P-47 Thunderbolt M1 official engine mod ?

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

31 minutes ago, CptSiddy said:

Someone, please tell me, what it is in your opinion that causes damage to engine if you run the WEP longer than state in manual? 

WEP wouldn't cause damage on an engine providing cooling and lubrication requirements are met. There is increased wear on the engine from running WEP and this leads to shorter engine life in the long term.

[Cpt_Siddy]

1 minute ago, RoflSeal said:

WEP wouldn't cause damage on an engine providing cooling and lubrication requirements are met. There is increased wear on the engine from running WEP and this leads to shorter engine life in the long term.

 

Then why our engines explode if we run 1 microsecond longer than stated by manul? 

 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

2 minutes ago, CptSiddy said:

 

Then why our engines explode if we run 1 microsecond longer than stated by manul? 

 

Because the Devs programmed it as such, if WEP was so critical to engine health as it is in-game then it would have never been allowed such as the DB605 where there were issues such as oil feed, which lead to quick engine failure, and 1.42 ATA was banned for a long period.

[sevenless]

I´m pretty sure the devs will consider all these IMHO convincing arguments. We are still 8 months (aprox.) away from final release. So there is still plenty of time.

[Voyager]

Well, the P-40 is probably just going into detonation, though it would be interesting to find out if the engines got up rated later in the war. 

 

It will be fascinating to see what happens with the P-38. If read things asserting that that plane's manual was flat out wrong and if followed would actually cause major engine problems in combat, but haven't done the research myself. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

15 minutes ago, sevenless said:

I´m pretty sure the devs will consider all these IMHO convincing arguments. We are still 8 months (aprox.) away from final release. So there is still plenty of time.

 

I'm pretty sure they will not.  They set the game up this way on purpose to enforce the style of game play they want to see.  I hope I am wrong in this, but I think not.

14 minutes ago, Voyager said:

Well, the P-40 is probably just going into detonation, though it would be interesting to find out if the engines got up rated later in the war. 

 

 

From a later war P40E currently on display an the NMUSAF...

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by BlitzPig_EL

[sevenless]

16 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'm pretty sure they will not.  They set the game up this way on purpose to enforce the style of game play they want to see.  I hope I am wrong in this, but I think not.

 

 

 

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

I'm pretty sure they will not.  They set the game up this way on purpose to enforce the style of game play they want to see.  I hope I am wrong in this, but I think not.

 

One of the worst things you can do in a game like this is to force the player to fly or act a certain way, it kills the gameplay imo and aggravates alot of people.

 

Could you imagine if they modeled aircraft to fly a certain way to force players to fly it one way? No one would tolerate that, I don't understand why players tolerate this poor engine modeling.

[Ehret]

3 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

From a later war P40E currently on display an the NMUSAF...

 

For air superiority type engagements those settings are very poor. Would you fly to a fighter combat zone and keep them if your life would depend on it? Perhaps they are for different fuel then usual +100 octane. Often, lower octane grade was used for training and such. Not sure, anyway.

 

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

One of the worst things you can do in a game like this is to force the player to fly or act a certain way, it kills the gameplay imo and aggravates alot of people.

 

Could you imagine if they modeled aircraft to fly a certain way to force players to fly it one way? No one would tolerate that, I don't understand why players tolerate this poor engine modeling.

 

Just wait when the Tempest and the P-51D will be released. When it happens there will be big influx of new players and both have 5m for emergencies stated in manuals. They will need them to stay competitive and they will... kinda for half of time the opposition can. The latter flying historic white books when common enough stuff like 150 octane fuel is unavailable.

 

There will be some uproar; will be it enough to change the policy of timers? Not sure but if sales will be good then probably yes; at least to a degree.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Ehret

[unreasonable]

2 hours ago, Legioneod said:

....

Could you imagine if they modeled aircraft to fly a certain way to force players to fly it one way? No one would tolerate that, I don't understand why players tolerate this poor engine modeling.

 

I am not sure how we are supposed to "not tolerate" the engine management. The only options are to make forum posts pointing out the disadvantages of the system and propose alternatives, or to not buy new content.  There have been dozens of threads doing the former - this has always been an issue from the first release of BoS.   As long as there is sufficient entertainment in the game, I expect very few people boycott the product for this reason alone. I certainly will not.  

 

There are a number of indications from the developers that they are looking to change the system; to include detonation, for instance; so meanwhile to tolerate it is the most sensible thing to do.

