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

[ZachariasX]

10 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

It's likely that they would have set up an environment that the aircraft would have likely operated in.

I've never seen an engine test bench that does that. The test benches i've seen (mostly for restoring car engines) just provide the requiring cooling to run the engine at the envisioned ratings, and then you measure how well it does. The test bench is there to measure actual shaft power at given ratings plus it shows you if the engine stays intact *assuming proper cooling*.

 

How would an engine cell look like for a radial engine then? You'd have to put it in a large wind tunnel that simulates low pressure, high windspeed conditions? If you did such, I figure you had to provide conditions for each runs, instead of assuming conditions perfect, and telling from that "ratings are..."

 

Anyone has more specifics on that?

 

EDIT: I doubt such a cell provides more than just enough airflow and sound proofing:

Edited November 28, 2018 by ZachariasX

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I've never seen an engine test bench that does that. The test benches i've seen (mostly for restoring car engines) just provide the requiring cooling to run the engine at the envisioned ratings, and then you measure how well it does. The test bench is there to measure actual shaft power at given ratings plus it shows you if the engine stays intact *assuming proper cooling*.

 

How would an engine cell look like for a radial engine then? You'd have to put it in a large wind tunnel that simulates low pressure, high windspeed conditions? If you did such, I figure you had to provide conditions for each runs, instead of assuming conditions perfect, and telling from that "ratings are..."

 

Anyone has more specifics on that?

They had ductwork that went to the engine to provide needed airflow. 

The temp thing was just an assumption by me as id makes little sense to provide power specs that a pilot couldn't achieve. I know the engines were overboosted in many test but that 7 1/2 hour test was to make sure it could handle the needed WEP times for combat use.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Legioneod

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

They had ductwork that went to the engine to provide needed airflow. 

Yes, I just added a picture. But would you climatise that air? Let the whole chamber run at 500 mm Hg pressure? Varying humidity?

[Legioneod]

3 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Yes, I just added a picture. But would you climatise that air? Let the whole chamber run at 500 mm Hg pressure? Varying humidity?

Who knows (unlikely to happen imo) but all I'm saying is that it makes little sense to test an engine for combat if it couldn't achieve those results in a realistic setting. Of course, we all know that the R2800 could achieve those results and did.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Legioneod

[Talisman]

In real life our in-game Spitfire Mk IX LF, Merlin 66 engine passed 100 hours endurance testing at emergency combat rating +18 lbs boost and 3,000 rpm.

 

Hi folks,

 

Some interesting details on page 224 of this article (link below) regarding Development of the Rolls-Royce Merlin Engine.

 

Standard production Merlin 66 engine, as fitted to the Spitfire Mk IX LF, overload tested @ 3,000 rpm with +18 lbs combat boost for 100 hours endurance (27 hours initially) with no adjustment or replacement and no involuntary stops and usual routine maintenance omitted entirely.  The engine was then stripped down and found to be in excellent condition.  The engine was then rebuilt without any replacement parts being fitted, then fitted to a Spitfire and given a further 100 hours endurance testing.

 

The lecture was by Mr A C Lovesey:

In 1930 Lovesey was awarded Aviators Certificate No. 9350 by the Royal Aero Club.^[3] In the late 1930s Lovesey (who had become known as 'Lov' in company shorthand) began working with others on developing the new Rolls-Royce Merlin and just prior to the start of the Battle of Britain was placed in charge of the development programme. His contribution to the Merlin, doubling its power output and improving reliability at the same time, was a major achievement. Post-war, Lovesey adapted the Merlin for civil use and then turned to turbojet development with work on the Rolls-Royce Avon.

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

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-lovesey.pdf

[danielprates]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Unlikely imo, that would defeat the purpose of the test. It's likely that they would have set up an environment that the aircraft would have likely operated in.

To test the engine outside of normal cooling that the aircraft would experience wouldn't help at all, the whole purpose of the test is to determine the safe/max power usage in normal operating conditions that the aircraft would experience.

 

I get that but a static radial engine in a hangar somewhere replicates only an airplane standing still in the runway. In that situation,  viz full throttle/brakes on/ cowl flaps open,  in my experience the engine overheats pretty quickly - minutes.

