Jump to content
Rattlesnake

7 1/2 Hour War Emergency Test of Pratt&Whitney R-2800 26 April 1944

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, =RvE=Windmills said:

 

Thanks, it's too complex that's for sure. If you could just spend 5 minutes at combat/continuous and know your timers will be fully recharged it would make everything a whole lot easier.

 

The frustrating part is that I actually think the P47 is a really good combat aircraft, even against its current opposition. But this inability to recharge its timers is killing it atm.

Worst thing killing it is the very limited control authority at speeds over 375mph. You can barely adjust for a shot at a slightly evading aircraft at 400mph IAS. The 109 has just as much control authority, creating the odd situation where a plane famous for being good in a dive is no better off than one sort of infamous for being stiff at high speed. Working the pitch trim helps very little. Even more bizarrely, the P-40 has a better elevator than the current Jug at those speeds. Seems very odd that the USAAF would accept a new fighter whose dive handling is worse than one of their late 1930s plane. Thus you have a plane that very much needs to operate as a boom and zoomer but almost can't, because it's very, very, very difficult to aim if you dive in with a significant speed advantage. Remember that many many late war aircraft are fairly close to 375mph IAS in *level flight* at low altitudes, so a plane that can't change course sometime today at 400mph IAS or more really isn't fit to boom and zoom them.

But, if you never get your RPMs in the Jug above 2550 it will last at least twice as long at full throttle with the water injection, will actually go faster than at 2700rpm (355-360 at sea level on Kuban Autumn) and bizarrely it seems to climb just as well.
 

Edited by Rattlesnake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

The emergency timer in the P-47 (and the P-39, too) does regenerate in the combat mode. The problem is the emergency mode depletes quickly the combat mode as well. If you use up the whole emergency interval and didn't touch combat you will have about 6m of latter left and that's simply not enough. Worse yet, the combat timer will not regenerate until the emergency (10m needed for 100%) regenerated... In practice it means if you used half of your emergency time already it's time to RTB. To regenerate combat/emergency from fully depleted to fully fresh 25m is needed. No sense doing that; just RTB instead.

 

The way to around that is to refrain from using the 64" MP as much as possible and keep the water injection at 58". It will switch the timer to combat mode and will allow for 15m in one go. So, timers in the P-47 are effectively -6" MP handicap or even -12" if we consider what would be possible with the 150 octane fuel.

 

That is worse than I thought. Really doesn´t make sense at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

That is worse than I thought. Really doesn´t make sense at all.

 

Yes.

 

The La-5 (not the F as the F is unlimited) is a good example of a timer which is not awful. It has 5m for the boost and regenerates 1m of it in about 3m of non-boost. That's it. No weird interactions between combat and emergency; no weird regeneration rules. Simple.

 

If there is really need to have two distinct timers (one for combat; another for emergency) then they should be truly independent and both always regenerating on a nominal.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, =RvE=Windmills said:

Having flown the P47 a bit in actual long sorties, simply having the emergency cool down during combat mode would be an acceptable bandaid pending an actual change to the system.

 

The current limits are 'usable', the punishing part is that its impossible to keep track of where your times are at during a sortie. If you spend 2 minutes at 59 inches with water injection, 1 minute at max emergency, then 4 minutes at max combat, how much time do you have left at emergency until your engine dies?

 

This is absurd and nobody can calculate this on the fly, even assuming you were able to somehow keep track of how long you spend in each mode.

Why are you trying to regenerate emergency mode when using combat mode which has a timer itself? If you want to regenerate anything at all you ought to use a continious mode with no time restriction and it is the same for every plane in the game. You cant regenerate timer if you are spending said timer. No other plane has an engine warning system either. So the rules which are used for p47 engine are similar to any other plane in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Max_Damage said:

Why are you trying to regenerate emergency mode when using combat mode which has a timer itself? If you want to regenerate anything at all you ought to use a continious mode with no time restriction and it is the same for every plane in the game. You cant regenerate timer if you are spending said timer. No other plane has an engine warning system either. So the rules which are used for p47 engine are similar to any other plane in the game.

 

Erhet explanation explains this quite well. In planes like the p47, in contrast with a plane like the La5 vanilla, timers limit the tactical use of the combat and the emergency system much more. The game timers are, in the end, just an interpretation of what the manual limits meant. This interpretation hampers the tactical use of planes like the p47 (talking about engine settings) much more than others. The p47 had 15 min worth of water injection (so 15 min worth of emergency use). If in the game takes you 25 minutes to regenerate it then from a practical point of view it may as well have only 5 minutes worth of water injection because as Erhet said it may be tactically more sound to rtb and get a fresh one.

There must be another "interpretation" of the manual limits that can simulate every planes limits in a better way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well of coure the timers when present limit the use of timed modes? Including the la5 and it only has 5 minutes.

 

I m just confused why are you guys trying to regenerate timers when using timer limited engine modes? It does not work like that. Your plane has engine durability which is spent on ANY timed mode. The diffirence between 15 minute mode and 30 minute mode is that the latter spends your engine twice as slowly. If you want to reset the time you cant do that by spending the timer more slowly see? You need to stop spending any timer altogether and that means using continious mode. It is almost as you have been trying to find a loophole in engine time limitations which isnt there anyway.

Edited by Max_Damage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Max_Damage said:

Well of coure the timers when present limit the use of timed modes? Including the la5 and it only has 5 minutes.

