correct as-is Unlimited WEP

[grafspee]

Should not or should, this is the greatest dilemma.

Edited January 31, 2021 by grafspee

[amazingme]

On 1/30/2021 at 11:36 PM, grafspee said:

I was thinking about this engine limits, airframe limits of the planes which are you modeling. A lot of players try things which in RL were never tested. Pls tell me who in RL exceeding Vne for example, who runs engine at max power for 1 hour when engine chart says the 15min is limit. How to determine  what exactly happens when you exceed those limits. This is very difficult or even impossible to do.

But one thing should be done for sure. if ED team decide that those limits are set at the verge. Example if you exceed 5 min limit for engine power setting engine blows up, pls do it for all planes.

it is very confusing when one plane can run full power indefinitely, when other blows up quick when  limits are exceeded, when limits says otherwise .

 

 

 Don't mix up the type of engines and what 'full' power means for each of them. Your approach is somehow simplistic..

[grafspee]

36 minutes ago, amazingme said:

 

 Don't mix up the type of engines and what 'full' power means for each of them. Your approach is somehow simplistic..

Tell me exactly where i used  word "full"

Any way, type of engine does not matter. Only matters the limits for the engine. If you have 5 min limit for certain power setting, one plane get engine blown up even after not exceeding this limit, then other can run this power for much longer.

All engines had similar life time expectation, wasn't like one engine had 50h and another had 1000h life time, all of them set in 250h-500h so time limits should be set up similar.

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by grafspee

[Aluminum Donkey]

On 11/14/2020 at 1:57 PM, razo+r said:

The Manual says, Max. allowable time for Take-off / War Emergency Power (1.4/2700) is 3 minutes. When I test this in game, I can WEP the whole flight long until I run out of fuel. 45 Minutes pure WEP.

 

That is a 42 minutes difference. Shouldn't something have happened to the engine within those 45 minutes or am I missing something here?

 

In all fairness, you could probably do that in real life no problem at all. The manifold pressure (supercharger boost) was pretty low, only 1.4 ata, so it wouldn't really have been a big deal to fly an entire flight on WEP.

 

It would have shortened the engine lifespan, and of course it burns fuel more quickly than lower throttle settings, but WW2 engines running at almost 1.4 ata continuously weren't uncommon. They just didn't like it because it wore the engine out faster, but I don't see why there would be any catastrophic failure at 1.4 ata continuous.

 

AD

[nighthawk2174]

On 11/14/2020 at 12:57 PM, razo+r said:

The Manual says, Max. allowable time for Take-off / War Emergency Power (1.4/2700) is 3 minutes. When I test this in game, I can WEP the whole flight long until I run out of fuel. 45 Minutes pure WEP.

 

That is a 42 minutes difference. Shouldn't something have happened to the engine within those 45 minutes or am I missing something here?

Often these manuals set these conditions to maintain the life of the engine but aren't hard limits.  This has been an issue in IL2 for years.   What kills engines quickly is a lack of oil or detonation.  If you have proper fuel, good oil flow, and a working coolling system all of these quick kill conditions won't happen.  Bellow are a punch of docs saying as much.

Spoiler

 

Note they fixed the above and made it 100+ hours of wep with no failures.

 

 

There are more but these are just the ones I had quick access too.

Edited February 4, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[grafspee]

I agree with nighthawk2174.

Question is why some planes in DCS apply for this rule and other like P-51 blows up even if you not exceed those limits, you just need to touch WEP in  P-51 that's it.

100 hours at 3000rpm at 18lbs boost yeah tell it to the P-51's engine. P-51's engine after WEP use, sorry i will quit soon.

[Snapage]

If the A8 gets to run emergency power indefinitely then why shouldn't the P51D be able to? The P51D should be able to run WEP for 5 minutes at a time at least. Cant even do that!

[amazingme]

You're comparing apples with oranges..

[msalama]

Why? Air-cooled vs. water-cooled. Although there may well be something wrong with the Mustang's modelling as well, but that's another matter altogether.

Edited March 4, 2021 by msalama

[amazingme]

As far as I know the water-cooled engines will get an overhaul..

[grafspee]

Water-cooled engine modeling will get overhaul after Mosquito release iirc.

Edited March 4, 2021 by grafspee

[NineLine]

We are tuning the engine to not be so indestructible, but also understand that these limits were based on the idea the plane would not be respawned with fresh new parts, as we dont simulate engine use over many missions, it is reasonable to consider abusing these engines more than you would in real life. The engine in the 190 was very good at taking abuse. 

[grafspee]

Exceeding time limits has consequences in engine life time not in fatal engine fail during flight. 

[NineLine]

42 minutes ago, grafspee said:

Exceeding time limits has consequences in engine life time not in fatal engine fail during flight. 