[Legioneod]

Just now, danielprates said:

 

I get that but a static radial engine in a hangar somewhere replicates only an airplane standing still in the runway. In that situation,  viz full throttle/brakes on/ cowl flaps open,  in my experience the engine overheats pretty quickly - minutes.

They did have air flowing to the engine of course, but I don't think it would have been more than the engine would experience in flight.

[Rattlesnake]

6 hours ago, =FSB=HandyNasty said:

About the survivability of the engine, and correct me if I'm wrong (I am not that knowledgable in engines), but wouldn't that be an issue of fuel quality? The 87 octane the germans used vs the 95 (100?) octane of the VVS. The low octane grade of the fuel of the LW made engine life rather short, no?

 

What Kurfurst said. When it comes to octane rating you're either detonating or you are not. It is true that higher octane gas allowed the Allies in many cases to use higher boost to get more power per liter of engine displacement. But if you stay within non-detonating boost limits (you can see that the 109 F for example, only operated at about 42" boost in Emergency) nothing should break.

2 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

 

 

There was another source about German aircraft using seals for WEP. If you would want to use WEP, you had to break a seal. Seals would be checked on the ground and the pilot had to have a good explanation why he needed WEP. That was due to cost reasons, because WEP-ing weares an engine down quicker, which obviously leads to more service/engine switching, which costs more money. But not because the engine would blow up ?

This is almost certainly an absolutely necessary measure to keep young men from hot-rodding their machines at every turn. And one can be sure that trying to catch an enemy aircraft, or trying to out-climb, out-turn, or out-run an enemy AC all counted as good reasons to break the seal.  Hah, this gives me an idea for yet another mechanic that would be superior to to the current 5 minutes then BOOM:  If you use WEP without damaging any enemy assets at all a point deduction will incur at the end of your sortie.

I've posted this before, but it is worth doing again. At about halfway through this interview he describes taking one of his ground crew up for a ride in the Jug-sitting in the man's lap to fit both of them in the cockpit!-And during the course of this ride he kicks in the water injection to show the fellow the way it pushes you back in the seat. Now, it does not seem like the kind of thing you would do if you only had 5-15 minutes of WEP before your precious engine broke.
Veteran Tales Charlie Mohrle P-47 Pilot
 

Edited November 28, 2018 by CMBailey

[II./JG77_Manu*]

14 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

Hah, this gives me an idea for yet another mechanic that would be superior to to the current 5 minutes then BOOM:  If you use WEP without damaging any enemy assets at all a point deduction will incur at the end of your sortie.
 

 

Haha ? this is by far the best implementation I can think of. If I would have the money to create an own flight sim, that's how i'd do it.

 

On another note, it might be interesting to check Wings over the Reich (or even WoFF, a few WW1 aircraft surely also had something like WEP?), how they do it.

They usually put a lot of emphasis and creativity in modeling aspects, that are hard to represent in numbers or binary functions.

[=621=Samikatz]

If they're insistent on an engine wear model I'd much rather see a slowly increasing loss in power rather than total engine failure.

[LColony_Kong]

3 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

That why I commented that a possible solution was to simulate wear in the engines if you abuse them.

The problem is very complex anyway. In one hand we know that most of the engines could run at any setting for longer than the pilot manual said without breaking down immediately. But on the other hand, I supposed that many pilots were flying them by the manual like in the sim while others didn´t. And in some engine models in some period of time due to technical faults exceeding the limits did have consequences. Who did what and to what extent and with which consequences?

What I would like is that the developers would offer different consequences for exceeding manual limits (damage vs degraded performance or another system) as a difficult option and let some engine data (and for the same reason damage data) to be exported. That way, in an online campaign, consequences could be imposed on the pilots that abused their engines. The mission designer could, for example, impose flying by the book if he wanted it (could be a system like the current one with engine failing or mission penalties like banning you to use the same model of the plane for  a certain amount of flying time or mission numbers). Other options and ways to simulate it could be possible too.

I think the more the options the better.

This highlights the problem with these discussions. Simulating weat is beyond the scope of this or any other time. It simply doesn't fit into a game and would end up being silly. Which pilots chose to fly to limits and which didn't does t matter either. A video game should never ever ever ever ever, alter the engineering aspects of a simulation as a substitute for operational realities. It would be like programming a burst limiter into the airplane guns if there was a standard burst length or something. 

 

The best a game can or ever should do is simulate the pure capabilities of the airframe. The tactical environment will always be that of a game.

