Jump to content

Fw 190A8 cooling


Recommended Posts

Posted

Surprised that this isn't a topic. The A8 and A5 190's have no difference in their cooling systems, but the 190A8 overheats fairly easily when compared to the A5. Is there any way to check it?

  • Upvote 14
  • 1CGS
Posted
1 minute ago, No.615_Kai_Lae said:

Surprised that this isn't a topic.

 

 

Posted (edited)

Another test, autopilot, Moscow, winter, low alt

FW109A-5, cowl flaps 1/5 open, 1.42ata = oil intake temperature 52 deg

FW109A-8, cowl flaps 1/5 open, 1.42ata = oil intake temperature 72 deg

 

20 degrees difference with identical engine and identical cooling system, why?

 

 

For comparition La-5FN with similar cooling system, full boost, max rpm, cowl flaps fully closed, oil radiator also fully closed = oil out temp 50 deg, cyllinders 135 deg - (yes, even below optimal temperatures with both radiators fully closed) 

Edited by kramer
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, kramer said:

For comparition La-5FN with similar cooling system, full boost, max rpm, cowl flaps fully closed, oil radiator also fully closed = oil out temp 50 deg, cyllinders 135 deg - (yes, even below optimal temperatures with both radiators fully closed) 

 

Russian had a clever throttle design which acted like a makeshift inter-cooler. Not sure if it's applicable here but this explanation is better than nothing.

Posted (edited)

Let La-5 alone but what gives this 20 deg more in A8 in compare with A5 with identical parameters and enviroment?

Edited by kramer
[DBS]El_Marta
Posted (edited)

I already posted about this in the bug report section weeks ago.

Edited by [DBS]El_Marta
=362nd_FS=RoflSeal
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

Russian had a clever throttle design which acted like a makeshift inter-cooler. Not sure if it's applicable here but this explanation is better than nothing.

That only applies to the Mikulin engines on the MiG-3 and IL-2s

 

Also boost effect on temperatures

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/BMW-VB-126.html

 

Level speeds

Cylinder head temperatures:


Head temperatures were measured at the cylinders 8, 9, 11 and 12, where temperatures on cylinder 8 were lowest and on cylinder 9 were highest. In full throttle altitude second supercharger gear the highest temperatures result, which on the hottest cylinder for summer would be 216°C and for the tropics would be 226°C and would pose no threat for the short flight duration.

 

Climb

3.)Cylinder head temperatures:

The cylinder head temperature was increased by 13°C on the hottest cylinder compared to normal combat power and was 211°C in 6 km altitude, where outside air temperature was equal to summer conditions, so that for tropical conditions 221°C result. The flight speed was Va = 265-270 km/h and the cooling flaps were opened to "position 3".

 

4.)Oil temperatures:

The oil inlet temperature was increased from 73°C to 88°C (permissible for 15 min 80°C) by the increased climb power when reaching 8 km altitude. Since the outside air temperature was equal to highest summer temperature, this value is permissible for a short time. But the oil temperature has to be regarded as a criterion and only a larger test basis can make a final decision possible.

Edited by RoflSeal
-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
Posted

Another comparison at the same settings:

A-8 vs A-5, both at the same speed, with 1.32 ata and 45% open shutters

unknown.png

  • Upvote 3
Posted

Maybe the A8 was rushed a little to get it out before summer vacation and this is an oversight?

  • Upvote 2
JGr8_Leopard
Posted

A8 in game heated much more A5 and have to open shutters by 30-40% stronger than on A5 on all altitudes.

Posted

Maybe that is not a A8 but A5 bug?

E69_geramos109
Posted

Other rare mechanic bug on the list.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

No, it's not an A5 bug. The engine for the A8 is simply wrong. It was either rushed out the door or the testers didn't test it. The community realized it was wrong and began reporting about it the instant it was released. 

 

It looks like they used a strict interpretation of the A8 manual, which included limitations of the older D2 power plants produced only in the very early A8 - primarily the 3 minute restriction at 1.42ata.

 

The problem is our Bodenplatte A8 uses a more robust and powerful 801TU power plant capable of running much higher boost pressures and running them for a much longer duration. It was able to do this by incorporating redesigned and stronger parts from the development of the 2,400hp 801F power plant (which never itself entered serial production)

 

The 801TU power egg (complete cowling/engine/cooling system) also incorporated redesigns to accommodate the extra power. The engine was tested on summer temps in climbs as slow as 165mph. An engine capable of 10 minutes at 1.65ata should not begin overheating after 3 minutes at 1.42ata, but here we are. Our A8 power plant is even running considerably hotter at lower boost pressures than the A5.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 9
Posted

Cujo, maybe you could start a thread on the BMW801 engine so that all will have greater knowledge of this engine.

  • Like 1
  • 1CGS
Posted
2 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

It was either rushed out the door or the testers didn't test it.

 

Or it was neither of the above and just one of things that happens in early access. Code gets changed at the last moment, things slip through, etc. It happens. Appreciate that people are finding these things, but at the same time, these continual claims that testers aren't testing things is really getting old. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 7
=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand
Posted (edited)

LukeFF is right, it’s pre release and mistakes happen. Good to have a community to pay attention to details

like that.