 

[Kurfurst]

5 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

Because the Devs programmed it as such, if WEP was so critical to engine health as it is in-game then it would have never been allowed such as the DB605 where there were issues such as oil feed, which lead to quick engine failure, and 1.42 ATA was banned for a long period.

 

Well I guess the answer is that WEP was so critical that they did not allow it indeed until the issues with oil feed were finally fixed.

[CountZero]

5 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

For air superiority type engagements those settings are very poor. Would you fly to a fighter combat zone and keep them if your life would depend on it? Perhaps they are for different fuel then usual +100 octane. Often, lower octane grade was used for training and such. Not sure, anyway.

 

 

Just wait when the Tempest and the P-51D will be released. When it happens there will be big influx of new players and both have 5m for emergencies stated in manuals. They will need them to stay competitive and they will... kinda for half of time the opposition can. The latter flying historic white books when common enough stuff like 150 octane fuel is unavailable.

 

There will be some uproar; will be it enough to change the policy of timers? Not sure but if sales will be good then probably yes; at least to a degree.

 

i dont expect anything to change, its like this for years, best thing for devs is to make it how manual say it is as if people complain why this or how that... they can say its how it is in manuals and we did it same.

 

in this game best place to play with P-47 is on berloga where you have 5-10min of fuel and i see no point playing with it elswhere with engine limits this game has.

 

axis complained about engine limits long time, and nothing changed, and thy are as rediculise as they are on american airplanes

[Sgt_Joch]

14 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

Fumes, thanks for that information. Do you also have the previous page (25) ?

 

What I do not understand:

 

Top of page 26 it lists several conditions:

b)

- 5min max at takeoff

- 5 min periods in combat

- 1 hour climbing

 

If it is fine to have it on full throttle for 1 hour while climbing, then what is the problem with say 10 or 15min during combat ?

 

well no, you and Fumes are mis-reading the document. the "limits" listed are example of what you will find in various documents and how pilots are to read them. It does not mean that the 5 minute emergency and 1 hour climb are the same. This is obvious if you read the previous page:

 

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/ap2095-pilots-notes-general.26671/

 

if you read the introduction, especially part 1 (iii), it makes it clear that the "limits" are there to provide "an adequate margin of safety against immediate breakdown".

[=621=Samikatz]

Seeing as we have margins for error on dive speeds (+100kph across the board iirc) I don't see why the same can't apply to engine timers

[sevenless]

44 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

well no, you and Fumes are mis-reading the document. the "limits" listed are example of what you will find in various documents and how pilots are to read them. It does not mean that the 5 minute emergency and 1 hour climb are the same. This is obvious if you read the previous page:

 

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/ap2095-pilots-notes-general.26671/

 

if you read the introduction, especially part 1 (iii), it makes it clear that the "limits" are there to provide "an adequate margin of safety against immediate breakdown".

 

Hi, thanks for the link to the whole document.

 

From reading it, it is absolutely clear to me, that these are recommendations, nothing more nothing less. The document explicitely states under

 

3 (ii)  These figures provide a general guide to the reasonable use of the engine. In combat and emergency other considerations may justify the pilot in disregarding these restrictions.

 

So if the pilot sees the need to do so, nobody is stopping him to i.e. useing WEP for 15 minutes. He has to be aware that he prematurely wears down his engine with doing so, but there is no technical limitation NOT to do this if he sees there is a need to.

Edited December 4, 2018 by sevenless

[Ehret]

5 minutes ago, sevenless said:

So if the pilot sees the need to do so, nobody is stopping him to i.e. useing WEP for 15 minutes. He has to be aware that he prematurely wears down his engine with doing so, but there is no technical limitation NOT to do this if he sees there is a need to.

 

Imagine an accident where a pilot had failed to save his wing-man and in the debrief gives excuse like "I had to throttle back; otherwise, I'd exceed the 5m from manual!".

 

His career would end, shortly.

[Sgt_Joch]

no of course not, if the notes say you can only run WEP for 5 minutes, it does not mean the engine will blow up after 5 minutes, but it also does not mean you can run it forever at WEP with no problem.

 

adequate margin of safety means you can run it for 5 minutes without worrying about it. if you run it for longer you are running the risk of engine damage. What the chances are of that happening depend on a lot of factors: engine temperature, engine conditions, fuel quality, length of time since last maintenance, etc.

 

look at section 5, i.e. "Serious damage may occur quickly from over-heating"

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by Sgt_Joch

[CountZero]

36 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

Seeing as we have margins for error on dive speeds (+100kph across the board iirc) I don't see why the same can't apply to engine timers

it works like that, its never exact min you pas limit and engine is broken, its always stated min for sure + extra time on your risk, so if limit is 5min some times you can use it for 7min some times for 6 some times for 8 and so on...

