Open oil & radiator flaps on 109

[II./JG27_Rich]

How the devil do we do this? An idiot could do it in IL-2...I keep blowing up. 

Edited March 8, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[6S.Manu]

How the devil do we do this? An idiot could do it in IL-2...I keep blowing up. 

 

I think it's all about running at the correct Ata.

[AX2]

Is not a problem with the engine temperature 

For BF 109  F 4 engine limits are wrong.

Must be 30 minutes 2500 RPMs 1.3 Ata 

 

But for now these are the limits 

 

Bf109 now have limited time of overload engine run - 1 minute on 2700 and 5 minutes on 2500,  If yuo will maintain longer - engine damage becomes possible.

Il2 and Ju87 are also have their overload limitations. Lagg3 have no overload mode.

 

Stay in the limits and everything will be fine. 

Edited March 8, 2014 by Mustang

[=RvE=Windmills]

Is not a problem with the engine temperature 

For BF 109  F 4 engine limits are wrong.

Must be 30 minutes 2500 RPMs 1.3 Ata 

 

But for now these are the limits 

 

Stay in the limits and everything will be fine. 

 

Is that already taking into account ambient temperatures? Or wouldn't that affect engine limits?

[SYN_Saintblu]

The radiator is automatic in this 109, the oil flaps are manual. Map a lever to them in engine management settings in controls. If you want to see them open and close, go to external view and look under the nose of your plane. The left hand side of the intake is oil. They flap open and close manualy.

[DD_fruitbat]

I think it's all about running at the correct Ata.

 

Surely its not ATA (manifold pressure) but rpm that is the biggest influence on temp.

 

Of course, with the 109's pitch control how it is at the moment, and us only being able to use throttle (manifold pressure) automatically linked to prop pitch, its not possible (again at the moment) to regulate rpm and ATA independently as in many other planes.

 

However, isn't it rather the rpm we should be looking at, rather than ATA, when trying to manage temp?

[II./JG27_Rich]

I'm probably just pushing it too hard

[6S.Manu]

Surely its not ATA (manifold pressure) but rpm that is the biggest influence on temp.

 

Of course, with the 109's pitch control how it is at the moment, and us only being able to use throttle (manifold pressure) automatically linked to prop pitch, its not possible (again at the moment) to regulate rpm and ATA independently as in many other planes.

 

However, isn't it rather the rpm we should be looking at, rather than ATA, when trying to manage temp?

 

I think it's what Mustang said: that's the reason I was talking about Ata. ;-)

[DD_fruitbat]

rgr.

[AX2]

My engine blowing up , regardless of temperature .

For now is based timer system  Ata / RPMs .

And the data for BF 109  F4 engine is wrong, that's my point.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Mustang

[AX2]

I did some testing for BF 109,  has no problems at 1.3 ATA.

I got bored flying 1.3 ata  

But I have a doubt 

2700 RPMs   1.42 Ata  - 1 minute allowed = no engine damage

That means you can rest the engine and use again 2700 RPMs 1.42 ata

For now 2700 RPMs 1.42 ATA, is a single shot per flight.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Mustang

[ACG_Kraut]

What I don't understand is why I'm blowing engines in the F4 above 6-7km where the boost pressure has dropped off to 1.0ata or lower. The RPMs are naturally higher up there with the automated prop pitch. Is this an issue with the automation or is it how the automation should work at high alt? I know this won't be an issue when we get manual controls, but I just think it's strange that the automation is "over-revving" so much with the manifold pressure so low at high alt.

 

I know in Cliffs, in the E4 above 6k, the automated pitch will run around max RPM (2500) at 1.0ata or less indefinitely and I've never had a problem. Sometimes I will go to manual control and bring the RPMs down a bit (for fuel conservation), but then you lose a considerable amount of power. At that altitude, when you drop RPMs you drop manifold pressure as well.

 

Temps are never the issue up that high, everything in both Cliffs and Stalingrad runs nice and cool up there, not sure why the high revs are an issue in the F4.

[Matt]

The radiator is automatic in this 109, the oil flaps are manual. Map a lever to them in engine management settings in controls. If you want to see them open and close, go to external view and look under the nose of your plane. The left hand side of the intake is oil. They flap open and close manualy.