 

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, Fumes said:

This highlights the problem with these discussions. Simulating weat is beyond the scope of this or any other time. It simply doesn't fit into a game and would end up being silly. Which pilots chose to fly to limits and which didn't does t matter either. A video game should never ever ever ever ever, alter the engineering aspects of a simulation as a substitute for operational realities. It would be like programming a burst limiter into the airplane guns if there was a standard burst length or something. 

 

The best a game can or ever should do is simulate the pure capabilities of the airframe. The tactical environment will always be that of a game.

 

Then removal of these timers is the only option.

[LColony_Kong]

24 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Then removal of these timers is the only option.

Yes, and that is what should be done. 

 

Allow me to highlight how absurd the premises of all these engine limit conversations are.

 

The only reason we are even discussing time limits I the first place is because they are in the manuals. But we know these limits are just for overhaul times and not to prevent immediate engine failure when exceeded. Yet for some reason all these conversations keep revolving around some time limit  the fact of the matter is that we have no documents whatsoever that specify a time-to-go-boom for any engine in the game. And we have tons of indications to the contrary. 

 

Yet for some reason we perist in this absurdity.

 

 

 

For anyone who wants to model operational issues in place of real engineering simulation, please consider how ridiculous that would be. Are all russian planned going to have rng performance due to crappy factory standards? Are late war German planes going to have issues due to limited supplies? I mean we could do this all day. And it would be dumb to only apply this concept to engine power

 

 

The best suggestion so far, aside from complete limit removals, was unlimited combat and 15min of wep for all planes

Edited November 28, 2018 by Fumes

[Rattlesnake]

5 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Yes, and that is what should be done. 

 

Allow me to highlight how absurd the premises of all these engine limit conversations are.

 

The only reason we are even discussing time limits I the first place is because they are in the manuals. But we know these limits are just for overhaul times and not to prevent immediate engine failure when exceeded. Yet for some reason all these conversations keep revolving around some time limit  the fact of the matter is that we have no documents whatsoever that specify a time-to-go-boom for any engine in the game. And we have tons of indications to the contrary. 

 

Yet for some reason we perist in this absurdity.

 

 

 

For anyone who wants to model operational issues in place of real engineering simulation, please consider how ridiculous that would be. Are all russian planned going to have rng performance due to crappy factory standards? Are late war German planes going to have issues due to limited supplies? I mean we could do this all day. And it would be dumb to only apply this concept to engine power

New player retention is an issue to think about. How many converts from other games quit after a couple of fights ending with blown engine  because it is not intuitive to have to handle your throttle like a surgeon’s scalpel to keep it in the range that gives power without pushing  it a little to far into the destructive range, and because you have no way to keep track of how far you’ve pushed your engine except trying to count the seconds while dogfighting? (To reiterate, some kind of message informing you how much WEP time you have left would by itself make the whole situation better without any other changes?)

 

[LColony_Kong]

I'd go a step further and auto retard throttle to nearest safe setting. It's too easy to blow egines because you used up 1min of wep in short bursts over an hour flight

 

 

[Legioneod]

8 minutes ago, Fumes said:

I'd go a step further and auto retard throttle to nearest safe setting. It's too easy to blow egines because you used up 1min of wep in short bursts over an hour flight

 

 

I strongly vote against any simplifications, that's what the difficulty settings are for. Best solution is to just get rid of timer all together, the overall dynamics wouldn't change all that much, aircraft the were historically good will be good in-game. Currently aircraft that were praised are sitting in the hanger due to the very restrictive limits.

[=RvE=Windmills]

7 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I strongly vote against any simplifications, that's what the difficulty settings are for. Best solution is to just get rid of timer all together, the overall dynamics wouldn't change all that much, aircraft the were historically good will be good in-game. Currently aircraft that were praised are sitting in the hanger due to the very restrictive limits.

 

Wouldn't the P40 instantly become the best plane in the game?

 

Anyway, I don't think its necessary to remove them. Just make them a bit longer for most planes on the high end to make them more usable. 5/10 min timers are fine, anything below that becomes a pain.

