Radiator/cowling flaps

[palidian]

What effect do the Radiator/cowling flaps positions have?

[fruitbat]

open they cool the engine, but increase drag, so you go slower.

[palidian]

That is what I thought, however I have not noticed that effect.

Second according to pilots I have talked to, one could run at full power and not overheat. WEP and idling in the runway would cause problems.

[fruitbat]

That is what I thought, however I have not noticed that effect.

Second according to pilots I have talked to, one could run at full power and not overheat. WEP and idling in the runway would cause problems.

1), just cause you haven't noticed it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Most planes run on avg around 20-25kph slower with rads full open, and don't cool no where near as well with them closed....

2) That statement is to general. Ask them to try it in a climb.... You might get away with it in fast level flight, but if you think you can just firewall the throttle and forget it, your in for a shock.

[WTE_Galway]

Second according to pilots I have talked to, one could run at full power and not overheat. WEP and idling in the runway would cause problems.

What are they flying ? There are very few liquid cooled 2000 hp V12 aero engines around these days for example. Even less big radials. Modern engines in that power range are usually turboprops.

If they are GA pilots they are likely to be flying something like a Cessna or Piper powered by a Lycoming O-360 (or very similiar engine) which is a 150 odd hp air cooled horizontally opposed 4 cylinder (the same configuration as a VW Beetle) and they DO overheat in a sustained performance climb.

If you want to try an in-game aircraft where the difference is apparent fly the Lagg 3 low and slow. The low speed handling suffers radically with cowls open.

[IceFire]

That is what I thought, however I have not noticed that effect.

Second according to pilots I have talked to, one could run at full power and not overheat. WEP and idling in the runway would cause problems.

You'll find overheat is a bit more realistic in the next patch (4.11) and running at 110% all day long will cause serious overheat that will necessitate reducing throttle and opening the radiators.

Radiators definitely reduce the speed of the aircraft and most certainly cool the engine quicker but it isn't always an instantaneous effect.

[palidian]

This comes from WWII pilots that when in combat would go full mil power and never have an issue. I have several WWII airplane and engine manuals, and they give lots of warnings, but nothing about running at full mil power. The manual states no more than 5 minutes at WEP or Take off power. Water injection helps cool the engine, if cooling was an issue than the water injection would be started earlier. In addition the higher up you get the colder the air is, it is also thinner however.

The ME262 over heats at 100%, jet engines generally do not get hot (so to speak, at least not to start melting things.) due to there nature.

I will test the cowling effects more.

[IceFire]

This comes from WWII pilots that when in combat would go full mil power and never have an issue. I have several WWII airplane and engine manuals, and they give lots of warnings, but nothing about running at full mil power. The manual states no more than 5 minutes at WEP or Take off power. Water injection helps cool the engine, if cooling was an issue than the water injection would be started earlier. In addition the higher up you get the colder the air is, it is also thinner however.

The ME262 over heats at 100%, jet engines generally do not get hot (so to speak, at least not to start melting things.) due to there nature.

I will test the cowling effects more.
In reading Pierre Closterman's The Big Show he often mentions the aircraft engine overheating. Particularly when pushed hard the Sabre would get very hot and he had to abandon the chase when going after a Do335 very late in the war as he had the throttle firewalled but was unable to catch the German fighter.

It's also telling that many aircraft had pins or wires that had to be broken in order to advance the throttle through past the 100% mark into WEP and that breaking the pin or wire was an indication that the mechanics would be required to rebuild the engine when the aircraft landed.

When testing in IL-2 you should also note that the map you're on has an impact on how quickly the aircraft will overheat as well as altitude. Winter maps are cooler while summer maps are warm and tropical or desert maps are even warmer.

[WTE_Galway]

The ME262 over heats at 100%, jet engines generally do not get hot (so to speak, at least not to start melting things.) due to there nature.



Well you do need to monitor engine gas temperature, that just goes without saying.



As far as the unreliability of the Jumo's in general one key factor is low quality steel ...

http://www.stormbirds.com/project/technical/technical_3.htm

JUMO The Junkers Jumo 004 is often remembered as a temperamental and failure-prone powerplant. Despite its advanced design, engine life was only between 10 and 25 hours, with the mean being at the lower end of this range. These failures were anticipated to some extent and the Me 262 was designed to permit extremely rapid engine changes.