Yes, but in certain cases, the abuse the engine takes in DCS, and I am talking straight out trying to kill it, wasnt killing it, that we are improving.

[amazingme]

I don't think that the 14 cylinder 41.8L engine is too over stressed @ 1.4 ATA and 2700 rpm..

[nighthawk2174]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Yes, but in certain cases, the abuse the engine takes in DCS, and I am talking straight out trying to kill it, wasnt killing it, that we are improving.

Please don't make the same mistake as the other WWII sim, as can be seen in the docs above these engine limits are not hard limits at all.  Quite often pilots would outright ignore these pushing far beyond these wep/combat times with no negative effects.  Engines that had issues cooling were well known for this (certain russian aircraft) but none of the planes we have in DCS had issues with this.  The spitfire engine was able to reach 100+hrs of continuous WEP without failure.  There just isn't much you could do as a pilot to induce failure, sure there are exceptions P38 had issues with rapidly adjusting the RPM all the way up while MP was all the way down causing damage.  But for the planes we have there isn't really anything like that that i'm aware of. In terms of modeling really the only thing that will kill an engine quick enough to matter in DCS is a lack of oil or detonation which are a DM thing. 

[nighthawk2174]

Well from various pilot combat logs that we have this was not a rare occurrence so sure the plane may need to go down for inspection for a short time once you hit the 20 something hours of WEP time on the engine.  But to the pilot, which is what were simulating, there is no apparent negative consequences.  

[grafspee]

Shame that some planes apply for this approach other not, for example D-9 breaks fairly quick, same with P-51 when you kiss WEP.

[amazingme]

Those are two different topics on their own..

[Dragon1-1]

16 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

But to the pilot, which is what were simulating, there is no apparent negative consequences.  

Other than having to deal with an angry crew chief boxing his ears for blowing past the limits, that is.  I hope Dynamic Campaign does introduce accounting for engine parts as part of its resources management.

 

The Russians in particular were notorious for running their engines in max power all the time. Especially inexperienced pilots would just gun the throttle at takeoff and leave it there until they needed to land. While the Russians designed their engines for that physically prevented their pilots from pushing them too far (making them seem, on paper, much worse than they actually are due to their lower max ratings), they ran into some trouble flying lend-lease aircraft. It's because of that Spits and Hurricanes had a reputation for poor reliability among the Soviets, and the P-39 was loved, because its engine was severely underrated for some reason and treating it like the Soviets did was actually the right way to fly it, while Americans stuck to the limits and thought it was a dog (which it was, when flown that way).

Edited April 9, 2021 by Dragon1-1

[grafspee]

I know that mechanics often, when seeing their plane not coming back home, blame them self's that they did something not right and because of that plane didn't come back.

Which was hardly a case, most of them were hardly working and dedicated ppl. 

Second thing, most of the flight is just cruising, Fuel is calculated for a mission, I think that only in DCS we can abuse engine at high power for a long time. 

Remember that at high power settings those engines burn a lot of fuel, staying at high power for longer time often would end up with very risky RTB.

[Mogster]

32 minutes ago, grafspee said:

I know that mechanics often, when seeing their plane not coming back home, blame them self's that they did something not right and because of that plane didn't come back.

Which was hardly a case, most of them were hardly working and dedicated ppl. 

Second thing, most of the flight is just cruising, Fuel is calculated for a mission, I think that only in DCS we can abuse engine at high power for a long time. 

Remember that at high power settings those engines burn a lot of fuel, staying at high power for longer time often would end up with very risky RTB.

It’s a shame we can’t have a map including England and Germany, it’d be great to fly missions with realistic long range profiles.
 

Flying deep into enemy territory, having to switch between maximum economy and max performance and back again to survive, waiting for interception at any time. It’d be compelling and very very tense I think.

[NineLine]

15 hours ago, grafspee said:

Shame that some planes apply for this approach other not, for example D-9 breaks fairly quick, same with P-51 when you kiss WEP.

Please report with tracks in the appropriate section, I have not seen them be this brittle. Thanks

[LeCuvier]

10 hours ago, NineLine said:

Please report with tracks in the appropriate section, I have not seen them be this brittle. Thanks

I have to agree with NineLine on this. I'm not a very good dogfighter, and when I battle a AI-piloted P-51 or P-47 with the Dora, I'm on max. power with MW-50 ON much of the time, trying to cope with the miraculous performance of the AI FM. I do experience an engine breakdown once in a while but it's not often. And when it happened I was generally trying to climb with insufficient speed.

[ButcherBiird]

After learning about the BMW801 and the boost systems that most if not all A8s had by the end of the war I'm not sure this is a bug. 1.42ata seems to be reasonable to cruise around on and was an artificial limitation imposed to prolong engine life not because the engine couldn't handle it...

 

Please look here: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/288040-erhohte-notleistung/

Edited December 1, 2021 by ButcherBiird