Question for developers

[II./JG52Wolfen_ITA]

Hi guys, can i ask you why, there are some planes that can fly at maximum speed for more then 30 minutes and other can fly no more then 5/15 in max without damage the engine ?. Is it correct ?.

 

Thank you

Wolfen

[[DBS]Browning]

It's the same kind of reasons that mean that in car you can go full throttle in first gear and some cars will break quickly, but other cars will run forever.

 

Some cars have RPM or power limiters that prevent engine damage.

Some cars don't have engines powerful enough to break themselves.

Some cars have a higher gear ratio in first.

 

There are all sorts of reasons like this that cause the same inputs to damage some engines, but not others.

 

 

[MattS]

Think of it this way: the Soviet planes that run continuously at full throttle / full RPM could in theory be set up to run at higher MP & RPM for short periods the way that the German, British, and American ones do, but that option was not given to the pilots.

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, II./JG52Wolfen_ITA said:

Hi guys, can i ask you why, there are some planes that can fly at maximum speed for more then 30 minutes and other can fly no more then 5/15 in max without damage the engine ?. Is it correct ?.

 

Thank you

Wolfen

it was recomendations, pilots could go abow that limits with no worry, then times would acumulate by crew and overhauleds of engines would be faster. In game we have fantasy where your primery objective is count seconds as your engines are time bombs that explod if you miss count. AND on top of that Techchat messages that could warn player when game belives you should stop using combat or emergancy mods is BUGED and works only when instrument panel in realisam settings is turned ON.

[[DBS]Browning]

1 minute ago, CountZero said:

it was recomendations, pilots could go abow that limits with no worry, then times would acumulate by crew and overhauleds of engines would be faster. In game we have fantasy where your primery objective is count seconds as your engines are time bombs that explod if you miss count. AND on top of that Techchat messages that could warn player when game belives you should stop using combat or emergancy mods is BUGED and works only when instrument panel in realisam settings is turned ON.

 

I don't want to kick off the full debate here, but I do want to point out that what CountZero says here is, at the very least, a point of contention amongst people here.

[kendo]

Some would say it is more accurate to describe it as 'complete BS', rather than as 'a point of contention'.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by kendo

[CountZero]

If in real ww2 airplanes engine timers would explod your airplane real pilots would have red light or alarm that warns them that their 5min of emergancy use is expired and he needs to stop or hell end up in POW camp. Fact that real airplanes didnt have them is clear sign timers are just to save engines life span in long run, not short restrictions that would end your day if you used it for 7min insted 5min like you have in arcade way we have in game, and on top of that game dosent even have bug free way of informing you when its fantasy timer expired.

[=621=Samikatz]

2 hours ago, MattS said:

Think of it this way: the Soviet planes that run continuously at full throttle / full RPM could in theory be set up to run at higher MP & RPM for short periods the way that the German, British, and American ones do, but that option was not given to the pilots.

 

I think the Klimov engines we have in game are de-rated to prolong engine life? I remember reading that the earlier models of the 105 have emergency settings with limits prescribed in the manual

[Lusekofte]

The planes made during the war had 10 hours life expectancy. During that time it was not unheard of having a engine change. Consequences of hard pushed engines was normally a smack in the backhead from crew chief. 
In order to get out of a tight spot pilots hit the throttle to the end and gave a damn how long it last until they where out of the situation. They where kids underneath their fast growth to men. 
Rebuilding a ww 2 built airplane means 

put it apart and treat it for corrosion. A treatment they never had, they where not build to last

Edited May 11, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Aurora_Stealth]

@II./JG52Wolfen_ITA

 

An engine's ability to withstand high boost pressures and use a higher rating for emergency power depends a lot on how it is engineered - some are better than others and some used higher quality materials and parts than others.. some were better lubricated and some used superior seals and bearings to ensure less friction and wear. Also the use of very high octane fuel such as 150 octane or MW50 affected the hours they could be usefully run due to higher wear. The MW50 boost used on some German aero engines helped cool down the engine (using the water element of the mixture), but also included anti-corrosion additive .. this helped to extend combat power.. and WEP power to 10 min bursts on late war variants... but there was still a deteriorating effect on wear and tear.

 

Regarding some of the other comments..