Contrary to popular belief, the 004A was a fairly sound performer when premium steels were used, and early versions were known to achieve a 200-250 hour service life. However, the diversion of critical materials into U-boat production and other projects late in the war forced Junkers to produce the 004B model with only 1/3 of the high grade steel that had been used in the 004A. It was to be a disastrous concession for the Me 262.

The introduction of inferior metals compounded an already problematic situation with the turbine blade design. These blades were rigidly mounted, contributing to severe root stress relief problems. The weaker metals simply could not withstand this kind of abuse and regular compressor failures were an inevitable consequence.


Also remember that because the Jumo's are axial flow with FIXED geometry compressor blades they are also HIGHLY susceptible to compressor stall and surging with all the inherent problems (such as randomly shedding blades) that brings with it. These engines are nothing like the modern turboprops you may be used to working on or have studied.


Translated ME262 Pilots handbook:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf

[palidian]

The manufacture sets the maximum throttle setting, that the engine can safely run. This setting is full military power, and in the game it should be 100%, anything past that point is WEP, and can cause damage to the engine, The p51 had to have an engine overhaul after 5 hours of WEP opperation. In game running at 100% should not overheat. I have never been able to go beyond 110%, some engines especially with nitrous oxide could go to 140%. Nitrous and water injection have a limited supply, I have never run out in game. Water injection will not cause overheating as it cools the combustion. The TA 152 had both nitrous and water injection, that option is not available. Some rework of the boost system need some rework.

For now I turn the engine overheating off, and wait for the next patch.

[palidian]

There were many design flaws in the ME 262, however jet engines are 90% thermal efficient, they don't get hot like internal combustion engines, that are around 30% efficient.

[SaQSoN]

Oh, boy! Another homegrown expert. He knows it all...

[IceFire]

The actual WWII pilots are, of course, completely wrong :)

[TinyTim]

The ME262 over heats at 100%,

Depends on how fast you are flying. Go past 700 kph and you'll never overheat, even at 100%.

[WTE_Galway]

Soooo ... shall we start another "0.50 cal is porked" debate now ?

[jameson]

The 109's are porked. Perhaps you experts could enlighten us, anyone from TD most welcome to add their 2 cents to the discussion. FWIW I think they are 50kph too slow. Don't mention the concrete elevator please or the ai's landing speed which is below stall speed of g6 etc etc.

[TinyTim]

The 109's are porked.FWIW I think they are 50kph too slow.

And what precisely makes you think so?

[jameson]

I was hoping someone could work it out for themselves and enlighten the rest of us! If you're fishing for clues, er, start with engine set to 1.3ata, which according to pilot's manual should produce at least 2500rpm up to maximum of 2600rpm. At this setting, at sea level, a g6 should reach 520kph\530kph. If you can do better in game, at that setting, more than 420kph, do tell us how....

[JtD]

Maybe you shouldn't pay too close attention to gauges, they've been wrong since v1.0 (roughly 10 years). In particular at medium power settings. Try flying full power, that's the only point where game should match real life. And it does.

[jameson]

Well that's the point I'm trying to make, 109's are porked. At full power in game (110%), we only get what in RL a 109g could achieve at 1.3ata. In RL you could still push the throttle out to 1.42ata for brief periods. IIRC at 1.42ata max level speed was about 580kph, the climb rate must have been pretty amazing as well.

[palidian]

Well that's the point I'm trying to make, 109's are porked. At full power in game (110%), we only get what in RL a 109g could achieve at 1.3ata. In RL you could still push the throttle out to 1.42ata for brief periods. IIRC at 1.42ata max level speed was about 580kph, the climb rate must have been pretty amazing as well.

There are some planes that could go well beyond the 110% throttle setting.

Yes I have noticed that most planes seem to be slower then the official rated speed. The Russian planes seem to be exempt from this.

[fruitbat]

There are some planes that could go well beyond the 110% throttle setting.

Yes I have noticed that most planes seem to be slower then the official rated speed. The Russian planes seem to be exempt from this.

Since real planes don't have throttle in percent, i curious as to how you arrive at the statement above. Manifold pressure/boost/ATA and rpm and fuel are the relevant factors.