[LColony_Kong]

Additionally, the only misreading here is by agt joch.

 

The limitations are for immedate break down and tbo...paraphrased.

 

Into which Sgt joch read that the TIME limitations applied to the first part of the sentence. The manual is clearly referring to ALL limitations, time, power, heat, and otherwise. And is not specific as to which category of failure each is intended for. Oh wait, it becomes more clear in the following pages where is makes it explicitly clear that the time aspects of the "limitations" are obviously not applicable to the first faikur type....

4 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Imagine an accident where a pilot had failed to save his wing-man and in the debrief gives excuse like "I had to throttle back; otherwise, I'd exceed the 5m from manual!".

 

His career would end, shortly.

No? In what universe do you think they boot comabt pilots because they tried to save their own plane and own ass in a lethal situation? Even if it were a non-combat accident that person would not be a career ending incident. 

[Ehret]

Just now, Fumes said:

No? In what universe do you think they boot comabt pilots because they tried to save their own plane and own ass in a lethal situation? Even if it were a non-combat accident that person would not be a career ending incident. 

 

You don't get it... your wing-man has incoming bandit on his six. You are clear but to reach the bandit before he gets your wing-man you have to exceed the 5m from manual. What will you do?

 

Or other version:

You are escorting a bomber. There is an inbound bandit and you are clear. To intercept the foe before he does the friendly bomber you need to exceed the 5m from manual.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Ehret

[sevenless]

So in conclusion for me the only thing which would make any sense is to have the limiting factor of WEP usage to be the available amount of water. If there is water for 15 minutes then the pilot should be free to decide how and when for which amount of time he wants to use WEP. If the water is used up, then no more WEP. That would be the most simple and realistic solution to this problem, especially in the light of evidence that a P-47 engine can run full WEP for 7,5 hour without any problems as stated in the other thread.

[LColony_Kong]

43 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

You don't get it... your wing-man has incoming bandit on his six. You are clear but to reach the bandit before he gets your wing-man you have to exceed the 5m from manual. What will you do?

 

Or other version:

You are escorting a bomber. There is an inbound bandit and you are clear. To intercept the foe before he does the friendly bomber you need to exceed the 5m from manual.

I misread your post my bad

[Sgt_Joch]

of course you can exceed time limits in an emergency, but you have to live the consequences of your choice.

 

quote from "Bodenplatte", John Manhro and Ron Putz, 2004, p. 137. Unteroffizier Micheal Vogl of 10/JG 3 is egressing back to base after the attack in a Me109 K4:

 

Quote

 

"..I took a quick look over my shoulder and was just able to see that two aircraft had jumped on me from behind. I immediately recognized them as enemy fighters who tried to intercept us on the way back. From then on I did not look back and only with emergency power and flying on the deck could I be saved. ... Because I flew too long with emergency power, the engine quit and I had to pull up and looked for a place to land. I belly-landed my aircraft south of Kalkar..."

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by Sgt_Joch

[LColony_Kong]

13 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

of course you can exceed time limits in an emergency, but you have to live the consequences of your choice.

 

quote from "Bodenplatte", John Manhro and Ron Putz, 2004, p. 137. Unteroffizier Micheal Vogl of 10/JG 3 is egressing back to base after the attack in a Me109 K4:

 

 

As with all anecdotes....

 

We don't know how worn his engine was. 

 

We don't know that his diagnosis was correct, it may not have been emergency that killed the engine.

 

We also don't know if he ran out of water....

 

 

 

 

You have to be more careful with anecdotes. Some much more useful ones have been posted, such as the one about p-38 pilots having a SOP where they ran emergency for entire engagements and didn't worry about it. 

 

 

And engine failing during g long wep use does not show that it was the wep use that killed the engine. 

Edited December 4, 2018 by Fumes

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

22 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

of course you can exceed time limits in an emergency, but you have to live the consequences of your choice.

 

quote from "Bodenplatte", John Manhro and Ron Putz, 2004, p. 137. Unteroffizier Micheal Vogl of 10/JG 3 is egressing back to base after the attack in a Me109 K4:

 

 

This anecdote doesn't include a lot of details does it?
How long did he fly at emergency power for?
Does his phrase  "Because I flew too long with emergency power" only talk about the on the deck run back to friendly territory, or does it include when he was in combat over the enemy airfield
Did he run out MW50 (if so that would kill the engine quick if he remained at emergency power)

Edited December 4, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Sgt_Joch]

6 minutes ago, Fumes said:

As with all anecdotes....