Are you sure that the oil cooler is manual? It's still only automatic for me. The oil cooler commands do nothing in the 109.

 

I'm not sure if the oil overheats in the 109 and if that's causing the engine failures. The temperature gauge only shows the water temperature for now (you should need to push a button to make it show oil temperature instead, but that doesn't work yet in BoS) and the water temperature stays way below 100 °C for me.

[SYN_Saintblu]

Are you sure that the oil cooler is manual? It's still only automatic for me. The oil cooler commands do nothing in the 109.

 

I'm not sure if the oil overheats in the 109 and if that's causing the engine failures. The temperature gauge only shows the water temperature for now (you should need to push a button to make it show oil temperature instead, but that doesn't work yet in BoS) and the water temperature stays way below 100 °C for me.

In my minds eye I could swear I was looking at the front of the 109 wiggling the oil flaps open and closed. I'll check again tonight. Glad you mentioned having to toggle the oil temp indicator, I thought we somehow had to read the info using the one needle in some sort of tricky way... like the coolant was tied to the oil somehow.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Took the Bf109F-4 to 11km without trouble. No overheat or busted engine. Pic as proof.

[II./JG27_Rich]

I flew within the the 2500 rmp and things were fine. Problem solved.

[SYN_Saintblu]

Are you sure that the oil cooler is manual? It's still only automatic for me. The oil cooler commands do nothing in the 109.

 

I'm not sure if the oil overheats in the 109 and if that's causing the engine failures. The temperature gauge only shows the water temperature for now (you should need to push a button to make it show oil temperature instead, but that doesn't work yet in BoS) and the water temperature stays way below 100 °C for me.

I was mistaken. The oil flaps on the 109 are not visible as I thought. So it seems that they are as well auto. I think I confused remembering looking at the front of the stuka. Edited March 9, 2014 by SYN_Saintblu

[AX2]

S!

 

 Took the Bf109F-4 to 11km without trouble. 

Great flight  11 Km !

I Will need a GM-1 system

I like the nitrous oxide  

[ACG_Kraut]

S!

 

 Took the Bf109F-4 to 11km without trouble. No overheat or busted engine. Pic as proof.

 

Are you using the thottle to control the RPMs up there? If I fly max throttle (well max ata really) at that altitude my RPM spikes to 2700. I assume these revs are my problem...

[coldViPer]

Are you using the thottle to control the RPMs up there? If I fly max throttle (well max ata really) at that altitude my RPM spikes to 2700. I assume these revs are my problem...

 

Tested also and no problems to fly 11 km alt. RPM was about 2470 all the time. And yes, use throttle to control RPM.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 As above, used throttle to control RPM. No problems at all to get up there. But flying was like sitting on a ball, plane was sluggish. 

[JtD]

There is no dedicated throttle control in the real 109, there's a power control. It controls both throttle and rpm. In game this lever is controlled with the throttle control, though.

 

Unfortunately the game has a mechanism where the engine blows if you use 2500 rpm or more for a significant time. So even at high altitude you cannot fly all out without wrecking the engine. However, the automated systems will open the throttle fully to maintain the chosen boost as far up as possible at the given rpm.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I run at 2450 and have had no problems. Only a slight performance reduction in level flight below 3k. I run it up for zoom climbs but only a few seconds at a time. Popped a couple of engines early but little trouble since.

[Venturi]

The problem is that boost and rpm affect the engine differently, both have a max possible but the durations and effects are different. Technically, too high a boost will damage the engine through preignition / detonation and too high a rpm will damage the engine through structural failure of the conrods or valvetrain. I would suspect that the engine could better tolerate higher RPMs than too high a boost, that is the case for most forced aspiration engines. Overheating generally is not a problem in either a too much boost or too much rpm situation, unless the cooling capacity for the engine is already marginal.

[AX2]

Sorry my bad English

I hope someone can understand my point 

I think the engine limits are " 90% theoretical " imposed for only for maintenance purposes to keep the engine longer time in service.

Like FW 190 A4 in russian front, derated only to keep the engine longer time in service.

I'm sure many Spitefires flew many missions at the same day. in the Battle of Britain.

Pilots surely  exceed the limits of the engine in combat, but the pilot  must had fly again the same day.... and again and again.

The same happened to the 109 in russia,  maybe 7 missions on day for the 109 pilot.  