[Rebel_Scum]

2 hours ago, Fumes said:

This highlights the problem with these discussions. Simulating weat is beyond the scope of this or any other time. It simply doesn't fit into a game and would end up being silly. Which pilots chose to fly to limits and which didn't does t matter either. A video game should never ever ever ever ever, alter the engineering aspects of a simulation as a substitute for operational realities. It would be like programming a burst limiter into the airplane guns if there was a standard burst length or something. 

 

The best a game can or ever should do is simulate the pure capabilities of the airframe. The tactical environment will always be that of a game.

 

"It simply doesn't fit into a game and would end up being silly."  That's precisely what's happening, here.  

[Legioneod]

8 minutes ago, =RvE=Windmills said:

 

Wouldn't the P40 instantly become the best plane in the game?

 

Anyway, I don't think its necessary to remove them. Just make them a bit longer for most planes on the high end to make them more usable. 5/10 min timers are fine, anything below that becomes a pain.

Then you have the problem of how long to make them for each aircraft? The best thing would be to remove them.

 

[LukeFF]

10 hours ago, CMBailey said:

A factually true statement. So is “Kaleidoscopes are of no use to the blind”.

 

Still doesn't change the fact that it would benefit only those who want to use techno and does nothing for those who don't use techno. It's a bandaid solution. Any proposal to make engine management more in line with reality has to benefit both groups of users here. 

[Rebel_Scum]

Just now, =RvE=Windmills said:

 

Wouldn't the P40 instantly become the best plane in the game?

 

Anyway, I don't think its necessary to remove them. Just make them a bit longer for most planes on the high end to make them more usable. 5/10 min timers are fine, anything below that becomes a pain.

 

"Wouldn't the P40 instantly become the best plane in the game?"

Removing the timers would benefit German aircraft, too.  

 

"Anyway, I don't think its necessary to remove them. Just make them a bit longer for most planes on the high end to make them more usable. 5/10 min timers are fine, anything below that becomes a pain."

To me, the basic appeal of IL-2 BoX is that it presents itself as a technically accurate flight sim.  The inclusion of these fictitious engine timers negates IL-2's appeal from that standpoint.  It all depends on what type of sim you want.  (Not that there's anything wrong with the fact that some people would prefer an arcade-style sim instead of a technically accurate one.)

 

 

[Rattlesnake]

1 minute ago, LukeFF said:

Any proposal to make engine management more in line with reality has to benefit both groups of users here. 

This does not follow.

Keep in mind that this is not my ideal solution, it is just an easy to implement better-than-nothing. Wouldn't give anyone extra WEP time, it would just let them use it without the headache of breaking their engine unintentionally. Seems like the smallest of bones to throw out there.

[Rebel_Scum]

4 hours ago, CMBailey said:

Hah, this gives me an idea for yet another mechanic that would be superior to to the current 5 minutes then BOOM:  If you use WEP without damaging any enemy assets at all a point deduction will incur at the end of your sortie.

 

LOL!  The offending pilot should also be ordered to write a sincere letter of apology to the Pratt & Whitney corporation.

[Matt]

11 minutes ago, =RvE=Windmills said:

Wouldn't the P40 instantly become the best plane in the game?

Not really. Even with the P-40 on WEP,  the Bf 109 F-2 is faster at 2000 meters and the F-4 has equal speed at 1500 meters already. Also the P-40 with WEP overheats easily in a climb or turn fight.

 

And at higher altitude, the "no time-limit" would benefit the German planes way more than the P-40. At 4000 meters, the P-40 can't even reach a high enough manifold pressure for take-off power.

 

Sure, at low level, it would be a monster, but at higher altitude it would be roughly the same or even worse, relative to the opposition. Would make things kind of interesting imo.

[Rattlesnake]

28 minutes ago, =RvE=Windmills said:

 

Wouldn't the P40 instantly become the best plane in the game?

 

 

The P-40, lacking any features to prevent gross over-boosting, is obviously a special case. Still give it 3-5 minutes at maximum possible boost to give a taste of how they were used sometimes.

[Rebel_Scum]

Just now, Matt said:

Not really. Even with the P-40 on WEP,  the Bf 109 F-2 is faster at 2000 meters and the F-4 has equal speed at 1500 meters already. Also the P-40 with WEP overheats easily in a climb or turn fight.

 

And at higher altitude, the "no time-limit" would benefit the German planes way more than the P-40. At 4000 meters, the P-40 can't even reach a high enough manifold pressure for take-off power.