 

I m just confused why are you guys trying to regenerate timers when using timer limited engine modes? It does not work like that. Your plane has engine durability which is spend on ANY timed mode. The diffirence between 15 minute mode and 30 minute mode is that the latter spends your engine twice as slowly. If you want to reset the time you cant do that by spending the timer more slowly see? You need to stop spending any timer altogether and that means using continious mode. It is almost as you have been trying to find a loophole in engine time limitations which isnt there anyway.

Except, you know, the Bf-109s regenerate separately to combat mode for some reason and using Emergency power in allied aircraft eats combat power time and combat power only regenerates after WEP is fully regenerated.

 

In other words [edited], too restrictive, and doesn't represent actual use at all.

Russian aircraft aren't affected because they can either run at 100% all the time or they have a single long timer.

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you find any german planes spend their timers separately you better report it as a bug because it definately works against the spirit of the game and its rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Max_Damage said:

If you find any german planes spend their timers separately you better report it as a bug because it definately works against the spirit of the game and its rules.

 

No, it explicitly states it works like this in the ingame manual. 

 

Though it obviously makes no sense in that it makes it almost impossible to use the full 15 mins of water injection, despite the system being effectively the same as on the 109. 

 

Lastly, it arbitrarily heavily punishes planes that have multiple timers. 

Edited by =RvE=Windmills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

Except, you know, the Bf-109s regenerate separately to combat mode for some reason and using Emergency power in allied aircraft eats combat power time and combat power only regenerates after WEP is fully regenerated.

 

In other words it is bullshit, too restrictive, and doesn't represent actual use at all.

Russian aircraft aren't affected because they can either run at 100% all the time or they have a single long timer.

 

 

I am having a sneaking suspicion that the engine modelling in IL-2 is just based on timers and not system interactions.

 

Hot day + hot cylinder heads does not produce knock or ruin your engine if you don't go that 1 magic degree over the allowed degree, then starts the timer of "how long have you held your engine 1 nanokelving over the limit".

 

Right now only obvious multistep system that has "cause-effect-cause-effect" loop is water boiling off from overheated radiator, and taking temperature with it. 

 

[edited]

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
unbased accusations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Max_Damage said:

If you find any german planes spend their timers separately you better report it as a bug because it definately works against the spirit of the game and its rules.

The spirit of the game regarding engines is nonsensical and needs to be changed.

 

Engine limits were set on doctrine rather then any sort of hard engineering or mechanical limit and had plenty of safety margin. A good example are the US. The current engine rules on the P-40 are a mess. It is quite clear that the US initially set limits based of horsepower, then quantified it to a Manifold Pressure and RPM value. In the case of the P-40E, it is 1150 hp for 5 minutes which it achieved at 3000 rpm 42 "Hg at 11,000 ft and 3000 rpm and 44.5 "Hg at 0 ft. Some time in 1943 they changed it to something similar to what the British did, which is set MP & RPM at all altitudes. They also added a War emergency power for 5 minutes and military power for 15 minutes. The R-2800 fitted on the P-47C started 1943 with a 5 minute limit of 52 "Hg at 2700 rpm and ended 1943 with that setting increased to 15 minutes. What changed? I can tell you the engine certainly didn't, but the doctrine did.

 

We look at the Germans, by the turn of 1944, all their new aircraft/engines had 10 minute limits for WEP. DB-605AM had 1.7 ata, BMW-801 had 1.58/1.65 ata for 10 mins. What happened to the old WEP settings of 1.42 ata? If you believe the game they stayed the same at 1 minute and 3 minutes respectively. Now that is just bullshit. 1.42 ata on the BMW-801 certainly isn't 3x as damaging as Erhohte Nostleistung considering to achieve 1.58/1.65 ata the Kommandogerat is tricked into accepting more air, there is no extra injection of anything. The reason for the increase from 3 to 10 minutes in ~June 1944 isn't anything related to the engineering, it's related to the fact that the LW were losing and higher ups were willing to have more maintenance in exchange for pilots using max power more.

 

The engine modelling needs to be given significant attention if it is to be brought up to the same standard as the flight models and damage models. A system that forces you to do silly things like semi-wep so you don't blow your engine is a failure.

 

22 hours ago, CptSiddy said:

[edited]

I would even contest that based on the P-40E and Spitfire Mk Vb
P-40E if we are basing it off the manuals should have max continuous power of 1000 hp and military of 1150 hp and Manifold pressure change as altitude increases to match that.

Spitfire Mk Vb is a utter mess. the Manual gives a 1 hr limit to + 9 lbs and 5 minute limit each to +12 lbs and +16 lbs. The game gives + 9 lbs a 30 minute limit, +16 lbs last 3 minutes, + 12 lbs lasts 6 minutes and the later two are on the same timer (though technically speaking all 3 share the same timer but this issue pretty much affects all allied aircraft the most)

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

The spirit of the game regarding engines is nonsensical and needs to be changed.

 

Engine limits were set on doctrine rather then any sort of hard engineering or mechanical limit and had plenty of safety margin. A good example are the US. The current engine rules on the P-40 are a mess. It is quite clear that the US initially set limits based of horsepower, then quantified it to a Manifold Pressure and RPM value. In the case of the P-40E, it is 1150 hp for 5 minutes which it achieved at 3000 rpm 42 "Hg at 11,000 ft and 3000 rpm and 44.5 "Hg at 0 ft. Some time in 1943 they changed it to something similar to what the British did, which is set MP & RPM at all altitudes. They also added a War emergency power for 5 minutes and military power for 15 minutes. The R-2800 fitted on the P-47C started 1943 with a 5 minute limit of 52 "Hg at 2700 rpm and ended 1943 with that setting increased to 15 minutes. What changed? I can tell you the engine certainly didn't, but the doctrine did.