Exceeding a limit does not imply 100%  engine failure undoubtedly. Everyone knows that a pilot in combat does not look at the clock  all time  , like...45 seconds ...46 second 47.. seconds...

My point, developers should allow larger limits for all engines. 

I flew the il2, I closed all of radiators and it seemed fine, several minutes without problems.

[Eldur]

 

Sorry my bad English

I hope someone can understand my point 

I think the engine limits are " 90% theoretical " imposed for only for maintenance purposes to keep the engine longer time in service.

Like FW 190 A4 in russian front, derated only to keep the engine longer time in service.

I'm sure many Spitefires flew many missions at the same day. in the Battle of Britain.

Pilots surely  exceed the limits of the engine in combat, but the pilot  must had fly again the same day.... and again and again.

The same happened to the 109 in russia,  maybe 7 missions on day for the 109 pilot.  

Exceeding a limit does not imply 100%  engine failure undoubtedly. Everyone knows that a pilot in combat does not look at the clock  all time  , like...45 seconds ...46 second 47.. seconds...

My point, developers should allow larger limits for all engines. 

I flew the il2, I closed all of radiators and it seemed fine, several minutes without problems.

 

 

This sounds very reasonable. If there's something like "don't use 1.42ata @2700rpm more than 1 minute" that doesn't mean it will blow if used 1 minute and half a second - but that's exactly what happened in the last BoS week. There might be tiny little structural damages that will be more and more over time until the engine has to go back to the factory and can't be serviced at the front anymore. So basically we should just obey the temperature limits given as real as possible (from the original manuals and we should be fine all day no matter if the engine would then last another 20 days used that way or not. It shall not break right away. This might be useful for a complex ressource management with limited overall ressources in campaigns (save fuel, ammo, ordnance, don't overheat guns and engines etc) which will most probably not implemented at all.

 

I just don't want to blast my 601 with 1,5 minutes at 1.42 / 2700 with an radiator out temperature of 75°C which could be as high as 115° max while a normal operating oil temp (push button) was 90-100°C in the 109Fs / later 601 engines. Just revert to pre-last week here which looked perfectly right for me.

[FuriousMeow]

Sorry? The engine doesn't blow at exactly one minute. I tested several times and it varied for how long it would go at that setting before it would die out last weekend. It wasn't a cut off at one minute, it would run for longer.

[JtD]

Yeah, last weeks blow-your-engine feature is very weak. I've been shaking my head in disbelief for several days. Under the right circumstances those engines could run those high power settings for hours in real life. There's more to it than just oil and water temperature, though, even on a winter map like Stalingrad where you'd never exceed the permitted temperatures, the engine would at some point break. Not after 5 to 7 minutes at Kampfleistung, 5 to 7 hours would be closer to the real thing. Like Mustang said, these times are guidelines for engine preservation. In real life there's no a guarantee that the engine lasts the time given in the manual, and certainly the engine doesn't blow every time a couple of minutes or seconds over the limit. I hope the team will replace this gaming feature with a bit of simulation prior to release.

[FuriousMeow]

It has to make its way in there somehow. The alternatives are everyone running around with 130% power for infinite periods of time with no care.

 

Rather than the engine blowing quickly, online it could count against aircraft reserves. Aircraft at front line fields would slowly reduce in number as more pilots wore out their engines by running them too high for too long until nothing is left at those fields and only rear fields exist until eventually no planes are left and then the other side wins because one side ran out of engines.

 

There were limitations, and exceeding them resulted in actual supply and/or availability problems in the war - so it has to be replicated here by some means.

[Matt]

I think there's no realistic way of handling this.

 

We're basically flying new planes with new engines every sortie. So unless the engine suffers from overheating (shouldn't be the case with the 109 for instance), i don't think that the engine should not fail during that sortie (unless the engine is a lemon).

 

Theoretically, you could maybe bind the plane to the player account, so with every sortie, the engine of that plane wears down over time. But this would be overly complicated and people could probably exploit this, by bailing out or deliberately crash-landing to get a new plane. Unless that "new" plane would then carriy over the status of the previous plane the player was flying, which would again not be a very good idea imho.

 

Anyway, i'm not convinced that in a realistic themed mission, people would fly with emergency power all the time, because they would need to keep fuel consumption in mind. In quick dogfight/furball style missions, people might use maximum power by default, but even then, i don't see a reason to artifically force people to stick to realistic engine limations, aslong as the mission itself is not that realistic/historical.

