Albatros D.Va overheating message and engine failure

[Garven]

6 hours ago, J2_Jakob said:

Whether flying @ full throttle all the time is historical or not I'll leave to the experts to judge. (I have my doubts there, but who am I to say...)

My wild guess is that it is altitude dependent. At low altitude they probably didn't; at high altitude I wouldn't be surprised if they did due to the engines loss of power in thinner air.

Edited September 20, 2019 by -332FG-Garven

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

Is it possible the devs are testing the community with the DV5a?  In RoF this existed for awhile but some people complained.....full throttle engine damage works for the WWII planes and seems more realistic for the WWI birds as well ...but if we are to have it the guages and steam and any other indicators like techno chat need to be fixed so we can know we are in that kind of danger zone....and perhaps more ability to successfully back down out of the zone without catastrophic engine failure occuring....perhaps that is the real bug here.....temp guage and steam etc not seeming to correspond to "battle throttle" over rev room.

Edited September 20, 2019 by J5_Baeumer

[Garven]

16 minutes ago, J5_Baeumer said:

Is it possible the devs are testing the community with the DV5a?

Doubt it.  I don't think there is any hard documentation on the engine time limits on the WW1 planes except for the little placard in the Bristol cockpit, but I don't think the Bristol can exceed that RPM limit in level flight.

Edited September 20, 2019 by -332FG-Garven

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

Glad to hear I’m not the only one feeling this! Last Black September, I was in pursuit of a Bristol, Rad midway open, temps at or below 70c, engine RPMs always below 1600...and my engine overheated and died. ☹️ 

 

Hopefully this can be fixed! Life is difficult enough as an Alby pilot in FC without this.

 

Mind you, I think they got the Alby’s FM just right. It’s a bit more challenging to fly against Allied contemporaries than in ROF, as should historically be the case. Buuut...this engine thing turns the Alby from a rewarding challenge to fly into a “for display purposes only” aircraft. ? Really hope this gets fixed! ?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Did report that in beta forums few builds ago.

Edited September 20, 2019 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Zooropa_Fly]

50 minutes ago, JG1_Hotlead_J10 said:

Glad to hear I’m not the only one feeling this! Last Black September, I was in pursuit of a Bristol, Rad midway open, temps at or below 70c, engine RPMs always below 1600...and my engine overheated and died. ☹️ 

 

Hopefully this can be fixed! Life is difficult enough as an Alby pilot in FC without this.

 

Mind you, I think they got the Alby’s FM just right. It’s a bit more challenging to fly against Allied contemporaries than in ROF, as should historically be the case. Buuut...this engine thing turns the Alby from a rewarding challenge to fly into a “for display purposes only” aircraft. ? Really hope this gets fixed! ?

 

Yes but your radiator wasn't open very far

[J2_Jakob]

59 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Yes but your radiator wasn't open very far

 

You can have it opened all the way. Doesn't matter. Temp will show pleasant 70 degrees. ?

 

 

3 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

full throttle engine damage works for the WWII planes and seems more realistic for the WWI birds as well ...but if we are to have it the guages and steam and any other indicators like techno chat need to be fixed so we can know we are in that kind of danger zone...

 

We actually do! After 5 minutes RPM's start to fluctuate a little. That's when the overheating message pops up. If you back down on the throttle now, you're fine in a minute. Fluctuations go away, message goes away.
Now it seems it's the only WW1 bird with WW2 bird restrictions, a true pioneer of its kind... ? (So I'm going to fly it in next BS anyway.)

 

 

3 hours ago, -332FG-Garven said:

My wild guess is that it is altitude dependent. At low altitude they probably didn't; at high altitude I wouldn't be surprised if they did due to the engines loss of power in thinner air.

 

At 250m my engine died slightly after 10 minute mark.

At 500m my engine died slightly after 15 minute mark.

At (and above) 1000m my engine was still running fine well after 15 minute mark.

(^^ Stalingrad summer map)

Edited September 20, 2019 by J2_Jakob

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

On 9/20/2019 at 1:29 PM, J2_Jakob said:

 

At 250m my engine died slightly after 10 minute mark.

At 500m my engine died slightly after 15 minute mark.

At (and above) 1000m my engine was still running fine well after 15 minute mark.

(^^ Stalingrad summer map)

 

It might be interesting to see if the times are any different at 90% throttle.

[J2_Trupobaw]

On 9/20/2019 at 4:29 PM, -332FG-Garven said:

Doubt it.  I don't think there is any hard documentation on the engine time limits on the WW1 planes except for the little placard in the Bristol cockpit, but I don't think the Bristol can exceed that RPM limit in level flight.

