape anymore but the inlet is still open now where goes the air? Why I don't lose speed closing completely the outlet? The air can't escape anymore so the engine overheat also increase the drag inside the engine what should slow down the plane because of the drag! Same goes for other planes. But it's not the case. Or maybe the side effect is too small to slow down the plane from outlet closed completely???

 

Another point the 190 Air Fan produce amout of AIR. The more I close the outlet the air left the engine with more pressure. The more I open the outlet the more air pass through the engine with less pressure or non-pressure. So what has better cooling effect air-pressure from more closed outlet or more air flow pass through the engine from more opened outlet with less pressure or non-pressure? In Air-cooled planes with build-in fans I would say airflow but in planes with water radiators without build-in fans I would say pressure and air-speed.

 

-> And here we are where air-cooled planes with build-in fans shine delivering at any speed very good cooling.

 

 

[LeLv76_Erkki]

24 minutes ago, Livai said:

 

What I don't understand how it is modeled in this game? For example the 190 I close the outlet completely so the air can't escape anymore but the inlet is still open now where goes the air? Why I don't lose speed closing completely the outlet? The air can't escape anymore so the engine overheat also increase the drag inside the engine what should slow down the plane because of the drag!

 

Probably because the radiator drag is the sum of the airflow's parasitic and turbulent drag as it goes through the engine compartment and escapes through the outlet gills. With closed outlet shutters the air pressure within the engine increases as there is a tigher bottleneck at the back, thus airflow within the engine is reduced, and lot of the air that would otherwise get sucked into the engine is now directed around it. Air going around the nose is less draggy than air going through.

Edited July 25, 2018 by LeLv76_Erkki

[JtD]

In the early days they made a few experiments about the most efficient way of cooling radials, also in terms of drag, and it was found that with the usual cowling shapes, the size/shape/cross section of the cooling outlet was the commanding factor. Inlet flaps didn't reduce overall drag anywhere near as much as outlet flaps did. As Erkki says, with properly sealed outlets the air goes around the engine instead of through, and this tremendously reduces drag.

[Livai]

Thanks for the answers

 

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Livai

[Barnacles]

On 7/25/2018 at 2:11 AM, Ishtaru said:

 

Of course you are right. It should be pushed to the limits then but still possible to recreate the test. Pushing to the limits, not exceeding it. And anyway this dosent mean that normal Kampflesitung cant be used to climb at 270 kph in summer. I just cant climb to 8km alt at Kampfleistung which i am perfectly able to do in the A5 and im sure in the A3 also without any issues at the same settings. Next i will test the A8 in autumn condtions and in winter also. Im curios to see what happens. 

 

In this context, i just dont believe the La5FNs cooling capacity is how it really was without any downisdes. Even low speed is no problem and thats why im so pissed about it. The 190 A8 gets the hot temps at low speeds with a more efficient cooling system for slower speeds. The 190 A8 gets hotter even at its normal powersettings while the La5FN got buffed in this regard compared to the normal La5. It just speaks against my logic. More horsepower and more everything and on top of that also no heat issues? No plane should be able to fly wih completely closed coolingsystems at full throttle in any conditions at very low speeds. Isnt that against physics? But the La5FN can do exactly that. I had to force it to a 4 or 5 km climb with everything closed and full throttle at very slow speed (230 kph or so) to get oil temp to 100°C in autumn i guess it was. Also the cylinderehad temps were far from max. But even this was not enough to cause an overehat. That is telling. I am really wondering why nobody else sees this like i do.

Ishtaru, I agree with you about questioning the la5 fn which seems to have no problems overheating compared to the early la5 with the less powerful engine. One thing I did think if though regarding the comparison with the a8, is that the la5 has an oil cooler external to the engine duct, whereas the fw190's oil cooler is internal so hence if you shut the outlet cowls on the 190 you effect the oil cooler. Comparing the two planes, the equivalent in the la5fn would be to shut the outlet cowl and the oil cooler. It does over heat then.  https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/the-benifits-of-the-bmw-801-oil-cooling-system.19028/

[Livai]

14 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

the la5 fn which seems to have no problems overheating compared to the early la5 with the less powerful engine.

 

because the La-5FN had enlarged cylinder ribbing to improve cooling in-flight -> Source https://books.google.de/books?id=Uzq3CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=la-5+vs+190+cooling&source=bl&ots=DqCXNGlxQW&sig=ojHJnBu12pa4eg9wFHpEZ1td9wY&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwirm5yDpr3cAhUnIpoKHaHFDSsQ6AEwCHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=la-5 vs 190 cooling&f=false

 

The older La-5s had shown overheating due close fitting cowlings so the La-5FN was re-engineered

 

[JtD]

The outlet flaps on the Fw190A cowling only control cylinder head cooling. The oil cooling happened through the ring at the nose of the cowling, and it had a ground adjustable gap/slit. It stays open all the time when in the air. The airflow around the cylinders (flaps open/closed) might effect the oil cooling in some ways, but it's not anywhere near shut when you close the outlet flaps.