I do understand the worries of some people however since other things like e.g. the time limit on 109 WEP have been proven wrong and have been pointed out by the community as well without any response from devs. Hope they do better with this!

Edited by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn
Posted
4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Or it was neither of the above and just one of things that happens in early access. Code gets changed at the last moment, things slip through, etc. It happens. Appreciate that people are finding these things, but at the same time, these continual claims that testers aren't testing things is really getting old. 

 

The first, yes.

 

The second, if the testers don't have enough knowledge about the Fw190A, then this could be missed.

  • 2 weeks later...
SCG_Fenris_Wolf
Posted

Are there any news on this? Do they intend to fix it?

 

Thanks for finding out and clarification on the A8's issue! ?

Posted

No one has said anything one way or the other.

SCG_Fenris_Wolf
Posted

That is sad to hear.

 

Who does the FMs? Maybe it would be proper to translate the bug report into Russian and send it/post it there?

 

I could do that, but I'd need directions to the bug report itself.

  • Like 1
E69_geramos109
Posted
On 9/11/2018 at 11:42 AM, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

That is sad to hear.

 

Who does the FMs? Maybe it would be proper to translate the bug report into Russian and send it/post it there?

 

I could do that, but I'd need directions to the bug report itself.

It is suposed that this kind of reports should be sended to Han but problem is also the amount of time they take to read pms i supose because theyr box is full of pms. I sent them months ago a pm about a bug on the radiators on the 109 as well and is still unread so...

Posted
On 8/27/2018 at 7:19 PM, LukeFF said:

 

Or it was neither of the above and just one of things that happens in early access. Code gets changed at the last moment, things slip through, etc. It happens. Appreciate that people are finding these things, but at the same time, these continual claims that testers aren't testing things is really getting old. 

 

Yeah, like my new RTX card show the game from   ?    early Nvidia Drivers the code slipped 180 degrees but hey funny to see Raytracing effects in this game - the A-8 reflection looks pretty awesome, good that I have a pivot monitor and can play the game without problems.  ?

 

20180914132108_1.thumb.jpg.a2389e6a5c74584c110333f8f614e61c.jpg

 

  • Confused 2
SCG_Fenris_Wolf
Posted

The game doesn't have the code to use ray tracing right now, what are you talking about? 

  • Upvote 1
Posted

That's Nvidia's problem, not 1CG's. Though, good to know I should not be looking to upgrade my GPU...

  • Confused 1
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
On 9/16/2018 at 7:53 AM, Livai said:

Yeah, like my new RTX card show the game from   ?    early Nvidia Drivers the code slipped 180 degrees but hey funny to see Raytracing effects in this game - the A-8 reflection looks pretty awesome, good that I have a pivot monitor and can play the game without problems.  ?

 

 

The game does not support ray tracing, so what you are seeing is the same everyone can see.

Ray tracing is not automatic, the games need to develop their engine to work with it. Other than Battlegield V and Assetto Corsa, there arent many games out there that support it at this moment.

 

 

On 9/23/2018 at 9:55 AM, No.615_Kai_Lae said:

That's Nvidia's problem, not 1CG's. Though, good to know I should not be looking to upgrade my GPU...

 

I'm not really sure I'm following. This is a brand new tech that Nvidia just released. It's up to the game devs now to decide if they want to include it.

 

I'm pretty sure it's quite a bit of work and we won't see it in IL2 any time soon. We don't even have physically based rendering, which is an older tech.

I think that's one aspect that needs some more love. Increasing cockpit textures and improving the light reflections on surfaces (not shadows, but how the materials look) is something I would love to see worked on in IL2. 

  • Upvote 1
Posted

What I meant is that drivers are done by the video card company, so if the drivers are making the game upside down, then they need to fix it. Based on how they reacted with their GTX 670(?) drivers causing constant crashes, I would be hesitant to buy a new card...

Posted (edited)
On 9/16/2018 at 1:53 PM, Livai said:

20180914132108_1.thumb.jpg.a2389e6a5c74584c110333f8f614e61c.jpg

 

The brain flips what is projected on our eyes' retinas and the picture is just how it is, actually. More realistic, see? ;)

Edited by Ehret
Posted (edited)

Isn't this a topic about overheating of FW190A-8? Why are you posting some graphics issues here? What raytracing or nvidia drivers have in common with FW190 cooling?

Edited by kramer
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Posted

Almost nobody is flying this plane online after it's been out 2 months and that really is a shame.

 

It is extremely difficult to keep this thing from overheating even at 1.35ata - you have to constantly adjust the outlet flaps, keeping them open but they create a lot of drag and that slows the plane down. I can typically outrun it with the A5 for this reason and that should not be the case. The A8 can beat it in a drag race using 1.58/1.65ata, as long as no maneuver whatsoever is attempted by the A8.

 

As noted above the A8 is already at 80 degrees when the A5 is only at about 55 degrees even at 1.35ata with shutters nearly half open. If you run the outlet flaps on auto they stay half to fully open all the time and this is not correct. Close the flaps like they should be and you blow the engine.