 

Sure, at low level, it would be a monster, but at higher altitude it would be roughly the same or even worse, relative to the opposition. Would make things kind of interesting imo.

 

Back when the devs were still working on Battle of Midway, I was actually looking forward to experiencing first hand (at least to the extent possible in a PC sim) the dramatic discrepancies in performance between the Zero and F4F.  To me, it would have detracted from the overall experience if the devs had tried to balance game play by--for example--adding a fictitious turn-radius limiting device that breaks off a Zero's wings if it pulls more than two Gs.

[HR_Zunzun]

3 hours ago, Fumes said:

This highlights the problem with these discussions. Simulating weat is beyond the scope of this or any other time. It simply doesn't fit into a game and would end up being silly. Which pilots chose to fly to limits and which didn't does t matter either. A video game should never ever ever ever ever, alter the engineering aspects of a simulation as a substitute for operational realities. It would be like programming a burst limiter into the airplane guns if there was a standard burst length or something. 

 

The best a game can or ever should do is simulate the pure capabilities of the airframe. The tactical environment will always be that of a game.

 

I see your point but removing limits altogether will remove, for example, diferences in cruise speeds. That was very relevant tactically and I like it to be included. Other aspects would surely be affected as well without any sort of limit.

My idea would be giving options. You remove all limits for server like berloga and offer limits in whatever form (wearing is just an idea) for server like taw where tactics and logistic is part of the fun.

Whatever you do is going to have some sort of caveat depending on circumstances.

[Rebel_Scum]

20 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

My idea would be giving options. You remove all limits for server like berloga and offer limits in whatever form (wearing is just an idea) for server like taw where tactics and logistic is part of the fun.

 

That would be a perfectly acceptable solution until something better came along.  It would be nice if these options were available offline, too.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Rebel_Scum

[mattebubben]

Personally i feel like the best would be to remove the hard engine limits and instead tie it to the points system.

 

To where it would penalize you score wise if you come back to base with an engine with significant wear from going to far past the engine limits (Or otherwise giving a bonus if you keep within the limits).

 

This would also add some flexibility where it might to go over the limits in certain situations.

 

For example if you go for a mission without getting anything done (no kills or many ground targets destroyed) but with significant engine wear you would be punished.

But if you go past the reccomended limits in order to either secure kills or to make sure you get back safe its still worth it

(as you will still get some score where as dying would not).

 

So maybe somewhere along with the current system where death gives you 0% score and

Bailing out but surviving gives 50% then  returning to base could give between 55-90% depending on how much wear there is on the engine with 100% being for those who return to base with the engine still in good condition (having kept to the limits mandated in the manuals).

 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by mattebubben

[Legioneod]

51 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

I see your point but removing limits altogether will remove, for example, diferences in cruise speeds. That was very relevant tactically and I like it to be included. Other aspects would surely be affected as well without any sort of limit.

My idea would be giving options. You remove all limits for server like berloga and offer limits in whatever form (wearing is just an idea) for server like taw where tactics and logistic is part of the fun.

Whatever you do is going to have some sort of caveat depending on circumstances.

 

Not really imo, players will still need to manage fuel and running maxed out or at higher settings will cause even more drain on their fuel. Imo it's be no different than dcs, players run their engines conservatively until they really need them, even though they have the option of running them as hard as they want.

 

Until engine limits are removed we'll never have a proper simulation.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Legioneod

[Sgt_Joch]

it is like everything else, it depends what you are trying to simulate.

 

if you are only interested in a competitive edge in a MP deathmatch, where your engine only has to live to 20-30 minutes, then yes, limits do not matter and you can abuse your engine mercilessly. (but don't pretend this is in any fashion "realistic" ).

 

if you want to simulate what it was like to be a fighter pilot in WW2, where you would respect time limits, except in emergency, then yes, the current system is much more realistic.

 

Now the whole concept that engine limits mean nothing and were there just to make the mechanic's job easier is a joke. All countries pushed their engines and chose time limits which had a safety factor, but were still close to the real limit.

 

for example, report on P47 engine failures after 15-30 hours. The engines showed signs of "severe detonation" and piston burning through (i.e. destroyed). The cause was apparently that they had been run at the WEP of 72" for some time without water:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47m-20march45.jpg

Edited November 28, 2018 by Sgt_Joch

[LColony_Kong]

1 hour ago, HR_Zunzun said:

I see your point but removing limits altogether will remove, for example, diferences in cruise speeds. That was very relevant tactically and I like it to be included. Other aspects would surely be affected as well without any sort of limit.