As to top speeds,

1) top speed is at a certain altitude,

2) its in TAS

Something that numerous people seem not to understand.

As to this idea that Russian planes are exempt, enjoy your conspiracy theory. For every 'red' plane thats uber, I can point to examples of a 'blue' plane thats uber, and vice versa.

Top speeds for planes is not an exact thing, depends on many factors, configuration of the plane, You can easily find several different 'top speeds' listed for example, the spit mk 1, all depends on which test you look at.

[WTE_Galway]

The other point is to be careful of documented top speeds in online sites or mass produced coffee table books.

Even if they are not just wrong, they can often be based on what that aircraft can do at optimal altitude, air pressure, temp etc with no ammo or munitions, sometimes no guns or armor and minimal fuel running a new engine and high octane fuel (the Griffon for example needs 21psi boost and 150 octane to achieve its max rated performance) not always readily available in a wartime situation, especially to the VVS or LW.

In other words the "book" speeds are more like what you would expect from a plane prepared for the equivalent of Reno air racing rather than a typical military sorty during wartime.

[Crumpp]

Since real planes don't have throttle in percent,

It is not uncommon to rate aircraft engine settings in percentage power.

[palidian]

Since real planes don't have throttle in percent, i curious as to how you arrive at the statement above. Manifold pressure/boost/ATA and rpm and fuel are the relevant factors.

As to top speeds,

1) top speed is at a certain altitude,

2) its in TAS

Something that numerous people seem not to understand.

As to this idea that Russian planes are exempt, enjoy your conspiracy theory. For every 'red' plane thats uber, I can point to examples of a 'blue' plane thats uber, and vice versa.

Top speeds for planes is not an exact thing, depends on many factors, configuration of the plane, You can easily find several different 'top speeds' listed for example, the spit mk 1, all depends on which test you look at.

No conspiracy theory here, its a fact.

All I know is in game that my 417 mph plane gets outrun by a Russian 403 mph plane, so I changed to a 437 mph aircraft and still got outrun, by the same 403 mph plane. Where a 410 mph Japanese plane gets left in the dust. How does one explain that? Something is wrong with the aircraft models.

You are correct that top speed is a factor of many things, however are the official rating incorrect? In the case of Japanese planes, yes. When tested with US 100 octane fuel, the speeds were much higher, then on Japanese fuel. The Japanese build great aircraft, but did not have the resources to make them function.

So tell me how a La 5 at 403 mph outruns a F4U1A, at 417MPH, and outruns a P51D at 437mph yet the A6M2 at 410mph gets left behind?

[fruitbat]

It is not uncommon to rate aircraft engine settings in percentage power.

in WWII?:rolleyes:

[palidian]

It is not uncommon to rate aircraft engine settings in percentage power.

If you take a look at the airplane manuals, they show a throttle lever, this lever has a wide range to slide around. Theses are not the throttle of WWI aircraft that have on, idle and off settings.

[fruitbat]

No conspiracy theory here, its a fact.


So tell me how a La 5 at 403 mph outruns a F4U1A, at 417MPH, and outruns a P51D at 437mph yet the A6M2 at 410mph gets left behind?

To pick an example,

If your getting outrun by a la5fn, let alone any other la5 in an p51d, then you are doing something seriously wrong, cause i sure don't, not even close.

In game la5 has better acceleration, but its no match for top speeds above 2000m, and even below that the 51 has a small advantage. Above 6000m the speed advantage the 51 has is huge......

Oh, and even if your speeds you've picked out are correct (depending on which test you cherry pick or random book/history channel), what height were they listed at, cause i know they aren't all the same height for each plane:rolleyes:

you do know that the same two planes at different altitude can be quicker than each other right?

[fruitbat]

If you take a look at the airplane manuals, they show a throttle lever, this lever has a wide range to slide around. Theses are not the throttle of WWI aircraft that have on, idle and off settings.

I've never seen a WWII pilots notes that hasn't show Boost/manifold pressure/ATA with rpm for a power setting.

Never ever seen a percent.

from one of the random ones i have on my hard drive, Spit Mk IX,

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y290/thefruitbat1/ScreenHunter_01Jan100154.jpg

Distinct lack of percent.....