 

I haven't had a chance to check acceleration yet, has anyone? Even though it's heavier than the A5 that TU engine has an awful lot of power, over 2,000hp.

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
Posted (edited)

The acceleration is very similar to the A-5, the extra weight is compensated by the extra power giving it a similar power to weight ratio. And it doesn't have the TU, it is still the D-2 with extra manifold pressure regime.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
Posted

Btw its also possible to blow the A-3 and A-5 if the outlet gills are closed or almost closed, flying straight and level. 1.2 ATA and above anyway. No matter what altitude. At high altitudes the cockpit oil temp gauge can show 45 or 40 C. There also is no technochat warning of overheating, it just goes blammo suddenly.

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
Posted

The A-5 can overheat as well if you close them too much, but generally it can withstand around 20% or less so it isn't that much of an issue. In the A-8 you need to mantain 45%-50% and 100% for climbing. What gets hot in the A-5 tends to be the cylinder head which there isn't a cockpit indicator for. In the A-8 case what's overheating is the oil.

Posted
21 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

The A-5 can overheat as well if you close them too much, but generally it can withstand around 20% or less so it isn't that much of an issue. In the A-8 you need to mantain 45%-50% and 100% for climbing. What gets hot in the A-5 tends to be the cylinder head which there isn't a cockpit indicator for. In the A-8 case what's overheating is the oil.

 

Even funnier, the temperature that goes down when you open the slots for improving cylinder head cooling is the oil themperature - which doesn't make sense as there is no way for the pilot to influence how much air goes through the annular oil radiator in flight. Ground crew adjusts the ring gap.

Posted
On 10/16/2018 at 1:53 PM, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

The acceleration is very similar to the A-5, the extra weight is compensated by the extra power giving it a similar power to weight ratio. And it doesn't have the TU, it is still the D-2 with extra manifold pressure regime.

 

In the Bodenplatte time frame, it does have the TU power egg.

 

Per the manual, it is the TU power egg designation, distinguished from earlier D2 motors by not only having the increased boost, but also incorporating higher strength parts from the 801F development. That's the difference in the two motors. When more higher strength parts were used from 801F development the series was changed in designation from A8 to A9.

 

In fact, I think this part of the issue:

 

1. We have the same restrictions of the older D2 with 1.35 and 1.42ata - so you have an engine with new parts strong enough to run 1.65ata that is inexplicably overheating at 1.35 and 1.42ata. This doesn't make any sense. Especially since the excuse for Russian aircraft to run constantly at full throttle is that they run at lower boost pressures - why then is the FW190A-8 overheating at lower boost pressures?

 

2. Already, for some reason the engine in the A8 is running much hotter under the exact same conditions of flight and outlet setting than the A5. This makes no sense at all, especially since it is contradicted by actual flight tests.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • 1 month later...
Posted (edited)

Dear developers, thanks for this sim and especially thanks for the 190 A8.

  • I've tried to replicate a maximum performance climb test that was flown in September 1943 by the Germans. See here for the documents: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/BMW_VB_126.pdf
  • They used the FW-190 A8 with the increased boost you have modeled in-game
  • The outside temperature on deck was 24°C
  • The oil and cylinder head temps were closely monitored throughout the tests
  • Powersetting: maximum boost throughout the climb
  • The cooling flaps were set to 3, i.e. 75%
  • The indicated airspeed was kept at 260-270 kph
  • The plane climbed to 8000 m in 8 minutes
  • The engine didn't overheat at any point
  • Following the test, the plane was cleared for 10 minutes of maximum boost. This, however, was simply an official clearance of the engine manufacturer and was not limited by heat.

Here are my settings for the in-game test:

  • The map (Stalingrad Autumn) is cooler than the temperatures during the real test.
  • Power, speed and cooling flaps were the same as in the real test
  • The in-game climb performance is within 10% of reality
  • Unfortunately, the plane overheats after 5 minutes at 4500 m and that is the end of it

Could you please fix this? The real-life data of this plane is extremely well documented and available (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8.html).

Thanks in advance,

S!

 

S!FW190A8_ClimbTest_01.jpg.0844ee7e46ce9beffe5bbcce5010697a.jpg

 

Edited by JG27_PapaFly
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 4
Posted

There was a small note in today's 3.007 release about outlets being set at 3 instead of 5 for A5 and A8.

 

At work now - can anyone check and see the effect it has on current situation?

Posted (edited)

It doesn't.

 

This issue still exists, but it is a known issue.

Edited by Matt
Posted (edited)

My test show me it still does overheat. My test :

Kuban autumn

climbing in boosted mode

speed from 280kph-300kph

Fully open rads

 

overheat at around 4500m.

 

 

Edited by =FSB=HandyNasty
only did 1 test, so changed "tests" to "test"
Posted

OK, thanks for checking - appreciate the replies.

 

Hopefully just very busy with the new updates and 3.007 being released.

  • Thanks 1
  • 1CGS
Posted

As @Matt said, it wasn't overlooked. Just not any time for it in this latest update. 

  • Thanks 1

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...