There's plenty of surviving engines available and Entente tests documentation hasn't been lost. D.IIIau is singular among D.III variants because it could *not* sustain full power at sea level.

(Not like our Haalberstadt engine...)

My money is on simple error when porting engine damage model and radiator/thermometer from RoF. Perhaps two FM versions got mixed up in worse possible way.

[J2_Jakob]

2 hours ago, J5_Klugermann said:

 

It might be interesting to see if the times are any different at 90% throttle.

 

They are very different.

At 250m with 90% throttle I hit 20 minute mark without seeing any warnings.

I did not bother testing at higher altitudes.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

It's probably safer to patrol at 85% and only use full throttle when engaged.  Pack a razor because you may grow a beard before you encounter anything.

[SeaW0lf]

Regarding the poll Beaumer, I did not vote because it is too black and white (I imagine the issue is more complex), plus if we vote for wear and tear we might get out engines blowing up just like the Albatros after a couple minutes in dogfights. Is this realistic? Until proven right, who knows? These things scare people, the same way that I'm holding my breath with the Gforces fatigue, fearing that after the update we might get tired after a few turns in a dogfight as if we were octogenarians or ill.

 

I'm the opinion to not open the can of worms unless it is a well thought feature.

[J2_Jakob]

2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

Regarding the poll Beaumer, I did not vote because it is too black and white (I imagine the issue is more complex)...

 

I'm missing the option "I have no idea"...

[JG1_Vonrd]

3 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

Regarding the poll Beaumer, I did not vote because it is too black and white (I imagine the issue is more complex), plus if we vote for wear and tear we might get out engines blowing up just like the Albatros after a couple minutes in dogfights. Is this realistic? Until proven right, who knows? These things scare people, the same way that I'm holding my breath with the Gforces fatigue, fearing that after the update we might get tired after a few turns in a dogfight as if we were octogenarians or ill.

 

I'm the opinion to not open the can of worms unless it is a well thought feature.

I started a new thread regarding this poll...

and you might be able to surmise that "I have no idea"

Edited September 27, 2019 by II./JG1_Vonrd

[SeaW0lf]

19 minutes ago, II./JG1_Vonrd said:

I started a new thread regarding this poll...

and you might be able to surmise that "I have no idea"

 

Suit yourself, then don't complain later ?

[JG1_Vonrd]

2 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Suit yourself, then don't complain later ?

???

[SeaW0lf]

2 minutes ago, II./JG1_Vonrd said:

???

 

I could say the same about "I have no idea".

 

I'm slammed in work right now. I don't even know why I took the bait. Sorry people.

[Zooropa_Fly]

I always compare the early crates to lawn mowers. You crank them up and go.

Naturally, engines got more prone to damage as technology advanced quickly (as it does in wartime), and operating them became more complex.

 

Not being an engineer or pilot, I'm limited to an opinion based on ROF experience.

That opinion is that I'm quite happy for these early birds to be able to go at full whack - the throttle on a ww1 plane is for slowing down !

I don't fly full throttle all the time these days, dynamic use of it is essential (even with a blipper) in a fight as you learn over the years.

But it just feels 'right' to me the way things are. Enhances the simplistic beaty of these beasts.

 

My guess is that in real life, ww1 throttle reduction was largely down to saving fuel en-route rather than for engine preservation.

 

S!

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

Poll has been opened for comment to consolidate conversation with the poll.

 

Click here to vote and post comments....

 

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

When a ww1 engine can't work at full power at sea level, we hear of it.

Historical Mercedes D.IIIau was notable because it could not run at full power indefinetely at sea level. 

Historical BMW D.III was notable because in peak of summer heat the radiator wasn't able to cool it, and engine cowlings had to be removed from D.VIIIFs. Also, the "unsafe at sea level" extra power was added by separate altitude throttle.

 Maybach Mb.IVa was notable because it was designed for high altitude and could not withstand work at full power at dea level.

These engines are curiosities, considered revolutionary because the engineers abandoned the idea of running at full power on sea level. The fact that pilot could not just use full power all the time is always brought up when these are described. No mention of that in Mercedes D.III / D.IIIa; instead, D.IIIau sea level performance is brought in contrast with earlier variants.

For most engines there is no evidence they had anything like "combat power" or "altitude power". With most Brirish planes being used for ground attack, and Schlachtflegern commonly using Mercedes engines, i saw not a single mention of engine limitations in such operations outside D.IIIau.

The pilots were likely to use cruising power outside combat to save fuel, and to spare the engine. Engines were commonly worn and failed to deploy full power, especially German rotaries (yet they were still used and the German lamentations concentrate on low power, not increased risk of mid-air stoppage) . But the WW2-style limits, I believe they are listed above.

Baumer, the poll misses the "when it's historically correct" option (namely the 3 engines above. And I'd love me some Maybah recon)..

 

Edited September 27, 2019 by J2_Trupobaw

[BMA_Hellbender]

This is fixed as of today!

 

 

No more excuses not to fly your 180hp deathtrap now, and we CL.II flyers desperately need bait escorts when attacking enemy ground targets!

[Matthias_PDX]

Just fly the Pfalz. Solved.

 

edit: I usually run at 20% - 30% rad opening with it.

Edited December 18, 2019 by MatthiasAlpha

[J2_Jakob]

16 hours ago, MatthiasAlpha said:

Just fly the Pfalz. Solved.

 

No, thanks.

 

@J5_Hellbender-Sch27b yup! We got some presents too, after all... ? Thanks for your effort of posting extensive info with pictures and communicating this with the Devs.

[J5_Adam]

On 9/26/2019 at 8:44 AM, J2_Trupobaw said:

"Historical Mercedes D.IIIau was notable because it could not run at full power indefinetely at sea level."

 

It's my understanding that it would cut-out or die, stall whatever you'd like to call it if it the throttle was put to wide open all of a sudden. It had an altitude compensating carburetor that adjusted the mixture to be more lean as it was opened further. So ya, it would either slowly seize or just all of a sudden, stall from an over-lean situation if the throttle lever was pushed beyond that "2/3" portion of the scale. Mikael Carlson's DVII had a throttle stop installed right at the "2/3" point. He says that he doesn't use that portion of his throttle because he never climbs high enough to use it.

 

The BMW had a combination of the altitude compensation carb and an over-gas button which, when depressed would inject the alcohol of whatever additive it was that they used. You were't supposed to use one without the other. It should also be noted that it was reported that the BMW WAS used at 100 meters, at full open with the over-gas for long periods of like 30 minutes WITHOUT engine damage. Sources are found on theaerodrome.com

[1PL-Lucas-1Esk]

The usage of 'overcompressed' engine could also lead to the cylinder damage. I read about this in the memoirs of Wacław Makowski, a Polish pilot and future director of LOT Airlines. He was flying a DFW C.V with a Benz Bz.IVa engine. For the first minutes he was amazed how well the plane flies and how powerful it is. Then came an explosion from the cylinder and luckily he managed to land. The mechanics assembling planes did not know that the engine was overcompressed and so the pilot flew it on full throttle on low altitude.

[BMA_Hellbender]

The overheating issue was caused by the oil incorrectly overheating, not because of cylinder knock/pre-ignition which would be caused by overcompression at low altitude.

 

To avoid confusion because this is a somewhat older thread: our current Albatros D.Va has no overcompression installed on its 180hp Mercedes D.IIIa engine, with top IAS at sea level of 169km/h.

 

We know this from the in-game documentation, and also because it simply does not match the expected performance. The January 1918 Adlershof competition had the D.Va with the 180ps (British post-war measurement: 200hp) Mercedes D.IIIaü engine down with a top speed of 186km/h. It’s unclear exactly at what altitude this speed was measured, but since it was without a doubt measured in TAS (as with all German measurements performed with the cup anemometer) at a reasonable altitude to fully benefit from overcompression, top IAS at sea level must have been close to 186km/h as well.

 

This makes sense when we compare the 180hp and 200hp Halberstadt CL.II’s top speed, which is almost exactly 10km/h apart. Unsurprisingly a smaller difference than that between the 180hp and 200hp Albatros, simply because it has far more parasitic drag and induced drag with its gunner and increased weight.

 

[Sgt_Joch]

2 hours ago, Adam said:

 

The BMW had a combination of the altitude compensation carb and an over-gas button which, when depressed would inject the alcohol of whatever additive it was that they used. You were't supposed to use one without the other. It should also be noted that it was reported that the BMW WAS used at 100 meters, at full open with the over-gas for long periods of like 30 minutes WITHOUT engine damage. Sources are found on theaerodrome.com

 

The Diii au and BMW  were overcompressed at sea level for the octane level of their fuel so would suffer from potential detonation with a full throttle. Since these engines had no supercharger to compensate for decreasing air pressure, increasing altitude would therefore solve the problem. Personally, I think the way it is modeled in game is fine.

 

The statement you quoted has actually been debated often. It is based on a letter Goering wrote asking for more of their high octane benzene and quoting another pilot in his squadron who "claimed" he could run the BMW engine with full throttle at ground level with no problem. The Germans themselves recommended not using the "altitude throttle" below 2km altitude. No one knows for sure how hard you could run these engines.

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Sgt_Joch