[Crumpp]

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5980/ratedpower2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/ratedpower2.jpg/)

[fruitbat]

well, i won't argue with that chart, but funnily enough, still shows manifold pressure and rpm, which wait, let me see are the gauges the pilot actually uses, lol.

Oh, and of course those percents are actually the hp available in relation to the 100% power setting, at the other different manifold pressure/rpm settings listed, but thanks for the chart...

[palidian]

I've never seen a WWII pilots notes that hasn't show Boost/manifold pressure/ATA with rpm for a power setting.

Never ever seen a percent.

from one of the random ones i have on my hard drive, Spit Mk IX,

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y290/thefruitbat1/ScreenHunter_01Jan100154.jpg

Distinct lack of percent.....

It is pretty easy, the throttle lever pulled all the way back is idle, push it all the way forward it is at 100%, place it in between the two, and its at 50%. Push it all the way forward and breaking the stop, its in WEP. Your car does not have a throttle percentage indicator, but you somehow know when your foot is pressing on the pedal all the way not not.

[palidian]

well, i won't argue with that chart, but funnily enough, still shows manifold pressure and rpm, which wait, let me see are the gauges the pilot actually uses, lol.

Oh, and of course those percents are only the hp available in relation to the 100% power at those different manifold pressure/rpm settings, as opposed to a just a throttle setting, since you need to change the pitch to get the rpms to acheive that, but thanks for the chart...

Manifold pressure is an indicator of the supercharger, and when to change gears. The higher the altitude the less the pressure you will get. At a certain point you will shift blower gears.

[Crumpp]

100% power

If you notice, that is always the maximum continuous rating.

It is not uncommon to see power rating that exceed that maximum continuous and in the case of the Allison V-1710 we can see there are two such ratings which exceed the 100% power capacity of the engine.

Of course exceeding that 100% power capacity represents an overloaded condition on the engine.

[palidian]

To pick an example,

If your getting outrun by a la5fn, let alone any other la5 in an p51d, then you are doing something seriously wrong, cause i sure don't, not even close.

In game la5 has better acceleration, but its no match for top speeds above 2000m, and even below that the 51 has a small advantage. Above 6000m the speed advantage the 51 has is huge......

Oh, and even if your speeds you've picked out are correct (depending on which test you cherry pick or random book/history channel), what height were they listed at, cause i know they aren't all the same height for each plane:rolleyes:

you do know that the same two planes at different altitude can be quicker than each other right?

This happens in online games, so tell me what I am doing wrong. I have a hard time getting anywhere close to that speed speed. I have played with the pitch. Cheating could be involved, and that could explain the issue.

[TinyTim]

No conspiracy theory here, its a fact.
So tell me how a La 5 at 403 mph outruns a F4U1A, at 417MPH, and outruns a P51D at 437mph yet the A6M2 at 410mph gets left behind?

Wait... what?

Are you saying A6M2 should be faster than La-5?

Leaving that aside, trust me in saying that there must be something seriously wrong on your end if La-5 catches you in a P-51 (you are not flying it with a topped off fuel tank, attempting to dogfight a Lavochkin at extremely low altitude and then when situation gets spicy trying to run away, are you?). Why don't you upload tracks of it happening if you can't resolve the issue and I'm pretty sure some good fellas around here will be happy to help you out. Or, better, hop online, pick a La-5 and try to catch some P-51 jockeys. You might change your mind pretty quickly.

[IceFire]

There is no way that a La-5FN should be able to catch a P-51D if both are flying in a straight line. At lower altitudes I would probably use a shallow dive just to be sure as the La-5FN is quite good down in the thicker air... but get up to the higher altitudes and the Mustang walks away from nearly every Russian bird.

Quoting the top speeds of the La-5FN and P-51D doesn't mean a whole lot... what altitude were you at at the time. The top speeds of many aircraft are very important depending on what altitude you're working with. It's not like the P-51 gets 437mph top speed at every single altitude if flies at.

[zipper]

And overheating, or the lack thereof, defies logic on some planes. The Fw190D9 in German testing at military power in climb failed to show any difference in temp regardless of cowl flap position while not approaching overheat. It was also noted the least drag position for the cowl flaps was 23% open (not 0% as in game).

I will only mention the Mustang to say that I won't bring it up - lol.