 

We don't know how worn his engine was. 

 

We don't know that his diagnosis was correct, it may not have been emergency that killed the engine.

 

We also don't know if he ran out of water....

 

 

 

 

You have to be more careful with anecdotes. Some much more useful ones have been posted, such as the one about p-38 pilots having a SOP where they ran emergency for entire engagements and didn't worry about it. 

 

 

And engine failing during g long wep use does not show that it was the wep use that killed the engine. 

 

well again what it does prove is that engine limits do matter and if you exceed them, you can destroy your engine.

 

Anyone with even a basic understanding of how an internal combustion engine works could figure that out.

[Bremspropeller]

16 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

All manuals had a 'buffer' built in, not only for WEP/engine limitations for for dive speed as well.

Basically "CYA" (cover your ass) on the part of the firm that built the aircraft/engine, (no different than anyone who builds and sells anything today) but also to leave a legitimate margin of error to work with.

This way an excited, adrenaline filled pilot made it home with his aircraft despite pushing the air-frame or engine beyond manual spec.

 

That's mainly because you don't want somebody getting killed by just barely going beyond the redline. You want a margin. Always.

It's a certification-requirement nowadays and I'm pretty sure the USAAF had their own set of specs to go by in terms of limitations written in the handbook and hard physical limits.

Throw in an uncertainty of 1%-5% in some figures (down to quality issues and humans building most parts and assemblies) and your necessary total margins grow quickly.

How much beyond the safe limit and into the margin you can go on any specific engine and airframe remains a mystery - unless you're determined to find out.

 

I find it amusing to see people arguing about how much beyond a stated limit an engine will surely go - the same people would have their sphincters clenched when flying for an hour or longer across the winterly North Sea in IMC and hearing a "noise".

Edited December 4, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

6 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

well again what it does prove is that engine limits do matter and if you exceed them, you can destroy your engine.

  

Anyone with even a basic understanding of how an internal combustion engine works could figure that out.

This is believing that his diagnosis of engine failure was because he flew at high power too long is correct. The quote however gives no description of specific details. Engines can have trouble if running at low power for too long (e.g. Merlins on 150 Octane spark plug fouling at economy cruise power)

Edited December 4, 2018 by RoflSeal

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

well again what it does prove is that engine limits do matter and if you exceed them, you can destroy your engine.

 

Anyone with even a basic understanding of how an internal combustion engine works could figure that out.

Lol wat?

 

All this proves is that he had an engine failure and he assumed a cause.

 

Moreover it doesn't specify how worn the engine was or if he ran out of water

 

The only person showing ignorance of combustion engines here is you. Not to mention a disinclination to read anything with care or nuance

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Now we are talking pilot quotes, here is one from Golodnikov regarding the P-40 and P-39 he flew

In our case, as I have already mentioned, the primary rule was to get everything out of an aircraft that it was capable of and a bit more. How much is �everything� the documentation for an aircraft does not say. Often even the designer of an aircraft himself did not have even a clue. It would only be revealed in combat.
By the way, everything I have said also applies to the Airacobra. If we had flown it in those regimes that the Americans outlined in the aircraft specifications, they would have shot us down immediately. This fighter was a �dud� in its �native� [by-design] regimes. But we conducted normal combat in �our� regimes, be it with the Messer or with the Fokker. But in some cases we flew 3�4 such aerial battles and it was done. �Replace the engine.�

Edited December 4, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Sgt_Joch]

13 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

That's mainly because you don't want somebody getting killed by just barely going beyond the redline. You want a margin. Always.

It's a certification-requirement nowadays and I'm pretty sure the USAAF had their own set of specs to go by in terms of limitations written in the handbook and hard physical limits.

Throw in an uncertainty of 1%-5% in some figures (down to quality issues and humans building most parts and assemblies) and your necessary total margins grow quickly.

How much beyond the safe limit and into the margin you can go on any specific engine and airframe remains a mystery - unless you're determined to find out.

 

I find it amusing to see people arguing about how much beyond a stated limit an engine will surely go - the same people would have their sphincters clenched when flying for an hour or longer across the winterly North Sea in IMC and hearing a "noise".

 

exactly.

[Gambit21]

20 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

That's mainly because you don't want somebody getting killed by just barely going beyond the redline. You want a margin. Always.

It's a certification-requirement nowadays and I'm pretty sure the USAAF had their own set of specs to go by in terms of limitations written in the handbook and hard physical limits.

Throw in an uncertainty of 1%-5% in some figures (down to quality issues and humans building most parts and assemblies) and your necessary total margins grow quickly.

How much beyond the safe limit and into the margin you can go on any specific engine and airframe remains a mystery - unless you're determined to find out.

 

I find it amusing to see people arguing about how much beyond a stated limit an engine will surely go - the same people would have their sphincters clenched when flying for an hour or longer across the winterly North Sea in IMC and hearing a "noise".

 

The margin is pretty much what I pointed out I think.

 

I can imagine how much I’d be babying my engine while flying over the North Sea!

[Ehret]

4 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

of course you can exceed time limits in an emergency, but you have to live the consequences of your choice.

 

quote from "Bodenplatte", John Manhro and Ron Putz, 2004, p. 137. Unteroffizier Micheal Vogl of 10/JG 3 is egressing back to base after the attack in a Me109 K4:

 

It worked, didn't it? He made the correct decision considering circumstances. If he would try to save the engine/frame odds are he could died. And how it sounds... to "save the engine" when lives are at the stake. Even if he would get captured than it's still much better than getting killed. You can try to escape later but only if you aren't dead.

 

Just now, RoflSeal said:

�Replace the engine.�

 

Much easier than replace an experienced fighter pilot. Just ask the LW.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Ehret

[Bremspropeller]

11 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I can imagine how much I’d be babying my engine while flying over the North Sea!

 

Not just while flying over it, but also having in mind that you'll have to re-cross it on the way back. You'll probably get less conservative with experience, but the early missions must have been a real ordeal in psycho-stuff for nugget escort-aviators.

 

I wonder how many unecessary aborts were made by new P-51 pilots (some of which used to fly P-38s before) that felt uncomfortable going out over the sea in the murk on a 6h+ mission and having to make it back over that grey, wet, bottomless grave for a hot cup of coffee, a beer and a smoke in the afternoon.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

3 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

Now we are talking pilot quotes, here is one from Golodnikov regarding the P-40 and P-39 he flew

In our case, as I have already mentioned, the primary rule was to get everything out of an aircraft that it was capable of and a bit more. How much is �everything� the documentation for an aircraft does not say. Often even the designer of an aircraft himself did not have even a clue. It would only be revealed in combat.
By the way, everything I have said also applies to the Airacobra. If we had flown it in those regimes that the Americans outlined in the aircraft specifications, they would have shot us down immediately. This fighter was a �dud� in its �native� [by-design] regimes. But we conducted normal combat in �our� regimes, be it with the Messer or with the Fokker. But in some cases we flew 3�4 such aerial battles and it was done. �Replace the engine.�

 

I have actually seen and quoted loads of Russian pilot quotes of that kind regarding P40 and P39, also a few German ones over the years, including sources, but so far to no avail. I guess the German crowd didn't make to much of a fuss about it, because the German aircraft were still very capable even with limited WEP. (apart from E7 and Mc202) With US planes it's kinda different, they are really hampered...i don't know, maybe if the US crown keeps making enough noise, the engine limit system we have in game will get revised finally

[LColony_Kong]

[Gambit21]

What's that from?

[Sgt_Joch]

1954 P51 manual. Already raised and dealt with here:

 

 

[LColony_Kong]

4 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

1954 P51 manual. Already raised and dealt with here:

 

 

Completely irrelevant. It is the same airplane. 

 

I am beginning to think that the only document you will find convincing is a letter from 1944 addressed to the future explaining the ops time restrictions were not boom-timers. 

[Voyager]

4 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

1954 P51 manual. Already raised and dealt with here:

 

 

 

With all due respect, at 1954 manual likely has a better and more complete understanding of the aircraft and engine limits than anything written in the 1940's.

 

If you want to know what fuel it was using, may try looking up the Mil-Spec. They were codified by then. Frankly, once you get past WWII, the DoD generates documentation at a staggering rate, and all of it is numbered, cataloged, and researched to within an inch of its life, especially if it would have been useful in the last war, and not terribly useful for what ever was going to come next. That said, it will largely depend on what was being procured at the time. In theory the purchases should be open records by this point, though almost certainly very obscure. I gather one can still get 145/115 today if one is willing to pay for it.

 

Initial guess reading through the titles of milspec list would be to look at early versions of AIR-STD-15/5, and see if there are versions released prior to 1954, and if it's listing avgas with the right properties to put into a Merlin engine. Also looks like ASTM-0909-67 (Fuels, Aviation, Knock Characteristics) and ASTM-D910-83 (Gasolines, Aviation) would be useful ones to read.