 

We look at the Germans, by the turn of 1944, all their new aircraft/engines had 10 minute limits for WEP. DB-605AM had 1.7 ata, BMW-801 had 1.58/1.65 ata for 10 mins. What happened to the old WEP settings of 1.42 ata? If you believe the game they stayed the same at 1 minute and 3 minutes respectively. Now that is just bullshit. 1.42 ata on the BMW-801 certainly isn't 3x as damaging as Erhohte Nostleistung considering to achieve 1.58/1.65 ata the Kommandogerat is tricked into accepting more air, there is no extra injection of anything. The reason for the increase from 3 to 10 minutes in ~June 1944 isn't anything related to the engineering, it's related to the fact that the LW were losing and higher ups were willing to have more maintenance in exchange for pilots using max power more.

 

The engine modelling needs to be given significant attention if it is to be brought up to the same standard as the flight models and damage models. A system that forces you to do silly things like semi-wep so you don't blow your engine is a failure.

 

I would even contest that based on the P-40E and Spitfire Mk Vb
P-40E if we are basing it off the manuals should have max continuous power of 1000 hp and military of 1150 hp and Manifold pressure change as altitude increases to match that.

Spitfire Mk Vb is a utter mess. the Manual gives a 1 hr limit to + 9 lbs and 5 minute limit each to +12 lbs and +16 lbs. The game gives + 9 lbs a 30 minute limit, +16 lbs last 3 minutes, + 12 lbs lasts 6 minutes and the later two are on the same timer (though technically speaking all 3 share the same timer but this issue pretty much affects all allied aircraft the most)

The engine limits are set based on the fuels used and cooling provided or mw50. Low octane fuels are impossible to use at high pressures. Nothing to do with doctrines its just chemistry.

 

Supercooled test bench engines would run 3 minutes at 1.42 ata. But NOT when installed onto a 109 with 87 octane fuels. C3 fuel on fw190 provides 3 minutes 1.42 ata and likewise the mw50 system gives large benefits because it was designed to do just that.

 

No matter which year and which manual you can increase WEP time by increasing cooling, preventing detonation using mw50 and or using higher octanes which themselves prevent detonation.

 

Now, separation of timers on mw50 based aircraft is an interesting concept and i think it could require some analysis.

Edited by Max_Damage
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

The spirit of the game regarding engines is nonsensical and needs to be changed.

 

Engine limits were set on doctrine rather then any sort of hard engineering or mechanical limit and had plenty of safety margin. A good example are the US. The current engine rules on the P-40 are a mess. It is quite clear that the US initially set limits based of horsepower, then quantified it to a Manifold Pressure and RPM value. In the case of the P-40E, it is 1150 hp for 5 minutes which it achieved at 3000 rpm 42 "Hg at 11,000 ft and 3000 rpm and 44.5 "Hg at 0 ft. Some time in 1943 they changed it to something similar to what the British did, which is set MP & RPM at all altitudes. They also added a War emergency power for 5 minutes and military power for 15 minutes. The R-2800 fitted on the P-47C started 1943 with a 5 minute limit of 52 "Hg at 2700 rpm and ended 1943 with that setting increased to 15 minutes. What changed? I can tell you the engine certainly didn't, but the doctrine did.

 

We look at the Germans, by the turn of 1944, all their new aircraft/engines had 10 minute limits for WEP. DB-605AM had 1.7 ata, BMW-801 had 1.58/1.65 ata for 10 mins. What happened to the old WEP settings of 1.42 ata? If you believe the game they stayed the same at 1 minute and 3 minutes respectively. Now that is just bullshit. 1.42 ata on the BMW-801 certainly isn't 3x as damaging as Erhohte Nostleistung considering to achieve 1.58/1.65 ata the Kommandogerat is tricked into accepting more air, there is no extra injection of anything. The reason for the increase from 3 to 10 minutes in ~June 1944 isn't anything related to the engineering, it's related to the fact that the LW were losing and higher ups were willing to have more maintenance in exchange for pilots using max power more.

 

The engine modelling needs to be given significant attention if it is to be brought up to the same standard as the flight models and damage models. A system that forces you to do silly things like semi-wep so you don't blow your engine is a failure.

 

I would even contest that based on the P-40E and Spitfire Mk Vb
P-40E if we are basing it off the manuals should have max continuous power of 1000 hp and military of 1150 hp and Manifold pressure change as altitude increases to match that.

Spitfire Mk Vb is a utter mess. the Manual gives a 1 hr limit to + 9 lbs and 5 minute limit each to +12 lbs and +16 lbs. The game gives + 9 lbs a 30 minute limit, +16 lbs last 3 minutes, + 12 lbs lasts 6 minutes and the later two are on the same timer (though technically speaking all 3 share the same timer but this issue pretty much affects all allied aircraft the most)

Couldn't agree more. The way engines are modeled really needs to be reworked completely.

Engine modeling is the only real failure of this series, everything else is great for the most part.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

The spirit of the game regarding engines is nonsensical and needs to be changed.

 

Engine limits were set on doctrine rather then any sort of hard engineering or mechanical limit and had plenty of safety margin. A good example are the US. The current engine rules on the P-40 are a mess. It is quite clear that the US initially set limits based of horsepower, then quantified it to a Manifold Pressure and RPM value. In the case of the P-40E, it is 1150 hp for 5 minutes which it achieved at 3000 rpm 42 "Hg at 11,000 ft and 3000 rpm and 44.5 "Hg at 0 ft. Some time in 1943 they changed it to something similar to what the British did, which is set MP & RPM at all altitudes. They also added a War emergency power for 5 minutes and military power for 15 minutes. The R-2800 fitted on the P-47C started 1943 with a 5 minute limit of 52 "Hg at 2700 rpm and ended 1943 with that setting increased to 15 minutes. What changed? I can tell you the engine certainly didn't, but the doctrine did.

 

We look at the Germans, by the turn of 1944, all their new aircraft/engines had 10 minute limits for WEP. DB-605AM had 1.7 ata, BMW-801 had 1.58/1.65 ata for 10 mins. What happened to the old WEP settings of 1.42 ata? If you believe the game they stayed the same at 1 minute and 3 minutes respectively. Now that is just bullshit. 1.42 ata on the BMW-801 certainly isn't 3x as damaging as Erhohte Nostleistung considering to achieve 1.58/1.65 ata the Kommandogerat is tricked into accepting more air, there is no extra injection of anything. The reason for the increase from 3 to 10 minutes in ~June 1944 isn't anything related to the engineering, it's related to the fact that the LW were losing and higher ups were willing to have more maintenance in exchange for pilots using max power more.

 

The engine modelling needs to be given significant attention if it is to be brought up to the same standard as the flight models and damage models. A system that forces you to do silly things like semi-wep so you don't blow your engine is a failure.

 

I would even contest that based on the P-40E and Spitfire Mk Vb
P-40E if we are basing it off the manuals should have max continuous power of 1000 hp and military of 1150 hp and Manifold pressure change as altitude increases to match that.

Spitfire Mk Vb is a utter mess. the Manual gives a 1 hr limit to + 9 lbs and 5 minute limit each to +12 lbs and +16 lbs. The game gives + 9 lbs a 30 minute limit, +16 lbs last 3 minutes, + 12 lbs lasts 6 minutes and the later two are on the same timer (though technically speaking all 3 share the same timer but this issue pretty much affects all allied aircraft the most)

My tm8 reacantly wonted to get Spitfire MkV as he liked 9 in bobp, i just show him spec list and explained him all engine menagment and limits and in 10min he reconsedered hes idea of geting it,( we still regret decision of geting P-40 when we were naive and didnt know how big mess its engine menagmant is)

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Max_Damage said:

The engine limits are set based on the fuels used and cooling provided or mw50. Low octane fuels are impossible to use at high pressures. Nothing to do with doctrines its just chemistry.

 

Supercooled test bench engines would run 3 minutes at 1.42 ata. But NOT when installed onto a 109 with 87 octane fuels. C3 fuel on fw190 provides 3 minutes 1.42 ata and likewise the mw50 system gives large benefits because it was designed to do just that.

 

No matter which year and which manual you can increase WEP time by increasing cooling, preventing detonation using mw50 and or using higher octanes which themselves prevent detonation.

As I have just said and you decided to ignore Erhohte Nostleistung on the FW-190A-8 increased WEP from 1.42 ata for 3 minutes to 1.58/1.65 ata for 10 minutes. Why was there an increase in time allowed? It wasn't because of any sort of MW50 injection, the A-8 didn't have such a thing and the increase in boost pressure was done by tricking the Kommandogerat to open the throttle more. I also struggle to believe 1.42 ata for the DB-605A was 10x as damaging as 1.7 ata with MW50 injection.

 

Another thing you decided to ignore, why was the P-47C's military power extended by 10 minutes by the end of 1943? The fuel and engine certainly didn't change.

The engine limits are based on reasonable use to getting reasonable life out of the engine. What reasonable life means depends on the situation. Do you want your pilot to have a reasonable life or your mechanics? Are the pilots ignoring the guidelines anyway? There is a balance to be struck there in real life. All the engines ingame are more then capable enough to keep cool in high speed flight, and a few would get close to the temperature limits in a low speed climb (e.g. P-47) in hot conditions.

Edited by RoflSeal
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Rambling thoughts coming up.

 

At this point I just feel straight up exceptions need to be made for the US planes. The timers influence the matchup so fundamentally that they currently are by far the most important thing you need to manage and concern yourself with when flying them. The time and effort investment on keeping track of your engine is way out of wack compared to the actual fighting and flying.

 

Yes, the engine limits are somewhat reminiscent of the eastern front German side, but those did not majorly influence or change the historic/realistic match up. Arguably it somewhat evened out the differences between the two side, but it never felt like the engine limits are constantly looming over everything you do in the old 109s.

 

Yes, very similar harsh limits existed for P40/39 and both largely vanished from the MP scene due to that imo. Yeah a few still fly them, but they are rare at best and few people really cared about this as there were good alternatives in the Yaks and La5s.

Now we're suddenly faced with a similar situation, but no real alternatives to fall back on. We understandably didn't really care about the P39 being killed in a similar way, but now it's looking like the entire US lineup will be crippled by engine limits, and that's somewhat scary. This expansion is a big break for Il2, and the US birds are certainly a big part of that.

 

I think the current situation is untenable, in ways that it wasn't before. The limitations largely functioned acceptably for the particular matchup we had in bos/bom/bok, it clearly does not in BoBP.

 

We had our warning with the 39 and 40, it was largely ignored. Now its gonna hit a whole lot harder.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Max_Damage said:

Supercooled test bench engines would run 3 minutes at 1.42 ata. But NOT when installed onto a 109 with 87 octane fuels. C3 fuel on fw190 provides 3 minutes 1.42 ata and likewise the mw50 system gives large benefits because it was designed to do just that.

 

So explain how 3 minute limitations for 1.42 ATA were magically hand scribbled on the boost gauges of various 109s when - according to your indubitably profound knowledge of engine mechanics - the powerplants would stop working if used for this long in combat?

 

Even better yet, explain why you think the same engine fitted on a fighter, using the same fuel and assuming it gets adequate cooling - you know, the same as on the test stand - would somehow get a significantly lower engine life than the one on said stand.

 

We're talking about a 67% reduction in engine life at maximum boost here, that's not even statistically significant anymore, it's statistically a completely different set of data points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =RvE=Windmills said:

At this point I just feel straight up exceptions need to be made for the US planes. The timers influence the matchup so fundamentally that they currently are by far the most important thing you need to manage and concern yourself with when flying them. The time and effort investment on keeping track of your engine is way out of wack compared to the actual fighting and flying.

 

Exceptions don't need to be made. The whole timer mechanic just needs to be flushed down the toilet.

 

This sim is great, but there were definitely some poor design decisions made. Does anybody remember module unlocks? Wasn't that a great mechanic? I seem to remember it having its defenders. Can someone remind me what happened to it?

 

I'm sure the devs could have thought up a better, more complex replacement, given enough time and resources, but they didn't, and they removed it, and the sim was better off for it.

Edited by Stilicho
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

We look at the Germans, by the turn of 1944, all their new aircraft/engines had 10 minute limits for WEP. DB-605AM had 1.7 ata, BMW-801 had 1.58/1.65 ata for 10 mins. What happened to the old WEP settings of 1.42 ata? If you believe the game they stayed the same at 1 minute and 3 minutes respectively. Now that is just bullshit. 1.42 ata on the BMW-801 certainly isn't 3x as damaging as Erhohte Nostleistung considering to achieve 1.58/1.65 ata the Kommandogerat is tricked into accepting more air, there is no extra injection of anything. The reason for the increase from 3 to 10 minutes in ~June 1944 isn't anything related to the engineering, it's related to the fact that the LW were losing and higher ups were willing to have more maintenance in exchange for pilots using max power more.

 

Whilst I agree with you that the limit timers for the Allied engines are a total mess, what you wrote here just simply is not the case.

 

1.42ata was altogetner banned until certain parts of the DB engine were reengineered to drastically improve cooling, after which point (late summer 43) no time limit appears again for this setting.

 

Later MW injection allowed the engine to run a much higher boost pressure almost indefinitely as it is extremely effective at cooling the cylinders. A 10 min limit was there to make sure pilots didn't run at it for longer than necessary at a time (almost no fight lasts 10 min), but provisions for a full 40 min of use was carried. You simply don't carry 40 min worth of MW50 if you don't expect to use it.

 

The BMW801 was an entirely different engine, a radial with 2 valves pr. cylinder, and can't be compared with the DB. It ran primarily on the higher octane C2 or C3 fuel, and it also went through some changes which allowed it to attain higher boost pressures.

 

Finally this idea that the LW was willing to accept more maintenance in exchange for power is entirely made up and goes against all the evidence available, incl. letters from the "higher ups" which completely contradict this, and the fact that by late 44 they didn't even have the oil to make scheduled oil changes, and thus they had to decrease the TBO dramatically for this reason alone. By late 1944  the LW simply couldn't afford to lose pilots to engine failure.

 

 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, =RvE=Windmills said:

 

Rambling thoughts coming up.

 

At this point I just feel straight up exceptions need to be made for the US planes. The timers influence the matchup so fundamentally that they currently are by far the most important thing you need to manage and concern yourself with when flying them. The time and effort investment on keeping track of your engine is way out of wack compared to the actual fighting and flying.

 

Yes, the engine limits are somewhat reminiscent of the eastern front German side, but those did not majorly influence or change the historic/realistic match up. Arguably it somewhat evened out the differences between the two side, but it never felt like the engine limits are constantly looming over everything you do in the old 109s.

 

Yes, very similar harsh limits existed for P40/39 and both largely vanished from the MP scene due to that imo. Yeah a few still fly them, but they are rare at best and few people really cared about this as there were good alternatives in the Yaks and La5s.

Now we're suddenly faced with a similar situation, but no real alternatives to fall back on. We understandably didn't really care about the P39 being killed in a similar way, but now it's looking like the entire US lineup will be crippled by engine limits, and that's somewhat scary. This expansion is a big break for Il2, and the US birds are certainly a big part of that.

 

I think the current situation is untenable, in ways that it wasn't before. The limitations largely functioned acceptably for the particular matchup we had in bos/bom/bok, it clearly does not in BoBP.

 

We had our warning with the 39 and 40, it was largely ignored. Now its gonna hit a whole lot harder.

 

 

 

 

p39 vanished because it has terrible rear vision, ineffective wing mounted 7.62, slow 37mm and generally takes a lot of time, speed and altitude to get going. Thats not unrealistic though and that s exactly what that plane was IRL. But IRL it also killed a lot of its pilots outside of combat on top of it because it stalled everywhere every time.

 

p40 is just a terrible fighter by 1942 standart and lags behid any contemporary soviet craft and even the lagg. You might want to use it solely because it has 6 50 cals and infinite ammo.

 

Im not sure why blame the game because its not its fault. These planes were just generally sub par and extremely overweighted. And especially so in the face of things like a3, g2, f4. But they wcould work well against finnish brewsters etc.

 

Exceptions for US planes? Why? They arent as good as described on history channel? I can guarantee that there will be no exceptions as the devs have already proven again and again. All planes will work by the same rules.

3 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

 

So explain how 3 minute limitations for 1.42 ATA were magically hand scribbled on the boost gauges of various 109s when - according to your indubitably profound knowledge of engine mechanics - the powerplants would stop working if used for this long in combat?

 

Even better yet, explain why you think the same engine fitted on a fighter, using the same fuel and assuming it gets adequate cooling - you know, the same as on the test stand - would somehow get a significantly lower engine life than the one on said stand.

 

We're talking about a 67% reduction in engine life at maximum boost here, that's not even statistically significant anymore, it's statistically a completely different set of data points.

You might have noticed how mw50 boosted engines can last for 10+ minutes on 1.8 and 1.98 ata. Thats exactly because mw50 provides cooling and prevents detonation. Test bench results refer to engines which work in super cooled conditions which may not be as effective as mw50 but still it makes a large diffirence allowing to run on higher boost and for longer.

Edited by Max_Damage
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this has devolved into fanbois.

 

This thread is depressing. High hopes for Bodenplatte dashed by totally inexplicable engine modeling and elevator modeling. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

...and elevator modeling. 

 

 

I am gratified to see that I’m not the only one who has noticed the worst problem with current Jug 👍🏻

I’ve been mostly an Fw-190 pilot and very satisfied with that plane. It was quite reasonable from the planes’ attributes and experience in every other game that has modeled the Thunderbolt to expect the P-47 to be roughly an American equivalent: Bad turn, but brisk roll, very heavy one-burst firepower, good gun platform, and good high speed handling. The bizarre thing is how much the  current Jug is the inverse of  all that. To be fair, that includes the turning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best compromise IMHO is:

 

DB605 (1.42 ata cleared):

WEP = 5 min (1.42ata) & 10 min with MW50 (1.7 - 1.98ata)

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 

RR Merlin:

WEP = 5 min (18-25 psi)

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 

BMW801:

WEP = 3 min (1.42ata) & 10 min at 1.58/65 ata for later versions (A8) with larger oil cooler, different vents & spark plugs

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 

P&W R2800:

WEP = 10 min with water injection (64" Hg)

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 

Packard V-1650:

WEP = 5 min (67-75" Hg) 

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Panthera said:

Best compromise IMHO is:

 

DB605 (1.42 ata cleared):

WEP = 5 min (1.42ata) & 10 min with MW50 (1.7 - 1.98ata)

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 

RR Merlin:

WEP = 5 min (18-25 psi)

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 

BMW801:

WEP = 3 min (1.42ata) & 10 min at 1.58/65 ata for later versions (A8) with larger oil cooler, different vents & spark plugs

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 

P&W R2800:

WEP = 10 min with water injection (64" Hg)

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 

Packard V-1650:

WEP = 5 min (67-75" Hg) 

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

We could all live with this, except I think you’re under-rating the BMW 801. 

Edited by Rattlesnake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

We could all live with this, except I think you’re under-rating the BMW 801. 

 

Well the 3 min limit is for the earlier versions lacking the bigger oil cooler, new intake valves and sparkplugs which allowed the boost pressure to be raised, which was done by "fooling" the KG unit. The later versions with these updates could naturally run at 1.42ata pretty much indefinitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

I see this has devolved into fanbois.

 

This thread is depressing. High hopes for Bodenplatte dashed by totally inexplicable engine modeling and elevator modeling. 

 

 

As a potential buyer of Bodenplatte, I've been following this and a couple other threads with interest.  I would hope the developer will revisit those issues soon, otherwise I'm not going to bother.  I left War Thunder after two years because they appear to be most interested in adding new content to attract players instead of correcting issues like the way some of their aircraft behave. 

I left modern air combat sims like Falcon and EF2000 many years ago because I realized they will never accurately simulate their subject aircraft because there are some aspects of their performance that will probably remain unpublished for good reason.  I figured there isn't anything worth hiding about WWII aircraft performance anymore so flight sims for them should easily be accurate right?  I went from Aces High to IL2 1946 to War Thunder and it's becoming depressingly clear that it isn't so straightforward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p39 vanished because it has terrible rear vision, ineffective wing mounted 7.62, slow 37mm

 

Claiming it has ineffective armament is pure nonsense, I'm not even going to argue that point. Visibility is questionable, but it's not like there are other good planes that can't see behind them very well.

 

3 hours ago, Max_Damage said:

and generally takes a lot of time, speed and altitude to get going.

 

And what do you think this is caused by? Do you think it has anything to do with having to nurse its engine in continuous until you get into a fight maybe?

 

Also sort of raising the implication that the Russians were wrong about considering it a good plane, and demanding more as it worked for them. Was it a collective mistake on their part and should they have rejected it instead?

Edited by =RvE=Windmills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =RvE=Windmills said:

 

 

 

Claiming it has ineffective armament is pure nonsense, I'm not even going to argue that point. Visibility is questionable, but it's not like there are other good planes that can't see behind them very well.

 

 

And what do you think this is caused by? Do you think it has anything to do with having to nurse its engine in continuous until you get into a fight maybe?

 

Also sort of raising the implication that the Russians were wrong about considering it a good plane, and demanding more as it worked for them. Was it a collective mistake on their part and should they have rejected it instead?

In game all planes besides the p39, the lagg and la5 can very easily check 6. Regarding the armament those 7.62 that can not even converge are literally dead weight and useless.

 

It was sluggish like that IRL too and for the same reasons because it was heavy and underpowered. It had good top speed though and thats why it needed some time to get going. And not all russians liked the cobra. Cobra is of course much better than i16 and p40 and the hurricane and it was all they got at the time so there was nothing to choose from. They wanted the spitfires in 1942 but were not allowed to get them. Maybe its better than the lagg but im not sure in game because the rear visibility is just too poor.

Edited by Max_Damage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Max_Damage said:

It was sluggish like that IRL too and for the same reasons because it was heavy and underpowered.

 

You're avoiding the question. 

 

So again, to be clear, you don't think that this is very much exacerbated by the very strict and unclear engine limits that the P39 has currently? 

 

That you cannot climb in anything but continuous due to desperately needing your timers for a fight? That you struggle to regain lost energy after a fight due to your limits being reached and again being stuck at continuous? You don't think this hurts a plane like the 39 disproportionately?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Panthera said:

Best compromise IMHO is:

 

DB605 (1.42 ata cleared):

WEP = 5 min (1.42ata) & 10 min with MW50 (1.7 - 1.98ata)

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 

RR Merlin:

WEP = 5 min (18-25 psi)

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 

BMW801:

WEP = 3 min (1.42ata) & 10 min at 1.58/65 ata for later versions (A8) with larger oil cooler, different vents & spark plugs

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 

P&W R2800:

WEP = 10 min with water injection (64" Hg)

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 

Packard V-1650:

WEP = 5 min (67-75" Hg) 

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 I'd agree with this but I'd increase the P-47 WEP to 15 min since that's all it had and it really doesn't make much sense to not use that extra 5 min in one go if needed.

 

For the P-47 and other water injected engines it should be a full use type of thing. You can use WEP for as long as you have water, but after it runs out you no longer have WEP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel they are against making subjective changes to planes, wanting to stick to a particular system instead (like the manuals currently). 

 

Though I doubt there's any way to avoid that atm. It might be good to just spend some time thinking about a blanket change that is based on the manuals, but will act as a good temporary fix to the biggest issues as they exist now. 

Edited by =RvE=Windmills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both the P-40 and the P-39 were under-powered only when pilots were sticking to in the manual settings. Russian were not and they didn't care if they had to replace engines every week or so.

The P-39' armament was very effective - there are Pokryshkin notes specifically about that. In the sim you can remove 0.30" if you want, too.

The Airacobra backward visibility is not bad - it's pretty good, actually. You can peek around the arc behind and air intake with the head left/right/forward/backward head movement. Use the big top mirror too - a  pitch up and few looks through it's all it takes to check your six. If you are at altitude and want to check the whole backward zone just do a slight pitch up and then a half-roll and let the nose pitch down slowly. The mirror will scan from ground to the sky in one go.

If that's not enough then go to graphics settings and set the mirror rendering option to "simple". Then the plane's fuselage and empennage will not be rendered in mirrors... it's almost (IMHO) like a cheat.

 

For the question "why Allies weren't using P-39s more?" - the answers is they hadn't much of need for short range point defense interceptors later in the war. Even with the V-1650/Merlin engine P-39/P-63 wouldn't have enough range; the air-frame wasn't big enough to carry more fuel. Hmm... actually P-39s were used and important - in the early days in the PTO pilots flying the "iron dog" managed to defend against Japanese, among with the P-40s and Wildcats, well enough. Battle of the Port Moresby and New Guinea campaign could be good examples.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Max_Damage said:

They wanted the spitfires in 1942 but were not allowed to get them.

 

Russians immensely preferred the P-39 to the Spitfire.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Panthera said:

Best compromise IMHO is:

 

DB605 (1.42 ata cleared):

WEP = 5 min (1.42ata) & 10 min with MW50 (1.7 - 1.98ata)

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 

RR Merlin:

WEP = 5 min (18-25 psi)

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 

BMW801:

WEP = 3 min (1.42ata) & 10 min at 1.58/65 ata for later versions (A8) with larger oil cooler, different vents & spark plugs

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 

P&W R2800:

WEP = 10 min with water injection (64" Hg)

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)

 

Packard V-1650:

WEP = 5 min (67-75" Hg) 

Combat power = indefinite (recharges fully drained WEP in 3 min)


Once you step out of manual boundaries everything is purely subjective. This is exactly why they are hesitant to change their system. No matter what we do there will never be a concrete solution to this problem.

If this were a political spectrum it would be a step in the direction with most people's views. Anyone pilot that doesn't have water injection or some 10 minute limitation(Fw-190A8) still isn't going to be happy, but happier than before. It helps but its not helping the planes that need it the most. If you buff one plane you've got to buff them all for the sake of consistency. There is evidence of the P-51D running WEP for 15 minutes and if a P-51 can do it surely a Spitfire can do it. Then who's to say a Tempest can't do it? Why would it not be logical to assume German pilots being vastly out numbered and in desperate situations were pushing their planes up to 20 minutes at time? In my opinion just give everyone a 15 minute limit, assuming sufficient cooling. The A8/D9 and K4 don't blow up soon after their manual limit, the P-47 gets to use all of its WEP and the Merlin simply based off the P-51 running for 15 minutes straight. Sure its not concrete evidence for all the aircraft and yes it makes for some what corny gameplay knowing everyone has the exact same limit for balance purposes, but in my defense for this we assume perfect air frame quality for all planes which can be argued as fair game play too since the German pilots would not be happy with sub par airframes due to wartime conditions. But most importantly we can all agree its a hell of a lot more realistic than your engine blowing up immediately after the limit stated in the manual. Also in combination with the same recharge time of 3 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DSR_T-888 said:

Once you step out of manual boundaries everything is purely subjective. This is exactly why they are hesitant to change their system. No matter what we do there will never be a concrete solution to this problem.

 

Like I said above, I don't think its an issue as you can design something based on the existing manual limits. 

 

So for instance,

-emergency timers can cool down in combat

-any 2 minute or lower timer gets tripled

-any timer between 3 to 5 gets doubled

-30 minute timers or higher get eliminated and count as continuous, 30 mins is a meaninglessly long timer imo.

 

I'd also like to see something about cutting down the amount of different timers on a plane to 2 max. So everything has combat and emergency as limited modes only, though I need to look at the numbers to see if that can be applied to all planes without issues. 

 

In this way you'd have a consistent system that can be easily applied from the manual numbers, but is a lot more functional for all planes. Obviously it would requite a bit of workshopping, I don't have a list of all the planes here. 

Edited by =RvE=Windmills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

Russians immensely preferred the P-39 to the Spitfire.

 

From this report we can read that: "The airplanes are fairly evenly matched below 15,000 ft. with the Spitfire having the advantage due to higher critical engine altitude above 15,000 feet".

 

The Spitfire was considered to have worst visibility of all planes tested (Hurricane, P-40E, P-39D, P-38D).

Also, from the report: "Another disadvantage was that the British engine after having been flown for a short time at high power, throw so much oil that the windshield is covered and visibility poor; distortion when looking through windshield side panels is also bad."

 

So... getting oil on the front glass would be a realistic penalty once exceeding time limits.

 

edit: fixed the link

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

From this report we can read that: "The airplanes are fairly evenly matched below 15,000 ft. with the Spitfire having the advantage due to higher critical engine altitude above 15,000 feet".

 

The Spitfire was considered to have worst visibility of all planes tested (Hurricane, P-40E, P-39D, P-38D).

Also, from the report: "Another disadvantage was that the British engine after having been flown for a short time at high power, throw so much oil that the windshield is covered and visibility poor; distortion when looking through windshield side panels is also bad."

 

So... getting oil on the front glass would be a realistic penalty once exceeding time limits.

 

I think your link is broken. It leads back to this page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

atleast they could rethink recharg on 47 if 5min limit is by manual, or thats also explained somwhere in manual and its as confusing as its in game now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Max_Damage said:

p39 vanished because it has terrible rear vision, ineffective wing mounted 7.62, slow 37mm and generally takes a lot of time, speed and altitude to get going. Thats not unrealistic though and that s exactly what that plane was IRL. But IRL it also killed a lot of its pilots outside of combat on top of it because it stalled everywhere every time.

 

p40 is just a terrible fighter by 1942 standart and lags behid any contemporary soviet craft and even the lagg. You might want to use it solely because it has 6 50 cals and infinite ammo.

 

Im not sure why blame the game because its not its fault. These planes were just generally sub par and extremely overweighted. And especially so in the face of things like a3, g2, f4. But they wcould work well against finnish brewsters etc.

 

Exceptions for US planes? Why? They arent as good as described on history channel? I can guarantee that there will be no exceptions as the devs have already proven again and again. All planes will work by the same rules.

You might have noticed how mw50 boosted engines can last for 10+ minutes on 1.8 and 1.98 ata. Thats exactly because mw50 provides cooling and prevents detonation. Test bench results refer to engines which work in super cooled conditions which may not be as effective as mw50 but still it makes a large diffirence allowing to run on higher boost and for longer.

 

This is the biggest rubbish I have seen in this thread entirely. Russians loved the Cobra. Cobra was way superior compared to La-5F, Yak-1b or Yak-7b, hence the reason to use it as mainstay fighter in the most important theatres during 1943. Many of the Cobra units kept the Cobra until the end of the war, while they could have changed to La5-FN or Yak9 all of the time. This says really more then enough about the performance of the Cobra.

"Aren't as good as described on history channel"? You really must have been brainwashed, oh boy. US and English aircraft have been vastly superior to Russian aircraft up until 1944. There are hundreds of German sources out there. They always respected the western Allied aircraft and fighters, not so much in the Eastern front. They always put the good fighters to the western front because they had to face better enemies there, while the Eastern front got the old rubbish stuff. Germans didn't even take Russian aircraft serious until 1943. The first aircraft the Russians had, that was really dangerous in terms of performance was the Cobra (oh wonder, a US aircraft). You think this was all because of bias against the Russians, but - oh wonder - no bias against the western allies? Oh come one. 

Russian propaganda and mechanics like the current engine limits, that absolutely ridicule relative aircraft performance (e.g. making the Yak-1 more dangerous for an F4 then a Spitfire Mk5) seemed to really have an impact on your view and opinion.

 

Even War Thunder and Il2 1946 are painting a more realistic picture regarding relative performance between aircraft, then BoX does right now. The sole reason is the odd and entirely unrealistic engine limit mechanic.

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

×