[SYN_Saintblu]

Well, I'm curious to see how it plays out tonight in MP. It could be that 109's worst enemy will be themselves in the excitement of prolonged engagement. If I'm flying lagg-3 I'll definitely be trying to force the 109 to go black-smoke.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I think there's no realistic way of handling this.

 

We're basically flying new planes with new engines every sortie. So unless the engine suffers from overheating (shouldn't be the case with the 109 for instance), i don't think that the engine should not fail during that sortie (unless the engine is a lemon).

 

Theoretically, you could maybe bind the plane to the player account, so with every sortie, the engine of that plane wears down over time. But this would be overly complicated and people could probably exploit this, by bailing out or deliberately crash-landing to get a new plane. Unless that "new" plane would then carriy over the status of the previous plane the player was flying, which would again not be a very good idea imho.

 

Anyway, i'm not convinced that in a realistic themed mission, people would fly with emergency power all the time, because they would need to keep fuel consumption in mind. In quick dogfight/furball style missions, people might use maximum power by default, but even then, i don't see a reason to artifically force people to stick to realistic engine limations, aslong as the mission itself is not that realistic/historical.

 

I think the best way would be to have random engine failures which become more likely due to the amount the engine is pushed over that limit. I agree with Mustang if the engine would fail after 1-2 minutes I can't see it being allowed otherwise squadrons would be out of engines pretty quickly.

[JtD]

Random engine failures, depending on overload, is also imho one of the best ways to go. But this random thing shouldn't be measured in minutes, but rather in hours. I'm pretty much with Matt, dogfight servers with flight durations of 15 minutes or so are not the altar simulation aspects should be sacrificed on.

[arjisme]

We're basically flying new planes with new engines every sortie. [...]

 

Theoretically, you could maybe bind the plane to the player account, so with every sortie, the engine of that plane wears down over time. 

 

Given the current engine damage modeling based on time over max RPM limits, I would argue we are NOT flying with new engines every sortie.  Rather, you have to assume that the engine has been previously abused and you are already flying on borrowed time when you take the bird up.  This is just a forced rationalization for what we currently have in the game.

 

And maybe, with that perspective, it's not such a bad approach?  I agree with the desire to see the plane's systems modeled as accurately as possible.  I also want to see our experience as pilots modeled as accurately as possible.  What were the consequences for RL pilots of flying at max boost/RPM?  Would they ever have taken a plane up that had any previous time on it flown at max boost or max RPMs?  Were there any potentially immediate consequences for pushing to those max outputs or was the harm to the pilot just that they were violating policy and would hear about it back at the base?

[=RvE=Windmills]

Only thing I'd like to see is some feedback that you're pushing the engine too hard. Overheat warnings before catastrophic damage, and a small chance of damage occuring during overheat regardless of the length as JtD suggested.

 

I think this would get people to take care of their engines in a more realistic manner. In the end, I think that should be the best result we can hope for.

 

Completely realistic conditions unfortunately don't lead to realistic gameplay, since the game will never ever model all the conditions that encouraged taking care of your engine like was the case reality.

[AX2]

One minute or 2 in emergency power for a BF 109 is really a hard limit for pilots, and it is not totally realistic.

I read  La 5 FN the pilot's manual ( in English ), there are harder limits too. 

We will selectively take  one part of the pilots  manual or ...we will use all data on manuals ?

If the developers  will do everything 100% realistic, It will be bad for all aircraft, they will kill the gameplay .

Edited March 14, 2014 by Mustang

[Matt]

Given the current engine damage modeling based on time over max RPM limits, I would argue we are NOT flying with new engines every sortie.  Rather, you have to assume that the engine has been previously abused and you are already flying on borrowed time when you take the bird up.  This is just a forced rationalization for what we currently have in the game.

 

And maybe, with that perspective, it's not such a bad approach?  I agree with the desire to see the plane's systems modeled as accurately as possible.  I also want to see our experience as pilots modeled as accurately as possible.  What were the consequences for RL pilots of flying at max boost/RPM?  Would they ever have taken a plane up that had any previous time on it flown at max boost or max RPMs?  Were there any potentially immediate consequences for pushing to those max outputs or was the harm to the pilot just that they were violating policy and would hear about it back at the base?