My idea would be giving options. You remove all limits for server like berloga and offer limits in whatever form (wearing is just an idea) for server like taw where tactics and logistic is part of the fun.

Whatever you do is going to have some sort of caveat depending on circumstances.

I understand you point but I don't think it's going to be an issue. Fuel is going to limit use of these powers, and generally if you are faster at cruise your going to be faster at mil.

 

In dcs you can fly for hours at wep and people don't because of fuel. Even if your mission would allow you to get away with constant wep, doing so rquired you to take tons of extra fuel. So a player taking 50 percent fuel and flying around at cruise is generally better off than 100 percent and constant wep

10 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

it is like everything else, it depends what you are trying to simulate.

 

if you are only interested in a competitive edge in a MP deathmatch, where your engine only has to live to 20-30 minutes, then yes, limits do not matter and you can abuse your engine mercilessly. (but don't pretend this is in any fashion "realistic" ).

 

if you want to simulate what it was like to be a fighter pilot in WW2, where you would respect time limits, except in emergency, then yes, the current system is much more realistic.

 

Now the whole concept that engine limits mean nothing and were there just to make the mechanic's job easier is a joke. All countries pushed their engines and chose time limits which had a safety factor, but were still close to the real limit.

 

for example, report on P47 engine failures after 15-30 hours. The engines showed signs of "severe detonation" and piston burning through (i.e. destroyed). The cause was apparently that they had been run at the WEP of 72" for some time without water:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47m-20march45.jpg

Yes without water. There is a huge different between running and engine at a safe power longer than recommended, and trying to run and engine at a power setting that required an additive to be safe in the first place. 

[Sgt_Joch]

3 minutes ago, Fumes said:

 

Yes without water. There is a huge different between running and engine at a safe power longer than recommended, and trying to run and engine at a power setting that required an additive to be safe in the first place. 

 

but, but, I thought you said that "engine limits" do not matter...now you are saying they do matter????

 

you should make up your mind. 

[LColony_Kong]

Just now, Sgt_Joch said:

 

but, but, I thought you said that "engine limits" do not matter...now you are saying they do matter????

 

you should make up your mind. 

Don't be a troll. We have been talking about the time limits. Not the power limits themselves. The amount of power run and the time you can run it are not the same thing. Never have a advocated, in any of these threads, for being able to run power settings without the required water or mw50 or for non historical ratings

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

1 hour ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

but, but, I thought you said that "engine limits" do not matter...now you are saying they do matter????

 

you should make up your mind. 

Please do not purposefully distort what people are saying. Requirement of Water injection so the engine does not destroy at high power settings itself is different from fabricating hard limits on manuals describing reasonable use.

Edited November 28, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Sgt_Joch]

10 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Don't be a troll. We have been talking about the time limits. Not the power limits themselves. The amount of power run and the time you can run it are not the same thing. Never have a advocated, in any of these threads, for being able to run power settings without the required water or mw50 or for non historical ratings

 

Dont start with the childish insults.  We have had this discussion before you and me. Just removing the engine limits will never happen, unless the devs replace it with a more realistic system of engine modeling.

 

the most you may see is a player option to remove the engine limits in their game if they wish. Trying to impose your preferred solution will not happen since it is worse than the current system.

 

Do not forget that you started a poll to find out what the "Community" wanted and it turns out 90% were fine with some sort of engine limits.

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by Sgt_Joch

[Rattlesnake]

6 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

90% were fine with some sort of engine limits.

 

I prefer *some sort* of limit myself. What I definitely do not prefer are extremely short limits follows by engine destruction with no real way to keep track of how much WEP time you have left. Especially alongside enormous and arbitrary inconsistencies in how long different aircraft can operate at WEP and Combat. I would rather have no limits than this. 

 

Simply having airplanes automatically drop down to a lower power mode after the timer was exceeded would mitigate the problem enormously.

I’ve decided to make a concise list of possible solutions to this dilemma. In no order of preference or practicality:

1. Remove limits entirely.

2. 10-15 minutes WEP or till the water runs out for everything, infinite or half hour of “combat” for everything.