 

General rule of thumb - further you strain the engine using these types of boost then the lower the engine life is. Note that another good example is that some of the early DB 605 engines were de-rated due to their initial lack of reliability during development, this was exacerbated due to the lack of rubber and lack of ball bearings etc for German production. Sabotage also affected engine performance - we know this happened in many German occupied factories across Europe. Different issues affected the Soviet engines but it tends to be a similar story. It didn't help at all that Soviet equipment had to shift production into the Urals with the invasion in 1941.

 

Bear in mind that the early Klimov engines were never considered reliable in comparison to their equivalents. This is also one reason why the Klimov M-105 engine was replaced with the Allison engine on modern Yaks (Yak 3 and 9) today as warbird reproductions. They could have tried to reproduce these engines but they are not considered close to acceptable for modern standards of reliability such as for general flying or airshows.

 

From what I remember in the books and research I've seen (don't quote me exactly) the theoretical (not average life) comparison was around 250 - 300 hours for a mid-war Merlin/Packard, late DB605 around 150 - 200 hours (dropping to 50 -100 hours for early DB605A), 300 - 350 hours for an Allison and maybe 40 - 60 hours for a Klimov M-105 / M-107 if you were lucky. Like I say, average lifetimes were often half these manufacturer quoted or given figures.. and in combat conditions it does vary greatly.

 

Maintenance and operational use plays a big part in whether those figures are achieved - they are not guaranteed at all, war time maintenance is greatly limited by time and spare parts. So you can practically half those numbers in many cases due to poor maintenance or the engines regularly exceeding expected limits / abuse.

 

As with a lot of Soviet engineering, machines were built for speed of production.. quality improved later but it was not a valued feature during war where attrition was expected to be high regardless. They were simply not expected to have a long shelf life and the significant time added in making a high quality piece of engineering was considered a luxury they didn't have. In fact the average number of hours of "typical operational use" were estimated by Soviet planners and this factored into production time given for tanks, aircraft and other materials.

 

These were tools of the state, consideration of the individual played a clear second place unfortunately.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Aurora_Stealth

[MattS]

3 hours ago, kendo said:

Some would say it is more accurate to describe it as 'complete BS', rather than as 'a point of contention'.

 

 

 

He is factually correct that the Technochat warning "Combat Power Exceeded" only shows when the Instrument Panel option is enabled.

 

Whether that is good/bad/bugged I will let others decide for themselves.

[216th_Jordan]

I personally am happy not to see everybody clown around at Notleistung for their entire flights and then just click 'finish flight' and 'start' to do the same thing over again like it used to be case in Il2 46.

 

System is not perfect, but better than not having it. Would prefer an exponential decrease in power after exceeding the time limits as opposed to a dieing engine however.

[CountZero]

6 hours ago, MattS said:

 

He is factually correct that the Technochat warning "Combat Power Exceeded" only shows when the Instrument Panel option is enabled.

 

Whether that is good/bad/bugged I will let others decide for themselves.

Its clear BUG. What Instrument Panel have to do with techchat messages about timers expired or recovered? nothing what so ever, and this is only techchat messages that dont show up or are typed to realisam setting. And its not like its some message that is not important and player can get that info from anwhere els then techchat, especialy as safe time changes depending on power used so its never same time in real gameplay. If time is so unrealisticly strick, then atleast game shoul inform player corectly when safe time ended so player have ability to use it to maxmum game  alows it by the way it decided to limit engines.

Edited May 11, 2020 by CountZero

[MattS]

27 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Its clear BUG. What Instrument Panel have to do with techchat messages about timers expired or recovered? nothing what so ever, and this is only techchat messages that dont show up or are typed to realisam setting. And its not like its some message that is not important and player can get that info from anwhere els then techchat, especialy as safe time changes depending on power used so its never same time in real gameplay. If time is so unrealisticly strick, then atleast game shoul inform player corectly when safe time ended so player have ability to use it to maxmum game  alows it by the way it decided to limit engines.

 

A "Bug" is something in the software code that is not intended to be there. Since the developers haven't told us whether or not they did it on purpose, it could instead be a bad design decision.

 

The semantics matter in this case because asking the developers to fix a bug is just a matter of when they can get to it, while reversing a bad design decision requires us to convince them that the change is really necessary and why. I agree with you in this case, but you/we lose credibility calling things "bugs" because we don't agree with them. IMO better to discuss it as a feature of the game that should be implemented differently.

[MasserME262]

7 hours ago, CountZero said:

Its clear BUG. What Instrument Panel have to do with techchat messages about timers expired or recovered? nothing what so ever, and this is only techchat messages that dont show up or are typed to realisam setting. And its not like its some message that is not important and player can get that info from anwhere els then techchat, especialy as safe time changes depending on power used so its never same time in real gameplay. If time is so unrealisticly strick, then atleast game shoul inform player corectly when safe time ended so player have ability to use it to maxmum game  alows it by the way it decided to limit engines.

what about not flying at full throttle all the time, mah friend? That insta-solve your problem.

[MattS]

4 hours ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

what about not flying at full throttle all the time, mah friend? That insta-solve your problem.

 

Funny, but I'm not sure that's really fair.

 

Do you fly the P-40? With a relatively brief supply of "Combat Power" (that varies substantially based on RPM/MP) and no Manifold Pressure Regulator, it can be pretty easy to exceed the Sim's limitations in combat with no warning.

 

In something like the 109/190, with 30 minutes of combat time and only one power lever to manage, engine timers are effectively a non-issue. Is that what you mostly play?

 

[Lusekofte]

P 40 seem to be better after flying it for a while. I have not ruined one engine, yet I push the limits whenever needed. 
I also got greater respect for MIG’s after seeing how ai fly them, then I start thinking, maybe it is not the plane that is rubbish, it might be me. 

I fly the P 40 faster and more aggressive, yet I do not get in a spin anymore. We will always have inaccuracies , things will never be fair. And it will always be lw pilots opinion that allied planes have no need of a fix. 

As far as I experience I find planes much better giving them a long hard test repeatably. At one point you can squees every inch of power out of them

Edited May 12, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Heckpupper]

21 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

The planes made during the war had 10 hours life expectancy. During that time it was not unheard of having a engine change.

 

Where the hell did you get that from?

Majority of popular western aircraft engines (Merlin, R-2800, R-1830) and so on, were test-ran for hours on maximum power to search for stress damage patterns and other weakpoints. In most cases those mentioned engines could sustain 3000RPM full manifold pressure operations for 20+ hours continuosly (sic!). Engine change was unheard of, because there would realistically never be a need to change it, as long as it's maintained semi-regularly. There are studies of those test runs available online, I can DM them to you if you want to have a read.

[MattS]

36 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

P 40 seem to be better after flying it for a while. I have not ruined one engine, yet I push the limits whenever needed. 
I also got greater respect for MIG’s after seeing how ai fly them, then I start thinking, maybe it is not the plane that is rubbish, it might be me. 

I fly the P 40 faster and more aggressive, yet I do not get in a spin anymore. We will always have inaccuracies , things will never be fair. And it will always be lw pilots opinion that allied planes have no need of a fix. 

As far as I experience I find planes much better giving them a long hard test repeatably. At one point you can squees every inch of power out of them

 

Agreed...my comment was in response to the idea that one would need to "[fly] around at full throttle all the time" to run afoul of the engine timers, when that is just not true for a handful of planes in this game. 

[Lusekofte]

21 minutes ago, ACG_Onebad said:

 

Where the hell did you get that from?

Majority of popular western aircraft engines (Merlin, R-2800, R-1830) and so on, were test-ran for hours on maximum power to search for stress damage patterns and other weakpoints. In most cases those mentioned engines could sustain 3000RPM full manifold pressure operations for 20+ hours continuosly (sic!). Engine change was unheard of, because there would realistically never be a need to change it, as long as it's maintained semi-regularly. There are studies of those test runs available online, I can DM them to you if you want to have a read.

I picked it up in my head, so I guess a spirit from some high authority logistic strategist have possessed my body. 
And next time read my post

[I.JG3_CDRSEABEE]

20 hours ago, MattS said:

 

He is factually correct that the Technochat warning "Combat Power Exceeded" only shows when the Instrument Panel option is enabled.

 

Whether that is good/bad/bugged I will let others decide for themselves.

There is a timer on the clock that lets you know how long you have exceeded continuous power. The small clock inside the normal clock. At least its on the German planes. Not sure about all.

 

I think it has to round twice before damage?

Edited May 12, 2020 by CDRSEABEE

[CountZero]

7 hours ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

what about not flying at full throttle all the time, mah friend? That insta-solve your problem.

techchat in game informs you about when engine overheats even though you can clearly see that from gauges in cocpit, it tells you when you lovered gear even thought you can clearly see it from gauges, lights or sticks on wings, it even tells you when you open canopy even though you know that even if your blined by sound of air, but it dosent inform you when engine timers expired or get recharged even thought you cant know for sure when that happends ? and its located that thouse messages ( only thouse ) are somehow tyed to realisam option that have nothing with it, and problem should not be fixed so like for all other messages they work correctly ? i have no problem sticking to fantasy limits and arcade way devs decided to use them but then atleast fix buged messages in techchat so i know when game wonts me to stop using engine mods so i dont have random engine failuers, like game tels me when i should not overheat engine, heck even in game tips (that work on all game realsiam setting) that tell me when i staled or when i need to pull up airplane work on all mods, but pointing out clear bug in techchat messages is somehow problematic ? who said i wont to fly full throttle all the time maybe read what you quated better next time? i wont them to atleast fix clear bug with one of most important aspects in game

Edited May 12, 2020 by CountZero

[41Sqn_Skipper]

So obviously there is a pattern here: technochat only tells you things that you can see as a pilot. As you can't see the timer, technochat won't tell you.

[Talon_]

3 minutes ago, 41Sqn_Banks said:

technochat only tells you things that you can see as a pilot.

 

"Gun out of ammo"

[41Sqn_Skipper]

3 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

"Gun out of ammo"

 

Does it come directly after the last round or only when you keep the button pressed one round longer and you can "clearly see" no round was fired ?

Edited May 12, 2020 by 41Sqn_Banks

[Talon_]

2 minutes ago, 41Sqn_Banks said:

Does it come directly after the last round or only when you keep the button pressed one round longer

 

On the P-38 when one gun runs out of ammo you'll get the message while the others are still firing and I refuse to believe you can tell as the pilot from that cockpit which gun has stopped firing. I don't believe you'd even realise one of the four had stopped!

[Jaegermeister]

I’ve been resisting making a comment but I can’t anymore.

 

To me, technochat is one of the biggest immersion killers in the game, and I’ve had it turned off almost since day 1. Regardless of the airplane I fly, I’ve never blown up or damaged an engine as long as I kept it within the parameters outlined in the manual or the tech notes in game. Whatever anyone’s problems are with technochat or timers, they result from flying the airplane in a way it wasn’t intended or with a feature that did not exist at the time. Or ever. I suppose a modern high tech jet might self diagnose and tell you via text that you have a damaged oil line, but I doubt it.

 

Calling something that does not fit your personal preference when trying to stretch beyond historical limits a “bug” is just wrong. It’s a choice, a decision by someone who coded it and although it might be an inaccurate or inconsistent way to force people to fly within historical flight parameters, it’s better than just letting everyone fly everything balls to the wall all the time. You might as well go back to when the flight models for every airplane were basically the same. Then it would be “fair”.

 

I guess the decision to leave the timers like they are is a forced one because you would all be giving the devs a bigger ration of cr@p if they dumbed down the flight models and engine limits to where they were even 2% outside of historical values.

 

The OP had a legitimate question and got a reasonable answer. Different planes were designed with different standards for limiting pilot “creativity”. Using this question as a reason to rant about pet gripes is just childish.

 

I say get over it and just fly the plane the way the manual tells you. If you can’t beat the enemy that way, I guess you weren’t the better pilot or didn’t use good judgement at some point.

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, CDRSEABEE said:

There is a timer on the clock that lets you know how long you have exceeded continuous power. The small clock inside the normal clock. At least its on the German planes. Not sure about all.

 

I think it has to round twice before damage?

 

What?

[CountZero]

8 hours ago, 41Sqn_Banks said:

So obviously there is a pattern here: technochat only tells you things that you can see as a pilot. As you can't see the timer, technochat won't tell you.

'You have lost consciousness, wait...',    'You came to your senses and have control', 'Reload your gun', 'Gun is damaged', 'Gun is overheated', 'Autolevel on', 'Autopilot on', 'First engine injection system failure', 'Control surface lost', 'Pitch trimmer rods jammed', 'Air Brake jammed', 'Fuel tank hit', and many more ... 'Spin is unrecoverable, altitude is low, bail out!'

 

EDIT:

'Watch your altitude, you\'re falling too fast!' , 'Fuel left for 10 minutes only!'  all thouse work fine and are visable on any realisam settings but somehow line is drawn at 'First engine: emergency mode time exceeded!',   'First engine: emergency mode recovered' this is something player can not know, its top secret?

 

EDIT 2:

 

When i check in realisam settings under Instrument Panel ( hover mous abow it) explanation pops up to me teling me what i activate or deactivate with that option, it just says:
"Displays a convenient instrument data panel in the low left corner of the screen along with the minimap". It even makes room to say it activates minimap aditionaly.
It dosent also say that it activates or deactivates engine mode time exceeded or recovered techchat messages ( and only thouse messages out of 1000s of others that it dont activate or deactivate).

 

And if you look at other options and explanations about what they activate or deactivate, there is planty of room to add exactly what is activated by Instrument Panel option :

 

If its not bug but intentional of game, why not add it to explanation like all other small details ? so it looks like this (quickly editing in mod pages.locale=eng.txt file):

 

 

its clear that thouse techchat messages (and only them ) have no reason to be activated by that realisam option that has nothing to do with them, if they were ment to be activated by it explanation would clearly say so.

Edited May 13, 2020 by CountZero

[=RS=Stix_09]

I'm pretty sure from memory technochat used to tell you engine warning without needing the instrument HUD to be enabled. Not sure which patch changed how it works.I'm fairly sure is not intended. Why would they want it that way? I can't see a reason.

 

There was a whole thread about whether techochat should be in the game on no.

 

My thinking is because, we are not in a real plane and limited by only sight and sound inputs (and they are simulated, and not at same resolution (even close to in many cases) the real thing) having some other method to give information is helpful. But that does not mean we need it to be writing and txt on the screen which I do agree breaks immersion. Whatever is done breaks immersion a little, what we have could be done in a more immersive way (and thats our best option Ifeel)

 

Current physiology effects are a form of techno chat for example.

 

Why do we need some artificial info like this?

Its a sim, it can't be made realistic (unless you build a sim rig like this), its not going to happen in a game like il-2.

(and even this does not simulate everything (, like engine shake shake, g forces etc in a real plane , its still a simulation and not real)

People need to lower expectations a little.

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09

[=621=Samikatz]

I do think technochat should be a serverside setting (with the exception of throttle/trim/rad% because not everyone has enough axis to spare for those and has to use buttons) but I don't think it would especially change the flow of combat to not have those there. Most engagements are much, much shorter than your average combat or emergency power anyway

[=RS=Stix_09]

30 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

I do think technochat should be a serverside setting (with the exception of throttle/trim/rad% because not everyone has enough axis to spare for those and has to use buttons) but I don't think it would especially change the flow of combat to not have those there. Most engagements are much, much shorter than your average combat or emergency power anyway

These are server realism settings. Simple gauges allows only a compass on HUD in mplayer. (but technochat txt messages are user side setting , correct.
I  feel the problem is not technochat. Its more how its done in game currently that breaks immersion for me.

Try to check a compas on a spitfire (compared to how much easier in a real plane this is to do) its not easy to do with head tracker. (a real person shifting view is much easier to to in reality). We are not in a real plane, some allowances help (the purists ?me off , frankly)

 

Any way original OP was answered.. sorry for tangent.

Edited May 12, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09

[Herne]

30 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

These are server realism settings. Simple gauges allows only a compass on HUD in mplayer. (but technochat txt messages are user side setting , correct.
I  feel the problem is not technochat. Its more how its done in game currently that breaks immersion for me.

Try to check a compas on a spitfire (compared to how much easier in a real plane this is to do) its not easy to do with head tracker. (a real person shifting view is much easier to to in reality). We are not in a real plane, some allowances help (the purists ?me off , frankly)

 

I know I'm going a bit off topic, but I would love to see server side control of techchat. The cockpits give us everything we need, without tech chat we all have a reason to use our instruments.

It's at the top of my wish list.

[=RS=Stix_09]

42 minutes ago, Herne said:

 

I know I'm going a bit off topic, but I would love to see server side control of techchat. The cockpits give us everything we need, without tech chat we all have a reason to use our instruments.

It's at the top of my wish list.

 

Here for those that want to discuss technochat, the highly controversial topic...

 

[Birdman]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

What?

I think they refer to the MW-50 pressure gauge?

[II./JG52Wolfen_ITA]

On 5/11/2020 at 12:58 PM, [DBS]Browning said:

It's the same kind of reasons that mean that in car you can go full throttle in first gear and some cars will break quickly, but other cars will run forever.

 

Some cars have RPM or power limiters that prevent engine damage.

Some cars don't have engines powerful enough to break themselves.

Some cars have a higher gear ratio in first.

 

There are all sorts of reasons like this that cause the same inputs to damage some engines, but not others.

 

you say right things, but these are not cars, but planes and not normal planes but fighter planes. Really you think that designers put limiter, when this could be the difference between live or death of pilot ?. generally in WWII this choice was leave to the pilot, for obviously reasons

On 5/11/2020 at 12:58 PM, [DBS]Browning said:

 

 

 

On 5/11/2020 at 1:18 PM, MattS said:

Think of it this way: the Soviet planes that run continuously at full throttle / full RPM could in theory be set up to run at higher MP & RPM for short periods the way that the German, British, and American ones do, but that option was not given to the pilots.

 

If you are right, then your plane can't reach the maximum performance, is it so ?, your plane fly under the maximum performance or speed ? have you tested it ?. I have done it, it is easy, you just to create a mission and set the maximum speed for your plane, use the autopilot and look what happen.As i said before, WWII was the pinnacle of bellic industry, the limiters were built for other things, not for limits the performance.

 

Guys, my question isn't a polemic or critics, i play this game since first release, yes you read well, since first Il-2 (I know I'm old :)) and i bought any version during these years. In all these years i have appreciate the simulator side of this game and not the graphics. I want that this simulator still a simulator and not a stupid arcade. 

[II./JG52Wolfen_ITA]

On 5/12/2020 at 8:52 AM, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

what about not flying at full throttle all the time, mah friend? That insta-solve your problem.

 

Yep, but if your enemy can fly at the maximum speed ever is an advantage, don't you think ?

13 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

These are server realism settings. Simple gauges allows only a compass on HUD in mplayer. (but technochat txt messages are user side setting , correct.
I  feel the problem is not technochat. Its more how its done in game currently that breaks immersion for me.

Try to check a compas on a spitfire (compared to how much easier in a real plane this is to do) its not easy to do with head tracker. (a real person shifting view is much easier to to in reality). We are not in a real plane, some allowances help (the purists ?me off , frankly)

 

Any way original OP was answered.. sorry for tangent.

 

My tests are done in full realism and in single player, and you can't place on the same level the performance with a compas, please..

[MattS]

1 hour ago, II./JG52Wolfen_ITA said:

 

If you are right, then your plane can't reach the maximum performance, is it so ?, your plane fly under the maximum performance or speed ? have you tested it ?. I have done it, it is easy, you just to create a mission and set the maximum speed for your plane, use the autopilot and look what happen.As i said before, WWII was the pinnacle of bellic industry, the limiters were built for other things, not for limits the performance.

 

 

 

Not sure what you are talking about here. Engine design is always a trade-off between power output and efficiency, reliability, service life etc.

 

What I am saying is that the Klimov 105 engine block is physically capable of delivering more power, and could have been designed/tuned to do so for a limited period of time by running at higher RPM and MP (as was done by other engine designers with "Combat Power" or "War Emergency Power").

 

Klimov and/or the Soviet Air Force chose not to do that for whatever reasons. My guess is that pushing the limits decreased reliability to an unacceptable level. So the power you can get from the engine is available continuously (subject to the fuel supply and cooling system limitations), but it is less than what is physically possible with that piece of equipment.

[Eisenfaustus]

13 minutes ago, MattS said:

 

Not sure what you are talking about here. Engine design is always a trade-off between power output and efficiency, reliability, service life etc.

 

What I am saying is that the Klimov 105 engine block is physically capable of delivering more power, and could have been designed/tuned to do so for a limited period of time by running at higher RPM and MP (as was done by other engine designers with "Combat Power" or "War Emergency Power").

 

Klimov and/or the Soviet Air Force chose not to do that for whatever reasons. My guess is that pushing the limits decreased reliability to an unacceptable level. So the power you can get from the engine is available continuously (subject to the fuel supply and cooling system limitations), but it is less than what is physically possible with that piece of equipment.

Best ingame example: 109 g2 and G4. Same engine on almost the same airframe. But in the g2 for reliability reasons power was limited to combat - g4 was allowed to use emergency power. 

[MattS]

8 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Best ingame example: 109 g2 and G4. Same engine on almost the same airframe. But in the g2 for reliability reasons power was limited to combat - g4 was allowed to use emergency power. 

 

Great example!

 

That said, I am a little skeptical of the way limitations are implemented in the game, which grants the same level of reliability to the Klimov running constantly at full rated power vs. DB, Merlin, and Allison engines running their conservative published power schemes. But I'm not a mechanical engineer so I'll leave that to guys who know better.