 

I don't see any indication to assume that the engines we have in the planes in BoS are worn out. They run perfectly fine until the fuel runs, as long as you stick to the recommended limits. And i think it would be a really really bad idea to only simulated worn out engines/planes. Real pilots would fly full throttle if their lives depended on that, especially with a new engine/plane. Doing that in this sim, at its current stage, would simply be impossible, because the engine will fail after a certain amount of time (and every time, because, atleast for me, the engine of the 109 for instance always failed if run at 2700 RPM).

 

I believe, the current limitation is just a test or the recommendations of the Bf-109 / DB 601E handbook have just been taken word-for-word. In either case, the current situation will surely be changed anyway. It's just a question of how this will be changed.

 

As for the randomness suggested in this topic, i wouldn't call that a great idea either. Real pilots had a plane (probably shared with someone else) and knew when they overstressed the engine or could probably tell mechanic to replace or inspect parts etc. We just spawn in a generic planetype and don't know the state of the plane, how/if the engine has been abused or not. Randomly changing the state of that generic plane we spawn in would add a luck-factor, which would not necessarily serve realism, but might very well cause confusion and frustration.

[=RvE=Windmills]

The case for a random small chance of damage due to overheat is that it prevents the 1946 behaviour of just running overheat for 5 minutes straight because it doesn't really matter anyway. As long as you didn't push it too long you'd just run max power, occasionally cooling the engine for a second and then maxing it again for another 5 minutes.

 

A chance, however small of damage during overheat would encourage you to minimize pushing your engine during noncritical times.

 

And the chance would be small enough that the vast majority of the time it wouldn't hold you back maxing your engine when you do really need it.

Edited March 14, 2014 by iLOVEwindmills

[Matt]

Yeah well, IMHO, if they want to implement a reason to protect the engine of abuse, it should be the real, historical reason for doing so. And that's not because the engines just randomly blew up during one sortie.

 

But that's only my opinion, I don't think there is one right of doing it. At least for MP.

 

The 1946 way is not really comparable, because that was based on overheating and overheating shouldn't be a real issue in the planes which currently suffer the most from this feature in BoS.

[arjisme]

I don't see any indication to assume that the engines we have in the planes in BoS are worn out. They run perfectly fine until the fuel runs, as long as you stick to the recommended limits. And i think it would be a really really bad idea to only simulated worn out engines/planes. Real pilots would fly full throttle if their lives depended on that, especially with a new engine/plane. Doing that in this sim, at its current stage, would simply be impossible, because the engine will fail after a certain amount of time (and every time, because, atleast for me, the engine of the 109 for instance always failed if run at 2700 RPM).

 

I believe, the current limitation is just a test or the recommendations of the Bf-109 / DB 601E handbook have just been taken word-for-word. In either case, the current situation will surely be changed anyway. It's just a question of how this will be changed.

 

As for the randomness suggested in this topic, i wouldn't call that a great idea either. Real pilots had a plane (probably shared with someone else) and knew when they overstressed the engine or could probably tell mechanic to replace or inspect parts etc. We just spawn in a generic planetype and don't know the state of the plane, how/if the engine has been abused or not. Randomly changing the state of that generic plane we spawn in would add a luck-factor, which would not necessarily serve realism, but might very well cause confusion and frustration.

 

I don't claim the devs are intending to model worn out engines.  But, given the current engine damage effects, it prompted me to ask if modeling an engine other than new was a workable idea.

 

As for the randomness and luck, it would be something every pilot could manage and choose when to run the risk.  Stay within parameters and you are good.  Exceed them and begin flying on borrowed time.  The details (how long at max, what boundaries, etc.) still need to be worked out.  I agree with you that it looks like the devs are currently experimenting with this and what we have isn't likely to be the final result.

 

Really, I think the questions I asked earlier need to be properly answered before concluding what "should" be done in game, much less talking about what "could" be done.

 

To quote myself:

What were the consequences for RL pilots of flying at max boost/RPM?  Would they ever have taken a plane up that had any previous time on it flown at max boost or max RPMs?  Were there any potentially immediate consequences for pushing to those max outputs or was the harm to the pilot just that they were violating policy and would hear about it back at the base?