3. No engine limits, but increase the rate of fuel burn so cruising on lower power settings is forced.

4. Some sort of timer at least informing you how much WEP/Combat you have left.

5. Automatic shutoff when WEP limits are exceeded, rather than engine destruction. 

6. Complete thermal modeling of the engine that would predict when it got hot enough for detonator to set in.

7. Points penalty for using WEP without combat results.

Edited November 28, 2018 by CMBailey

[Talon_]

2 hours ago, Rebel_Scum said:

 

Back when the devs were still working on Battle of Midway, I was actually looking forward to experiencing first hand (at least to the extent possible in a PC sim) the dramatic discrepancies in performance between the Zero and F4F.  To me, it would have detracted from the overall experience if the devs had tried to balance game play by--for example--adding a fictitious turn-radius limiting device that breaks off a Zero's wings if it pulls more than two Gs.

 

The Zero will be either unflyable or grossly OP as the Japanese didn't list any sort of emergency time limits.

1 hour ago, Sgt_Joch said:

for example, report on P47 engine failures after 15-30 hours. The engines showed signs of "severe detonation" and piston burning through (i.e. destroyed). The cause was apparently that they had been run at the WEP of 72" for some time without water:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47m-20march45.jpg

 

The April documents confirm in the end that this was due to the (well-known nowadays) packing issues of the C-series engines for shipping in the P-47M. Note the P-47D engine was not failing at 70", only a few horsepower less.

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, Sgt_Joch said:

it is like everything else, it depends what you are trying to simulate.

 

if you are only interested in a competitive edge in a MP deathmatch, where your engine only has to live to 20-30 minutes, then yes, limits do not matter and you can abuse your engine mercilessly. (but don't pretend this is in any fashion "realistic" ).

 

if you want to simulate what it was like to be a fighter pilot in WW2, where you would respect time limits, except in emergency, then yes, the current system is much more realistic.

 

Now the whole concept that engine limits mean nothing and were there just to make the mechanic's job easier is a joke. All countries pushed their engines and chose time limits which had a safety factor, but were still close to the real limit.

 

for example, report on P47 engine failures after 15-30 hours. The engines showed signs of "severe detonation" and piston burning through (i.e. destroyed). The cause was apparently that they had been run at the WEP of 72" for some time without water:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47m-20march45.jpg

 

1 hour ago, RoflSeal said:

Please do not purposefully distort what people are saying. Requirement of Water injection so the engine does not destroy at high power settings itself is different from fabricating hard limits on manuals describing reasonable use. The mere fact that the P-47Ms were running dry suggests that either their water injection system failed (unlikely tbh considering the report mentions intermittent) or that pilots were using 72" far longer then 5 minutes officially allowed (just like one of the P-47 manuals says to do)

 

 

Those engine were run at 76" (the set limit was 72"), thats the reason for the high amount of damage besides the poor shipping conditions they were in when they got to England.

 

Rgardless of whether you think so or not, hard set limits are very unrealistic, and it'd be more realitic not to have them at all. I'd rather die from a K4 thats running full WEP all day, than die from my engine giving out when I really needed it.

 

Engine time limits and Tech chat are the only things I really hate about this game. Imo they are what keep it from being great.

 

 

At the very least they should have it as a server option, no one ever criticised a game for having too many choices.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Legioneod

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

13 hours ago, Legioneod said:

 

 

Those engine were run at 76" (the set limit was 72"), thats the reason for the high amount of damage besides the poor shipping conditions they were in when they got to England.

 

Rgardless of whether you think so or not, hard set limits are very unrealistic, and it'd be more realitic not to have them at all. I'd rather die from a K4 thats running full WEP all day, than die from my engine giving out when I really needed it.

 

Engine time limits and Tech chat are the only things I really hate about this game. Imo they are what keep it from being great.

With these engines that failed, what transpired was
An undetermined number were tested by Republic without constant water injection at 72 "Hg

Another undetermined number of these engines were tested at Burtonwood at the same settings

8th AF authorized 76 "Hg instead of 72 "Hg

1 engine failure is definitely attributed to being run earlier without water at Burtonwood.

 

I don't think the primary reason for damage was the 8AF upping the boost by a tiny bit. Some [edited] happened where engines that were tested in detonation conditions entered service aircraft.

Edited November 29, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin