Engine management problem

June 23, 2022

Hi All,

Just wondering if the developers are aware of a bug in the engine management of the Bf109 F's.
Their rated full power is for 2700 RPM at 1.42 ata for one minute, but in game at the moment this is indefinite without overheating. Testing was done last night and aircraft flew over 12 minutes with no sign of the temps going over about 110 C.

June 24, 2022

There is nothing indefinite in Cod, The artificial "Timers" doesn't exist (except on the 109E where the timer is mechanical) as in 46 or BoX.
The timers were directed to pilots, not engines themselves. there were more advices than definite rules.
The engine durability in CoD depends on dozens parametrers, a well babisitted engine can run at it's max for a long time, do a small error in adjustements and your burn your engine (i'm have a black belt dan9 in burned engines in the 109, whatever model :biggrin: ).

June 24, 2022

8 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

There is nothing indefinite in Cod, The artificial "Timers" doesn't exist (except on the 109E where the timer is mechanical) as in 46 or BoX.
The timers were directed to pilots, not engines themselves. there were more advices than definite rules.
The engine durability in CoD depends on dozens parametrers, a well babisitted engine can run at it's max for a long time, do a small error in adjustements and your burn your engine (i'm have a black belt dan9 in burned engines in the 109, whatever model ).

Clearly you know very little about instructions given to pilots in a military scenario.

The limits are there for a reason.

Testing was done, not only on the straight and level, but also with combat manoeuvres which should cause overheating and engine seizure, but nothing happened.

There clearly is an issue with the aircraft

Edited June 24, 2022 by Padre*

June 24, 2022

8 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

do a small error in adjustements and your burn your engine (i'm have a black belt dan9 in burned engines in the 109, whatever model ).

what small error in adjustments are you talking about in a 190 F with auto rads and prop pitch enabled?

I have gave up on multiple tests after 15mins or so in the BF109F at full throttle because the engine just wont die.

Sadly, with the 30-40mph advantage in speed the BF109F currently has over the Spit MK5s in game at medium altitudes, it makes for very boring, linear fights, because any Blue pilot who has worked out that their engine is invincible simply runs away at full throttle with no chance of the spitfire ever catching them.

Now I don't expect the 109s to start turn fighting of course and draining E, but is a dive and climb speed advantage not enough to have some fair fights?

June 24, 2022

5 hours ago, Padre* said:

The limits are there for a reason.

Hello there!

I would like to mention that the limits set in the pilot notes, or training manuals are generally conservative. These limits are there not only because there are physical limits for the engines (indeed there are), but more importantly, also because the frontline units must maintain operational longevity of their equipment.

On the one hand, WWII piston aero engines are durable, far durable than you think. For example during the period of 1943-1944, both USAAF and RAF conducted extensive tests regarding the use of 100/150 high octane fuel and the maximum running time of engines running at the War Emergency Rating. The results of those tests shown that engines were capable of running at highest boost for hours, both on laboratory test beds and frontline test units. Although it was noted that the use of high-octane fuel and frequent use of maximum boost would significantly hamper the longevity of the engines, but as long as they were properly maintained, and regularly inspected, the possibility of engine failure was low.

For more info about the engine tests I've mentioned please refer to: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

Another example that can illustrate my opinion was the operation history of Allison V-1710 Type F3R and F4R (or V-1710-39) engine. According to the Handbook of Operation and Maintenance for Allison V-1710 "F" Type Engines 3rd Edition issued by Allison Division, General Motors Corporation, the engine was capable of running at 60in of boost, at 3000 RPM, as long as the automatic manifold pressure regulator could handle, and was set to 60in of manifold pressure limit. However, according to the official RAF Pilots Note of Kittyhawk I aircraft the maximum limit was only 42in of boost at 3000 RPM, and only for 5 minutes. That huge margin, from my perspective, can only be justified by the requirement of ensuring operational longevity of the engines, rather than keeping the engines away from their physical limits.

For Tomahawk aircraft with V-1710 "C" Type engines the limits were even lower:

And actually the frontline units went far beyond than these limits. And it turned out that even the factory estimations were conservative.

According to a letter written by Mr. R. M. Hazen, the Chief Engineer of the Allison Division, General Motors Corporation, Pilots in the Middle East and Australia managed to continuously operate V-1710-F3R and F4R types of engines at over 70in of boost at 3100 RPM with manifold pressure regulators removed. It was reported that the engines were able to perform normally at this kind of boost for over 20 minutes before they finally overheated. It is therefore possible for P-40s with V-1710-F3R and F4R types of engines to run even without an automatic manifold pressure regulator, and achieve higher power outputs. This was also the reason why soviet P-40s had their manifold pressure regulators removed. Even with little technical guidance and proper resource for maintenance, the soviet pilots still managed to squeeze every bit of potential from the P-40, and made it a fierce weapon against the Luftwaffe at low altitudes. If you ever wondered why the P-40E modelled by the BOX game has a 'glass engine', it is because the 'timer' style engine management system used by the game simply could not reflect what was done by the VVS. The soviet pilots could ran the engine without a manifold pressure regulator at over 70in without an issue, but you would instantly killed the engine in-game as you would certainly exceed the 50in/1min limit described by the manual. Later in the war, the Canadian Squadrons equipped with P-51As also ran their V-1710s at 70in with the introduction of 100/150 fuel safely without any issue.

On the other hand, the use of maximum boost certainly has negative effects on engines, not on their possibility of seizure mid-air, but mainly on their longevity. Assuming that there are proper maintenance, and regular inspections as always required by the ground crew instructions, most, if not all parts, that would be affected by the use of maximum boost would have been regularly inspected and replaced. The overhaul schedule of the engine would also change depending on their level of use and wear. The possibility of failures will only raise when the engine is used intensively but no proper care is given to it.

The operational limits provided on the manuals help the ground crews to relieve their pressure in this regard, as frequent use of maximum boost means frequent inspection and shorter interval for major engine overhauls. By advising the pilots to limit their use of engine power, an air force can have more aircraft operational at all times as fewer aircraft would need maintenance and are thus inoperational.

This purpose of providing operational limits on pilot manuals can be clearly perceived from the instruction manual published by RAF, A.P. 2095, Pilot's Notes General, governing the interpretation and application of all Air Ministry Pilot's Notes. As I quote:

The instruction went so far that it confirmed the authorization of pilots to disregard the restrictions provided in the manual during combat. This further proves that the operational limits provided in the manuals are mainly for longevity considerations, rather than avoiding the actual limit of the engine.

A.P. 2095 can be accessed here: http://www.airwar.ru/other/manuals/[aviation] - [manuals] - Pilot`s Notes General.pdf

I personally appreciate the effort devoted by the devs of BOX series to incorporate an engine management system based on pilot manuals. It's not a bad idea to encourage the virtual pilots to operate engines in a reasonable manner. However, the rigid 'engine timer' approach is far from a good reflection of the truth, unfortunately. While the Cliffs of Dover series have managed to capture that realistic touch of engine performance and management. Indeed there is still compromise, as you always have a brand new aircraft once you spawn in to an airfield, and you can always have the maximum engine endurance when the condition allows. However, punishments are always there. No engine is invincible. Even at 20,000ft a Bf109 with automatic radiator control will still overheat, and you will still over-rev and break the engine when moving the throttle recklessly or performing full-throttle dive carelessly. Don't let the appearances fool you, the time and experience will tell you more.

Sorry I have written such a long post, but I hope it is helpful to the discussion.

Cheers!

Edited June 25, 2022 by I/JG54_chuishan
grammar corrections

June 25, 2022

S!

Very informative reply, chuishan! Good reading. Engines were run over the specs, but it came with a risk of failure. Even they did maintain them to the best of their ability in field conditions. It takes only one mistake and game over.

June 25, 2022

12 hours ago, I/JG54_chuishan said:

Hello there!

I would like to mention that the limits set in the pilot notes, or training manuals are generally conservative. These limits are there not only because there are physical limits for the engines (indeed there are), but more importantly, also because the frontline units must maintain operational longevity of their equipment.

On the one hand, WWII piston aero engines are durable, far durable than you think. For example during the period of 1943-1944, both USAAF and RAF conducted extensive tests regarding the use of 100/150 high octane fuel and the maximum running time of engines running at the War Emergency Rating. The results of those tests shown that engines were capable of running at highest boost for hours, both on laboratory test beds and frontline test units. Although it was noted that the use of high-octane fuel and frequent use of maximum boost would significantly hamper the longevity of the engines, but as long as they were properly maintained, and regularly inspected, the possibility of engine failure was low.

For more info about the engine tests I've mentioned please refer to: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

Another example that can illustrate my opinion was the operation history of Allison V-1710 Type F3R and F4R (or V-1710-39) engine. According to the Handbook of Operation and Maintenance for Allison V-1710 "F" Type Engines 3rd Edition issued by Allison Division, General Motors Corporation, the engine was capable of running at 60in of boost, at 3000 RPM, as long as the automatic manifold pressure regulator could handle, and was set to 60in of manifold pressure limit. However, according to the official RAF Pilots Note of Kittyhawk I aircraft the maximum limit was only 42in of boost at 3000 RPM, and only for 5 minutes. That huge margin, from my perspective, can only be justified by the requirement of ensuring operational longevity of the engines, rather than keeping the engines away from their physical limits.

For Tomahawk aircraft with V-1710 "C" Type engines the limits were even lower:

And actually the frontline units went far beyond than these limits. And it turned out that even the factory estimations were conservative.

According to a letter written by Mr. R. M. Hazen, the Chief Engineer of the Allison Division, General Motors Corporation, Pilots in the Middle East and Australia managed to continuously operate V-1710-F3R and F4R types of engines at over 70in of boost at 3100 RPM with manifold pressure regulators removed. It was reported that the engines were able to perform normally at this kind of boost for over 20 minutes before they finally overheated. It is therefore possible for P-40s with V-1710-F3R and F4R types of engines to run even without an automatic manifold pressure regulator, and achieve higher power outputs. This was also the reason why soviet P-40s had their manifold pressure regulators removed. Even with little technical guidance and proper resource for maintenance, the soviet pilots still managed to squeeze every bit of potential from the P-40, and made it a fierce weapon against the Luftwaffe at low altitudes. If you ever wondered why the P-40E modelled by the BOX game has a 'glass engine', it is because the 'timer' style engine management system used by the game simply could not reflect what was done by the VVS. The soviet pilots could ran the engine without a manifold pressure regulator at over 70in without an issue, but you would instantly killed the engine in-game as you would certainly exceed the 50in/1min limit described by the manual. Later in the war, the Canadian Squadrons equipped with P-51As also ran their V-1710s at 70in with the introduction of 100/150 fuel safely without any issue.

On the other hand, the use of maximum boost certainly has negative effects on engines, not on their possibility of seizure mid-air, but mainly on their longevity. Assuming that there are proper maintenance, and regular inspections as always required by the ground crew instructions, most, if not all parts, that would be affected by the use of maximum boost would have been regularly inspected and replaced. The overhaul schedule of the engine would also change depending on their level of use and wear. The possibility of failures will only raise when the engine is used intensively but no proper care is given to it.

The operational limits provided on the manuals help the ground crews to relieve their pressure in this regard, as frequent use of maximum boost means frequent inspection and shorter interval for major engine overhauls. By advising the pilots to limit their use of engine power, an air force can have more aircraft operational at all times as fewer aircraft would need maintenance and are thus inoperational.

This purpose of providing operational limits on pilot manuals can be clearly perceived from the instruction manual published by RAF, A.P. 2095, Pilot's Notes General, governing the interpretation and application of all Air Ministry Pilot's Notes. As I quote:

The instruction went so far that it confirmed the authorization of pilots to disregard the restrictions provided in the manual during combat. This further proves that the operational limits provided in the manuals are mainly for longevity considerations, rather than avoiding the actual limit of the engine.

A.P. 2095 can be accessed here: http://www.airwar.ru/other/manuals/[aviation] - [manuals] - Pilot`s Notes General.pdf

I personally appreciate the effort devoted by the devs of BOX series to incorporate an engine management system based on pilot manuals. It's not a bad idea to encourage the virtual pilots to operate engines in a reasonable manner. However, the rigid 'engine timer' approach is far from a good reflection of the truth, unfortunately. While the Cliffs of Dover series have managed to capture that realistic touch of engine performance and management. Indeed there is still compromise, as you always have a brand new aircraft once you spawn in to an airfield, and you can always have the maximum engine endurance when the condition allows. However, punishments are always there. No engine is invincible. Even at 20,000ft a Bf109 with automatic radiator control will still overheat, and you will still over-rev and break the engine when moving the throttle recklessly or performing full-throttle dive carelessly. Don't let the appearances fool you, the time and experience will tell you more.

Sorry I have written such a long post, but I hope it is helpful to the discussion.

Cheers!

Whilst your reply is interesting, it somewhat takes the discussion to somewhere completely different. A discussion about how allied engines and newer fuels later in the war were tested and their performance analysed and cleared for higher boost. It also shows instructions given to Allied pilots, but you present no evidence that the same is true of instructions given to German pilots.

By presenting evidence given to pilots of aircraft from one side of the conflict, you have automatically assumed that the same is true for the pilots from the other side, without presenting any evidence of that as such. However you'll see for reasons shown below, it was not the case that the same applied to pilots of both sides.

What it does not address however is the question in point, the performance limitations of German aircraft, so you have completely deviated from the discussion.

If you start to research and find information about the actual question in point, you will see that German aero engine development suffered an incredibly different fate.

First I'll point you to some facts about the differences in aero engine development. The Allies, mostly the British, were incredibly superior in terms of engine development, but not just that, it was also about the organisational abilities of the British, which were far superior. The Germans had a completely disjointed system, where the preverbial arse did not know what the elbow was doing.

If anything, the limitations you speak of were conservative estimations, but only for allied aircraft. This was not true of German aero engines, which suffered with development contraints in terms of political interference, a farcical testing regime, problems with fuel development, and contraints with metallurgy which all hampered performance and output of their engines, and lead to a high rate of catastrophic engine failures. That's the real truth, and for some, it seems like a bitter pill to swallow.

Take a look at this video, which details the differences in engine development between the British and Germans. It highlights all of the problems I've described above and was researched and put together credibly, using historical British and German documents from the war, as well as the discussions between interested parties from both sides. It's purely factual, unlike many texts on the subject, which are a matter of opinion.

After you have digested all that information, and seen how German fighter engines (particularly Daimler-Benz engines) suffered a lot of catastrophic failures, I would then like to point you to some other factual information.

The image below is information from a Data Plate is taken from an E7N with DB.601N engine, captured by the British.

Below is data for earlier F versions with 601N (Royal Aircraft Establishment - Oct 1941 trials)

And finally below is data from British testing of a Bf-109 F4 with a DB 601E. Note that the makers claim of 1.42 ata could not even be reached, and only 1.39 ata was achievable.

Source .. https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/bf-109f-4-the-use-of-1-42-ata.54379/

I'd also like to show evidence of how German aircraft were restricted in their use of full power settings. This excerpt, from the 109 G2 pilot's manual, Translated into English, shows how 2800 RPM and 1.42 ata were prohibited from use in the DB 605, to the point that the ability of the pilot to actually use it was prevented physically ....

Note the part where it states "Takeoff and WEP setting must not be used. The particular switch has therefore been disconnected"

So, in summary....

Due to the problems with German aero engine development, as highlighted in the video above using factual German documents, and with the testing done by the RAE with a captured fighter(as opposed to a brand new engine used by Daimler-Benz for testing), you can see that for starters, the claimed 1.42 ata was not really even achievable in fighters that were in service with front line units.

The other thing is that for reasons of problems which are proven in the video above, limitations for German aero engines were much stricter than those that applied to allied aero engines.

I do hope that any further replies will address the topic in question, rather than attempting to argue by diverting the conversation to a completely different one.

By all means, if you can provide anything directly related to the subject which counters the wealth of factual evidence above, please do so.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Padre*
video not displaying properly

June 25, 2022

-Deleted-

Edited September 12, 2022 by Varrattu

June 25, 2022

1 minute ago, Varrattu said:

Hello,

and please allow me a question. What does that have to do with 'Engine management problem'?

~V~

Are you really just questioning the title of this thread?

That seems a rather picky question considering the effects of the problem leading to unrealistic behaviour of an aircraft.

However, if you really need it to be explained in a more simple way ....

Engine Management = what a pilot must do in order to do one of several things. Economy for range, or limitations for combat so as not to cause failure of the engine.

Problem = Indication that there is an issue with the above.

I do hope this clarifies things for you. Perhaps you should watch the video above. It might help you understand why this problem has been brought up.

June 25, 2022

3 hours ago, Padre* said:

Whilst your reply is interesting, it somewhat takes the discussion to somewhere completely different. A discussion about how allied engines and newer fuels later in the war were tested and their performance analysed and cleared for higher boost. It also shows instructions given to Allied pilots, but you present no evidence that the same is true of instructions given to German pilots.

Thank you for your reply! I am sorry that my reply has brought you this impression. I am in no way intended to hijack your thread into another discussion. I used those examples because these are what I know. I don't speak German so I cannot provide any first-hand material on the Luftwaffe side, but only allied practice, available in English, that somehow forms a big picture showing the overall capabilities of aero engines at that time. My apologies if that has brought to you some confusion.

From my knowledge Mr. Calum Douglas and his comparative studies is the latest and the first instance that the difference between the Luftwaffe and the Allie's efforts in engine development are brought to public attention in detail, also in English. It is of course possible that according to his studies what you have suggested is true, as there is a drastic difference between the Luftwaffe and the Allies in formulating operational limitations for pilot's instructions, but this was largely unknown before. I will definitely get my hands on his book The Secret Power Race when I have chance.

Despite saying that, I do would like to point out that both DB601E and DB605A once had overheating and spark plugs issues and the maximum boost limits were lowered temporarily from 1.42 ata to 1.32 ata for safe operation. This happened to early production aircraft of Bf109F-4s and Bf109G-2s. Once the issues were resolved the restriction was raised.

3 hours ago, Padre* said:

Note the part where it states "Takeoff and WEP setting must not be used. The particular switch has therefore been disconnected"

I therefore doubt if this March 1943 manual you cited was effected by the temporary boost restriction and may not present the normal capability of the engine.

Cheers!

Edited June 25, 2022 by I/JG54_chuishan

June 25, 2022

14 minutes ago, I/JG54_chuishan said:

Thank you for your reply! I am sorry that my reply has brought you this impression. I am in no way intended to hijack your thread into another discussion. I used those examples because these are what I know. I don't speak German so I cannot provide any first-hand material on the Luftwaffe side, but only allied practice, available in English, that somehow forms a big picture showing the overall capabilities of aero engines at that time. My apologies if that has brought to you some confusion.

From my knowledge Mr. Calum Douglas and his comparative studies is the latest and the first instance that the difference between the Luftwaffe and the Allie's efforts in engine development are brought to public attention in detail, also in English. It is of course possible that according to his studies what you have suggested is true, as there is a drastic difference between the Luftwaffe and the Allies in formulating operational limitations for pilot's instructions, but this was largely unknown before. I will definitely get my hands on his book The Secret Power Race when I have chance.

Despite saying that, I do would like to point out that both DB601E and DB605A once had overheating and spark plugs issues and the maximum boost limits were lowered temporarily from 1.42 ata to 1.32 ata for safe operation. This happened to early production aircraft of Bf109F-4s and Bf109G-2s. Once the issues were resolved the restriction was raised.

I therefore doubt this March 1943 manual you cited was effected by the temporary boost restriction and may not present the normal capability of the engine.

Cheers!

It's a very fine line of information there. What applies to one does not necessarily apply to another. Indications that there were problems with German aircraft development and none with British can be evidenced another way. Take for instance the necessity to de-rate engines by the Germans, however this never happened with allied engines. They were only cleared for increased engine performance. The complete opposite of what was going on in Germany.

So specifically, as the the video points out, in the F4 in particular, there were two issues.

The first was oil dilution due to evapouration of fuels, which effectively made the oil useless and unable to lubricate the engine properly.

The second was fuel reacting with the rubber/canvas fuel tank linings which ruined it's anti-detonation properties.

These reasons alone are sufficient to warrant much stricter engine limitations on DB engines.

A lot of information is provided in Callum Douglas's webinar above, and also on his website, so there is plenty of information available without buying his book.
https://www.calum-douglas.com/

Edited June 25, 2022 by Padre*
spelling

June 25, 2022

Reports of captured aircraft tested by some foreign authority carry very little meat.

We do not know the state the aircraft and engines were in, if they were properly serviced, if the pilot operated it properly, etc.

All modelling should be based on data from the manufacturing country and data from captured aircraft should only be used when there is absolutely no other data to go by.

As for the limitation imposed in service on the later DB605:

That mainly had to do with the change from roller bearing to plain bearing which negatively affected lubrication and caused engine failures at high rpms and boost pressures.

The DB601E conversely never was restrospectively restricted after it had been cleared for 1.42ata in the winter of 1941.

That said the 109Fs do overheat too little at full power ingame, which imo has to do with their water coolers and automation mechanic, not the engines per se.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Karaya

June 25, 2022

45 minutes ago, Karaya said:

Reports of captured aircraft tested by some foreign authority carry very little meat.

We do not know the state the aircraft and engines were in, if they were properly serviced, if the pilot operated it properly, etc.

All modelling should be based on data from the manufacturing country and data from captured aircraft should only be used when there is absolutely no other data to go by.

Sorry, but that's just absolute nonsense. An argument like that holds absolutely no weight, and is just your unqualified opinion, versus the qualified opinions of scientists and engineers who you are being disrespectful of. If you bother to watch the video, and look into how testing was done,you'll see just how scientific the evidence is.

You on the other hand, provide absolutely zero evidence for your point of view.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Padre*

June 26, 2022

S!

Well Padre. The RAE tests of Bf110, for example, showed that they could not achieve full performance. The tested plane had engine issues which dropped results to a level of an earlier model with different engines. But these results are taken as gospel.

If devs would follow your train of thought that RAE tests carry more weight than German data, this sim would be dead in days. You clearly have a bias towards allied side. It was the Packard built Merlin that made the Merlin a good engine after "bloody yanks" rectified some design flaws of the engine. Go read, there is info about it

It is pretty common knowledge what caused problems on German engines, especially the lack critical metals. This was directly caused by the GRÖFAZ himself. German engines had been designed with these metals included, but without them problems rose. Very hard to rectify the situation after that. Nothing to do with "inferiority of German design".

Another issue was this stupid competition between firms, especially Daimler Benz and Junkers. Junkers had better crankshaft and main bearing system, but DB could not use them..just an example. Jumo 213 engines were good performers in a variety of planes, like FW190D-9 or Ju88G-6 etc.

You give quite a simplified, biased and glorified image of British aero engines. They suffered from problems as well and were not "cleared for higher boost" just like that. Of course it was easier because of better materials used, but not a "hey let's do it beacuse it sounds cool" thing. Not even Brits could defy laws of physics

June 26, 2022

6 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

Well Padre. The RAE tests of Bf110, for example, showed that they could not achieve full performance. The tested plane had engine issues which dropped results to a level of an earlier model with different engines. But these results are taken as gospel.

If devs would follow your train of thought that RAE tests carry more weight than German data, this sim would be dead in days. You clearly have a bias towards allied side. It was the Packard built Merlin that made the Merlin a good engine after "bloody yanks" rectified some design flaws of the engine. Go read, there is info about it

It is pretty common knowledge what caused problems on German engines, especially the lack critical metals. This was directly caused by the GRÖFAZ himself. German engines had been designed with these metals included, but without them problems rose. Very hard to rectify the situation after that. Nothing to do with "inferiority of German design".

Another issue was this stupid competition between firms, especially Daimler Benz and Junkers. Junkers had better crankshaft and main bearing system, but DB could not use them..just an example. Jumo 213 engines were good performers in a variety of planes, like FW190D-9 or Ju88G-6 etc.

You give quite a simplified, biased and glorified image of British aero engines. They suffered from problems as well and were not "cleared for higher boost" just like that. Of course it was easier because of better materials used, but not a "hey let's do it beacuse it sounds cool" thing. Not even Brits could defy laws of physics

Hi Flanker,

I was wondering when you were going to wade in on this discussion. I note that again you offer opinion but nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. Unfortunately that has been your mantra in every discussion I've had with you on various platforms when it comes to historical discussion.

Let's start with what you call the "RAE" test of the captured Bf 110. Firstly the test was not even carried out by the RAE. It was carried out by the RAF using test pilots at their AFDU, the Air Fighting Development Unit. If you had actually read the report, like I and many others have, you would know that there was nothing wrong with the engine itself. The only problem the aircraft had was a fault in it's supercharger gearing, meaning it could not go into 2nd gear for altitudes above 20,000ft. This was noted in the tests, and no tests were done in that realm of flight. Therefore, the results of the test are accurate. That's the reason they are taken as Gospel. Don't take my word for it though. Try actually reading the report. Here you go ....
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me110/Me-110_Tactical_Trials.pdf

The other thing with aircraft like that is they represent an aircraft in front line service with a squadron, so, rather than a gleaming new aircraft tested by Messerschmitt, it was one that had the benefit of being used and a true representation of front line aircraft.

Moving on to your next point.

6 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

It was the Packard built Merlin that made the Merlin a good engine after "bloody yanks" rectified some design flaws of the engine. Go read, there is info about it

That's pretty much a typical sour grapes attitude to have, that you make claims without substance because it doesn't suit your rhetoric. The engine didn't even start rolling off Packard's production lines until 1941. Therefore when the RAF defeated the "superior" Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britian, it was done exclusively using Rolls-Royce built Merlin engines. They were more than adequate to deal with the attempted onslaught. If you actually watched the video above, it shows how German engineers and the hierarchy were continually frustrated at how the smaller Rolls Royce Merlin produced such power compared to comparatively larger Daimler Benz power units.

It's actually common knowledge that the actual design of the engine never changed. Packard's licensing agreement prevented them from implementing any changes to the design of the Merlin without approval from Rolls Royce.

There were however very small changes, such as the crankshaft bearings, which were changed to silver-lead alloy with indium plating. This was only done because it was determined that the different metallurgy improved corrosion resistance and longeivity. all this did was reduce the maintenence demands. The actual design did not change, and most of the work was done to make it suitable for mass production. It shows how far ahead that the Allies were in terms of engine development, as evidenced in the video above, that when German engineers encountrered the Packard Merlin, their deductions lead them to think the Indium was just an impurity.

Although Packard did put American sourced parts on their Merlin engines, those parts were all produced to British specifications, even down to nuts, bolts and studs, which were produced by Packard themselves in-house with British Whitworth threads.

Don't take my word for it though. Read this ..

https://www.jrcengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Packard-Merlin.pdf

Let's not forget that the British and the Merlin engine are also resposible for making the P-51 Mustang what it was. Following Mustang MkI deliveries to Britain, tests were done by installing both the Rolls-Royce Merlin 61 and Merlin 65. This produced a fighter far superior than the production model and was ordered by Britain, and when North American converted two P-51A's and handed them over to the US Army Air Corps, they immediately cut back on their P-51A orders and ordered the Merlin powered version instead.

Lets now address the next point you made. I am biased. Again that's an opinion. However, what you don't acknowledge about me is that I do my research. I provide evidence to back up the things I make claims to. That's in stark contrast to the claims you make, such as ....

6 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

. Go read, there is info about it

I won't even go into the fact that I am from mixed British and German parentage, so your claims of bias simply don't stack up.

Your next claim ...

6 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

It is pretty common knowledge what caused problems on German engines, especially the lack critical metals. This was directly caused by the GRÖFAZ himself. German engines had been designed with these metals included, but without them problems rose. Very hard to rectify the situation after that. Nothing to do with "inferiority of German design".

You clearly didn't watch the video posted above, where recent research, carried out using German documents taken by the British and stored in the German Document Collection have been researched by the author, a qualified aero engineer who is registered consultant to the AAIB.

It shows that metallurgy was not the only issue the Germans faced. I suggest you watch it. It shows stenographicly recorded discussions between high ranking German officials as well as genuine wartime documents.

6 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

Another issue was this stupid competition between firms, especially Daimler Benz and Junkers. Junkers had better crankshaft and main bearing system, but DB could not use them..just an example. Jumo 213 engines were good performers in a variety of planes, like FW190D-9 or Ju88G-6 etc.

Again, watch the video above. Documents and stenograpically recorded conversations prove what you claim as "stupid competition" is actually the poor organisation of the German war effort in terms of oversight and organisation.

And finally ...

6 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

You give quite a simplified, biased and glorified image of British aero engines. They suffered from problems as well and were not "cleared for higher boost" just like that. Of course it was easier because of better materials used, but not a "hey let's do it beacuse it sounds cool" thing. Not even Brits could defy laws of physics

I never said that "they were cleared for higher boost just like that". Don't put words into my mouth. Evidence shows that after action combat reports were fed back to those conducting testing at the RAE, Vickers Supermarine and the AFDU. They conducted trials and that's how they were cleared for higher boost ratings.

I don't give any image of anything. I just make claims and back them up with hard evidence. This is something that is lacking in every single reply that attempts to counter my claims. In this whole discussion, people like yourself and @Karaya fail to provide any substance to your claims. You fail to even look at the evidence I provide, something proven by your responses. Rather than look at the evidence and give it the merit it deserves, you just bury your heads in the sand and repeat the age-old rhetorical claims you cannot substantiate.

Please try to open your eyes. Look at the evidence. Or is it that you just don't want to because it will prove you wrong?

At the very least provide something of substance to back up what you say.

Have a good day

S!

Edited June 26, 2022 by Padre*

June 26, 2022

Padre isn't happy, because the other night he couldn't catch up with us. ?

June 26, 2022

2 hours ago, OBT-Lionel said:

Padre isn't happy, because the other night he couldn't catch up with us.

Is that the most you can offer to this discussion? A cheap jibe because your aircraft performed outside the parameters of what is realistic?

Is it that much of a victory that 5 of you ran away from 2 Spitfires?

You're just another person who ignores the historical realities because it's convenient for you, or is it just sour grapes because I've taken on 4-5 of your squadron, shot 2-3 of you down and made the rest run, all by myself on multiple occasions, and sometimes with a wingman?

I suppose that can be summarised in how things play out in the server. When we battle and fight hard and it's over, you're given a salute and told it was a good fight. You just ignore that and don't respond. That's indicative of being sore losers.

The only person in your squadron who does respond, who does salute and offer congratulations and talks in chat is Polak, but even then it's noticeable how he stays quiet when you're all together. He's much friendlier when on his own. I initially gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought its that you might not understand English being from another country, but your post here disproves that theory.

I think it's sad that humanity proves again and again that people hold grudges and prejudices against one another, and flatly refuse to accept the truth when it's presented to them. Why can't we all have a mature discussion, where we present facts to one another with the intention of helping the developers get to a place where the historical accuracy is what drives development of this game we play for entertainment, instead of resorting to cheap jibes, name calling, and unfounded accusations or claims without any supporting evidence?

Edited June 26, 2022 by Padre*

June 26, 2022

Guys, it's just a game, take it as is it.

If someone is disappointed with the engine management, he can choose another simulator, the one with the one-minute-clock-engine-failure, the one with the inconsistent planeset (and aged-not-resolved-bugs) or the one for sightseeing.
Fly safe.

June 26, 2022

S!

Padre. You provide info yes, accompanied with constant bickering how crap German designs should be. And how superior allies were in everything. We all know about their issues with RLM etc. But you seem to fail in understanding that most problems were originated in lack of specialized metals, not bad designs. Without them the designs did suffer as actual metals did not meet same quality as DESIGNED in the first place.

Finnish Air Force used Hurricanes in WW2 and guess what, they were not liked because of the high maintenance the Rolls Royce Merlin III required. Sure lack of abundant supply of spares did make the task even harder. But engine was deemed too labor intensive in front line operations compared to radials or other inline engines in use at that time.

DB605A-1 in 109'G-2/6's used by FiAF were also very maintenance intensive due to the material defincies in them. All this again because the production engines lacked those important metals that were originally ment to be there. So again nothing wrong in the engine design itself but materials not being up to handling it all properly. Lot of studies about that around in many publications.

Anyways if devs see an error in the sim they will fix it. So far they have done so.

June 26, 2022

31 minutes ago, OBT-Eazy said:

Guys, it's just a game, take it as is it.

If someone is disappointed with the engine management, he can choose another simulator, the one with the one-minute-clock-engine-failure, the one with the inconsistent planeset (and aged-not-resolved-bugs) or the one for sightseeing.
Fly safe.

Of course it's just a game, but why take the walk away attitude? Nothing ever gets fixed if we just run away from problems. Mature individuals tackle problems and work them out. That's what this is.

See it as helping the developers. They can only spend so much time on research. They only have knowledge from the sources they know. That's where the community can step in and be of help, and posts like this, with the information that has more recently come to light can be of help to developers. No product is ever perfect. New information will always come to light. Without the community here to help them discover this information when it does come to light, then all we will have is a best guess scenario.

25 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

Padre. You provide info yes, accompanied with constant bickering how crap German designs should be. And how superior allies were in everything. We all know about their issues with RLM etc. But you seem to fail in understanding that most problems were originated in lack of specialized metals, not bad designs. Without them the designs did suffer as actual metals did not meet same quality as DESIGNED in the first place.

Finnish Air Force used Hurricanes in WW2 and guess what, they were not liked because of the high maintenance the Rolls Royce Merlin III required. Sure lack of abundant supply of spares did make the task even harder. But engine was deemed too labor intensive in front line operations compared to radials or other inline engines in use at that time.

DB605A-1 in 109'G-2/6's used by FiAF were also very maintenance intensive due to the material defincies in them. All this again because the production engines lacked those important metals that were originally ment to be there. So again nothing wrong in the engine design itself but materials not being up to handling it all properly. Lot of studies about that around in many publications.

Anyways if devs see an error in the sim they will fix it. So far they have done so.

You're just twisting everything that is evidenced. You don't even bother looking at it. So now you say I am constantly bickering? Why? Because everything I say can be evidenced? That's just laughable at best. You're so bitter.

EDIT

You accuse me of bickering by pointing new information online, but then you go and do the same yourself.

Double standards. Its ok for you to do it, but when I do it, it's wrong. You still don't evidence any of your claims, neither here, nor on your own post.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Padre*

June 26, 2022

Hello again. @Padre*

I would like to say that as you have chosen to post this thread on a public forum, you should expect all sorts of comments from others. Of course, some are supported by mere experience, some are supported by documentation, some are supported by nothing, but just random comments. If you are not prepared for receiving comments from others, please contact directly the developers with your sources and documentation prepared, instead of accusing every single person commenting on the thread as 'disrespectful' or 'prejudice against each other'. I am sorry but I cannot find a word other than 'unfriendly' about your reaction. People are just telling what they know here. No one is obliged to provide sources for every single word they say. May I ask you to kindly keep the discussion within technical terms. Thank you.

About the Bf109G-2 Beidnungsvorschrift you have posted earlier, which is published in March 1943, I can confirm this manual is subject to the temporary boost restriction imposed by the Luftwaffe, starting from June 1942. As early production models of DB605 developed issues of burning through pistons in frontline service, Luftwaffe decided to temporarily block the usage of 1.42 ata take-off and emergency power setting, physically, from all DB605s. This restriction was not lifted until at least August 1943. All publications relating to DB605 during this time period thus contained notice for this restriction:

Flugzeugmuster BF 109 G-1 mit motor DB 605A Kennblatt:
The figures indicated refer to combat and climbing power. n - 2600 U/min:plade - 1,3 ata. Take-off and emergency power are not as yet approved for the 605/A.
Die angegebenen Leistungen beziehen sich auf kampf und steigleistung. n - 2600 U/min :plade - 1.3 ata. Start und notleistung ist für 605/A zurzeit noch nicht freigegeben

Bf109 G-2 mit Motor DB 605 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Juni 1942
*Note! "Take off and emergency power" is blocked and may not be used.

*Achtung! Die "Start und Notleistung" darf nicht benutzt werden, sie ist deshalb blockiert.

Bf109 G-2 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Juli 1942
*Note! "Take off and emergency power" is blocked and may not be used.

*Achtung! Die "Start und Notleistung" darf nicht benutzt werden, sie ist deshalb blockiert.

DB 605 A-B Moteren-Karte 9 October 1942
Take-off and emergency power is disabled until further notice, thus 2650 U/min (2600 U/min +2%) may not be exceeded in any flight attitude.
Die Start und Notleistung ist bis auf Widerruf gesperrt, es dürfen somit 2650 U/min (2600 U/min +2%) in keiner Fluglage überschritten werden.

Bf 109 G-4 Meßrief
Take off and emergency power: Provisionally closed after VT instruction Nr.2206.

Start und Notleistung: Vorläufig gesperrt nach VT-Anweisung Nr.2206

Bf109 G-2, G-4, G-6 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Juni 1943
"Take-off and emergency power" may not be used; this stage is blocked in order to prevent pilot moving the throttle lever beyond position of climb/combat power.

Die Leistungsstufe 'Start -und Notleistung' darf nicht benutzt werden; um Überdrücken zu verhindern, ist diese Stufe blockiert.

Bf109 G-2 Flugzeug-Handbuch Oktober 1943
Take-off and emergency power: may not be used, is blocked.

Start- und Notleistung: Darf nicht benutzt werden, ist blockiert.

Bf109 G-4/R3, G-6/R3 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Februar 1944
Take-off and emergency power: may not be used, is blocked.

Start- und Notleistung: Darf nicht benutzt werden, ist blockiert.

There is also a British intelligence translation of RLM report regarding this temporary restriction:

On 6/25/2022 at 1:10 PM, Padre* said:

I'd also like to show evidence of how German aircraft were restricted in their use of full power settings. This excerpt, from the 109 G2 pilot's manual, Translated into English, shows how 2800 RPM and 1.42 ata were prohibited from use in the DB 605, to the point that the ability of the pilot to actually use it was prevented physically

Therefore a temporary restriction described under this manual should not be considered as representing the normal capabilities of DB605, and normal engine management procedures designed for it accordingly.

Cheers!

Edited June 26, 2022 by I/JG54_chuishan

June 26, 2022

Padre,

Sorry, that was humor!

I don't know if historically German engines could sustain such an RPM for so long.

What I don't know either is if the English engines could also withstand full throttle without breaking? That evening, I was flying a 110 and it's true that I was just looking forward to running away.

Looking forward to seeing you in flight.

June 26, 2022

Hello All

I salute the informed discussion of the subject in this thread. ?

TF has access to all the documents presented and has considered them in the modeling.

Important to note, as has been mentioned, the historical pilot manual engine time limits were not a guaranteed point at which failure automatically occurred.

But at the same time, as these aircraft were expected to have a service life longer than a single flight, it was important for pilots to be conservative whenever possible.

Basically the fact is, hard time limits are not an accurate way to model engine overheat.

The CLIFFS OF DOVER engine modeling physics system is the most complex of any simulation on the market. There are no hard time limits on engine overheat and the potential damage effects of this situation.... There are a multitude of factors which affect how engines react to strenuous usage at full power and the game models most of those.

For example, if an aircraft is operating at high speed... thus with a high degree of efficiency in the cooling system due to the increased volume of air flowing through the radiator systems, it is much less likely to overheat when operating at full power. Conversely, at slow speeds, with a much smaller volume of air passing through the radiator systems, engine cooling is less efficient and the likelyhood of overheat is much greater. This factor tends to give an advantage to those pilots and types of aircraft which operate at high speeds and use 'Boom and Zoom' altitude based tactics... as the Jagdflieger tended to do in their Bf-109's. Conversely, aircraft who tend towards tactics which emphasize 'turn and burn' tactics, i.e. slow speed turnfights, are penalized by the fact they are operating at low speeds, with reduced flow through their aircraft radiators.

Another example: The density of the atmosphere has an effect on cooling efficiency... fewer molecules at higher altitudes means effectively less volume is passing through the radiator and therefore cooling is less efficient.

Third example: As an aircraft approaches its engine's 'Full Throttle Height', i.e. the altitude at which the supercharger is working at maximum rate to impel air into the engine, that supercharger is generating more heat... and therefore the radiator systems are being challenged more heavily. Combine this with the higher altitude, (less dense atmosphere) and an aircraft is more likely to overheat at altitudes closer to Full Throttle Height.

I could go on... there are a multitude of factors which are considered by the game's physics engine.

Specifically regarding the Bf-109F-4 models and the DB-601E engine... we are looking at this aircraft and its overheat modeling... it may be a little too lenient. That may be related to the efficiency level of the automatic radiator and its effective volumetric capacity. I am currently doing research on the subject... this type of information is not readily available.

I would also mention that all nationalities had problems with engine reliability, notably with early release engines.

The fact is, in wartime, there is not the time to run the typical peacetime longterm series of reliability tests for new engine versions.

Engines tended to get placed into operational service almost immediately and the result is often a certain degree of unreliability.

From the early Merlins used at higher boost during the BoB, to the Daimler Benz DB601N's when first used with 100 octane and higher rpms to the first BMW 801's used in the FW190A-1's, or the first Napier Sabre's used in Hawker Typhoons, it was common to see issues arise.

Whenever possible we model these issues in the CLIFFS series.

June 27, 2022

Hi all,

I am not such an expert and i don't mind about reality because i don't want to die if i am downed but someone... becaus we don't have the same screen, the same stick or antyhing...
I just want the game to be touchy and study and playable... so when i fly RED i think it s too hard to catch Blue and when i fly blue..... it s too hard to catch Red.

I just try to handle the plane in is realm...

But i agree : more failure for high RPM may give a little bit of fun !

Fly Happy

Acro

Edited June 27, 2022 by OBT-Acro

June 27, 2022

18 hours ago, Padre* said:

Of course it's just a game, but why take the walk away attitude? Nothing ever gets fixed if we just run away from problems. Mature individuals tackle problems and work them out. That's what this is.

<snip>

I agree that could be better but like IRL, the most beautiful woman in the world can only give what she has. ?

Hope your informations can help the devs to offer us more and more accurate simulation (as well as engine management, FM, DM)

See you over The Channel (even now I fly essentials on the red side)

Fly safe.

June 27, 2022

S!

Padre, you really are a special case. Quoting my observations of the game and call it bickering. Pretty laughable. I used documentation on those postings as background, we have books and internet in Finland too you know? But keep on coming, you keep me entertained. And no, not gonna post any documents for you to see as you seem to sit on a mountain of them already

There is a good book about 109 made by Hannu Valtonen where he had gone far in studying all aspects of the 109, not just performance figures. He went on researching production and it´s problems, the design and so forth. It also went down to work force, materials used and clearly showed how much DB engines suffered from not being able to use certain materials to get good enough metals for the engine to perform as it was originally designed to do. This plagued the whole DB6XX series causing problems.

I also read a study by Jukka Raunio who worked in aircraft industry for years. Has access to documents from WW2 etc. He also went deeper than performance figures, down to Willy Messerchmitt himself and how his persona, decisions and relations to other designers, RLM etc. affected 109 and even the engine.

Buzzsaw, how about temperature? At 5km it is not +20´C anymore. How does CloD calculate drop of air temp at higher altitudes? In some papers pilots are adviced to use manual control of radiators in the 109 to prevent overcooling at high altitudes.

June 27, 2022

-Deleted-

Edited September 12, 2022 by Varrattu

June 27, 2022

Round of applause for Varrattu. ?

June 27, 2022

10 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

Buzzsaw, how about temperature? At 5km it is not +20´C anymore. How does CloD calculate drop of air temp at higher altitudes? In some papers pilots are adviced to use manual control of radiators in the 109 to prevent overcooling at high altitudes.

Yes, temperature is calculated by the physics engine... but drop in temperature is not enough to compensate for loss of density or extra heat generated near FTH.

Over FTH, temperature becomes more of a factor.

Sign In

Engine management problem

Recommended Posts

Padre*

JV69badatflyski

Padre*

334th_Hartmann

I/JG54_chuishan

LLv34_Flanker

Padre*

Guest deleted@7076

Padre*

I/JG54_chuishan

Padre*

FTC_Karaya

Padre*

LLv34_Flanker

Padre*

OBT-Lionel

Padre*

OBT-Eazy

LLv34_Flanker

Padre*

I/JG54_chuishan

OBT-Lionel

Buzzsaw

OBT-Acro

OBT-Eazy

LLv34_Flanker

Guest deleted@7076

DD_Arthur

Buzzsaw

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Browse All

Activity