[Blutaar]

I dont say that the La5FN should have absolutely bad cooling but flying in summer conditions ingame and climbing from 0 to 8km alt with closed cowls and 50% closed oil with room for even more closing, which does not give enough speed to fiddle with it, is just hard to believe for me. As if it comes from a complete different sim when compared to all the other planes and there cooling capabilitys. We talk about least drag settings at max power in slow speed flying. And in my uneducated opinion, the oil cooler looks very tiny so i think it is a bit to efficient ingame. Also there must be a reason why they reworked the flap opening on it. Which could be opened much further then it was in the normal La5. This makes me believe that the temps were much higher in real life then it is ingame especially in summer conditions.

 

But again, i dont care so much about how long the La5FN can hold its 580kph in summer without overheating but all other planes doing similar going to overheat with closed water rads. I know it is a different system as water cooled engines but still it is at least confusing. Isnt it? It didnt comes even near max cylinderhead temps. I might be very wrong here but its just hardly to believe for me.

 

Climb test with La5FN at 9:30h in summer conditions to 8000m alt.

Test 1: Groundstart La5FN with 68% fuel (315L) without any mods. Engine at 1180mmHg with cooling flaps fully closed and oil cooler at 50%. Climbing after takeoff at 265-275kph. Time to 8000m alt was 7:34 mins.

 

0:48 min to 1000m alt
1:28 min to 2000m alt = 0:40 min
2:20 min to 3000m alt = 0:51 min
3:14 min to 4000m alt = 0:54 min
4:11 min to 5000m alt = 0:57 min
5:10 min to 6000m alt = 0:58 min
6:14 min to 7000m alt = 1:03 min
7:34 min to 8000m alt = 1:19 min

 

Notes: No heat issues. Oil never exceeded 95°C and cylinderhead temps were below 210°C. Need more practice to get better results. This was my first climbtest in the La5FN.
 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Ishtaru

[III/JG2Gustav05]

1 hour ago, Ishtaru said:

 

 

Climb test with La5FN at 9:30h in summer conditions to 8000m alt.

Test 1: Groundstart La5FN with 68% fuel (315L) without any mods. Engine at 1180mmHg with cooling flaps fully closed and oil cooler at 50%. Climbing after takeoff at 265-275kph. Time to 8000m alt was 7:34 mins.

 

0:48 min to 1000m alt
1:28 min to 2000m alt = 0:40 min
2:20 min to 3000m alt = 0:51 min
3:14 min to 4000m alt = 0:54 min
4:11 min to 5000m alt = 0:57 min
5:10 min to 6000m alt = 0:58 min
6:14 min to 7000m alt = 1:03 min
7:34 min to 8000m alt = 1:19 min

 

Notes: No heat issues. Oil never exceeded 95°C and cylinderhead temps were below 210°C. Need more practice to get better results. This was my first climbtest in the La5FN.
 

 

Very impressive, Bf109G2 needs 4'20'' to get 5000m, according to this result L5FN climbs better than G2!!!

Edited July 26, 2018 by III/JG2Gustav05

[Blutaar]

Yeah 4:20min is similar to my G2 test. I did all tests as good as i can. Every test was done in the same conditions one after another. But i think i should redo it. Not that i messed something up.

 

Climb test with BF109G2 at 9:30h in summer conditions to 8000m alt.

Test 1: Groundstart BF109G2 with 79% fuel (316L) without any mods. Engine at 1.3ata with cooling flaps and oil cooler at auto. Climbing after takeoff at 265-275kph. Time to 8000m alt was 7:33 mins.

 

0:55 min to 1000m alt
1:47 min to 2000m alt = 0:51 min
2:37 min to 3000m alt = 0:49 min
3:27 min to 4000m alt = 0:50 min
4:21 min to 5000m alt = 0:53 min
5:19 min to 6000m alt = 0:57 min
6:20 min to 7000m alt = 1:00 min
7:33 min to 8000m alt = 1:13 min

 

Notes: No heat issues. Need more practice to get better results. This was my first climbtest in the BF109G2.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Climb test with BF109G4 at 9:30h in summer conditions to 8000m alt.

Test 1: Groundstart BF109G4 with 79% fuel (316L) without any mods. Engine at 1.3ata with cooling flaps and oil cooler at auto. Climbing after takeoff at 265-275kph. Time to 8000m alt was 7:53 mins.

 

0:56 min to 1000m alt
1:47 min to 2000m alt = 0:51 min
2:40 min to 3000m alt = 0:52 min
3:33 min to 4000m alt = 0:53 min
4:29 min to 5000m alt = 0:56 min
5:29 min to 6000m alt = 0:59 min
6:34 min to 7000m alt = 1:04 min
7:53 min to 8000m alt = 1:19 min

 

Notes: No heat issues. Need more practice to get better results. This was my first climbtest in the BF109G4.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Climb test with BF109G14 at 9:30h in summer conditions to 8000m alt.

Test 1: Groundstart BF109G14 with 79% fuel (316L) without any mods. Engine at 1.7ata with cooling flaps and oil cooler at auto. Climbing after takeoff at 265-275kph. Time to 8000m alt was 7:11 mins.

 

0:44 min to 1000m alt
1:27 min to 2000m alt = 0:42 min
2:12 min to 3000m alt = 0:45 min
3:01 min to 4000m alt = 0:48 min
3:54 min to 5000m alt = 0:51 min
4:53 min to 6000m alt = 0:58 min
5:58 min to 7000m alt = 1:05 min
7:11 min to 8000m alt = 1:13 min

 

Notes: No heat issues. Need more practice to get better results. This was my first climbtest in the BF109G14. What a beast!
 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Ishtaru

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

@Ishtaru

About your question with climbing up to high altitudes and overheating, I think it's a bit of a complex topic because not only involves the cooling capability of the radiator systems in the planes, but also how much power the engines generate at altitude and these interacting with the colder but less dense air, so it may be a bit too many variables to analize. For example while the Yak can close it's radiators more and more the higher it goes, the MiG-3 on the other hand needs to open them more compared to sea level conditions.

So I think it would be better to compare them at sea level, playing with the speed, which you can do by extending flaps, landing gear, etc so you force the plane to fly level at slow speeds.

Tested a bit the A-5 and the FN in 3.004 to see how they deal with heat at low speeds, in the Kuban Autumn map at sea level.

The Fw 190 A-5 at 1.42 ata at 271 km/h (flaps and gear down, open canopy), with 100% shutters doesn't overheat.

The FN at full power at the same speed with both shutters and radiator 100% open does overheat eventually, looks like it's the cylinders as they go over 215 ºC (interestingly a smaller temperature limit than the La-5).

The minimum speed for the FN to not overheat with 100% rads and shutters is 277 km/h.

Then I tested which was the minimum speed the FN could mantain without overheating, but now with both 0% rads and shutters, it was 383 km/h (below this the oil starts to overheat as it goes over 115ºC).

Minimum speed with 100% rads and 0% shutters  to avoid overheating: 325 km/h
Minimum speed with 0% rads and 100% shutters to avoid overheating: 330 km/h

So it looks like that over ~380 km/h the airflow coming through the engine and exiting out of the gap with the closed shutters is enough to deal with both the oil and cylinder heat. In comparison the Fw 190 has better low speed cooling compared to the FN. But when closing the shutters completely there isn't enough airflow to cool the cylinders, not even at maximum speed at sea level (the oil in this regard stays cool, as at least what I tested it was always the cylinders the ones which overheated, looks like the engine fan does it's job with the oil at least). 

So according to this the FN would need a fair bit of open rads/shutters to climb, as even with both 100% it can't deal with the climbing speeds at sea level (250-260 km/h). However this takes quite a bit of time, for example after take off and flying level at 260 km/h with 100% shutters and rad at full power, it takes around 10 minutes for it to overheat, so by that time it has done it's climbing already.

[Blutaar]

Interesting. I will do slow speed low alt tests with these planes to in this version when im finished with other things to compare them next. But what i dont understand on your test is that the La5FN cylinders get overheat when just at 215°C? Shouldnt it not start at 250°C according to the ingame manual? But anyway, no one constantly turns for 10 minutes at 270 kph on the deck so it is not really as useful as a climbtests i think. Oh wait, i have to cerrect myself. The AI will do that. lol

 

What will be interesting is to test how long you can turn with closed cowls and 50% opened oil rads. Because the oil rads dont take that much speed away at 50% anyway so it is the best setting in my opinion. Just using the cowls to control both, oil and cylinderheads. Im curios to see how the A8 will perform in these tests with fully opened cooling flaps compared to the La5FN.

 

The A5 on the other hand is all fine when it comes to heat management but it sure have to use its cooling flaps and not just close them or let them be at 25%. But the A8 will overheat with fully opened cooling flaps i think. But it shouldnt at normal Kampfleistung because at that setting it is the same engine as in the A5 with the same cooling system. If not the same it should be even better with its better parts inside compared to the older A5s engine. Only erhöhte Notleistung, which is copmparable to the La5FNs boosted mp setting at 1180 mmHg, should produce more heat.

 

Edit: By the way, what is the method for the boost increase in the La5FN? Is it fuel injection like the A5s Jabo mod or just increased boost pressure like the A8s erhöhte Notlleistung? If i have to guess it is a fuel injection method directly into the supercharger?

Edited July 27, 2018 by Ishtaru

[L3Pl4K]

Has the 190 A8 a new engine temperature modell? I compared A5 and A8. Both on Stalingrad summer with 100 percent open outlet flaps and 524 litre fuel. Climbed with Steigleistung from ground to 6000m with speeds between 270 and 280 kph. The A5 has slighty under 70 degree Celsius on the ground. The temperature droops to approximently 45 degree Celsius on 6000m. The A8 starts with approximently 75 degree Celsius on the ground. During the climbing,the temperature raises to approximently 82 degree and maintain until 6000m.
Can someone confirm and or explain this behaivor.

Edited July 29, 2018 by L3Pl4K

[JtD]

Ishtaru has also noticed this in his tests posted above.