:grin:

[-)-MAILMAN-]

This comes from WWII pilots that when in combat would go full mil power and never have an issue. I have several WWII airplane and engine manuals, and they give lots of warnings, but nothing about running at full mil power. The manual states no more than 5 minutes at WEP or Take off power. Water injection helps cool the engine, if cooling was an issue than the water injection would be started earlier. In addition the higher up you get the colder the air is, it is also thinner however.

The ME262 over heats at 100%, jet engines generally do not get hot (so to speak, at least not to start melting things.) due to there nature.

I will test the cowling effects more.

Better read the manuals for the US birds, because I have manuals for almost all of them and they all had limits for:

Takeoff - 5 minutes max
Military Rated Power 5-10 minutes (highest power no water injection all aircraft)
War Emergency Power - 5 minutes max (for planes that had water injection)
Normal or Maximum Continuous - no time limit limitations for this power setting

These power plant settings may be different depending upon the geographical location, season and altitude you are operating so the US manuals and manufacturer settings may have to be adjusted slightly lower to compensate for "warmer locations". These conditions were also presented in the pilot manuals. Full rich mixture setting was also used to cool the engine. In the game the US birds don't have the option of an auto lean setting, only automatic rich and full rich.

The corsairs also for example had separate "radiator" flaps for oil (oil cooler), cylinder head (cowl flalps) and carburetor inlet air (intercooler). On the corsairs each of these had a separate operator were opened depending upon the cause of the heating issue. The F6F-3 had two controls for these three flaps sets, but the F6F-5 was improved to have three separate controls. Unfortunately in the game if you operate the radiators for any plane in the game all of the cooling flaps open even though you needed only one for a specific heat issue and you get the associated drag of all of these flaps. This info came directly from the USN Pilot operating manual for the F4U-1, F4U-1C & F4U-1D and the USN Pilot operating manual for the F6F-3, F6F-3(N), F6F-5 and F6F-5(N).

[bladeracer]

Better read the manuals for the US birds, because I have manuals for almost all of them and they all had limits for:

Takeoff - 5 minutes max
Military Rated Power 5-10 minutes (highest power no water injection all aircraft)
War Emergency Power - 5 minutes max (for planes that had water injection)
Normal or Maximum Continuous - no time limit limitations for this power setting

These power plant settings may be different depending upon the geographical location, season and altitude you are operating so the US manuals and manufacturer settings may have to be adjusted slightly lower to compensate for "warmer locations". These conditions were also presented in the pilot manuals. Full rich mixture setting was also used to cool the engine. In the game the US birds don't have the option of an auto lean setting, only automatic rich and full rich.

The corsairs also for example had separate "radiator" flaps for oil (oil cooler), cylinder head (cowl flalps) and carburetor inlet air (intercooler). On the corsairs each of these had a separate operator were opened depending upon the cause of the heating issue. The F6F-3 had two controls for these three flaps sets, but the F6F-5 was improved to have three separate controls. Unfortunately in the game if you operate the radiators for any plane in the game all of the cooling flaps open even though you needed only one for a specific heat issue and you get the associated drag of all of these flaps. This info came directly from the USN Pilot operating manual for the F4U-1, F4U-1C & F4U-1D and the USN Pilot operating manual for the F6F-3, F6F-3(N), F6F-5 and F6F-5(N).


How do they define the "limit" periods though?
Is it five minutes per flight, or five-minutes-then-back-it-off-for-a-few-seconds-then-another-five-minutes ad infinitum?

[horseback]

I believe that in most cases, the main limiting factor for water injection for the R-2800 was the water available in the water tank. Whether the tank's volume was determined by space or the amount of abuse the engine could safely take in a single flight, I cannot say, but I do know that if you went to water injection/War Emergency Power, you were supposed to inform the aircraft's crew chief, who had to make several checks and tests before clearing the aircraft for its next flight (and often would say unflattering things about you if your reasons for the extra work seemed insufficient).

cheers

horseback

[bladeracer]

I believe that in most cases, the main limiting factor for water injection for the R-2800 was the water available in the water tank. Whether the tank's volume was determined by space or the amount of abuse the engine could safely take in a single flight, I cannot say, but I do know that if you went to water injection/War Emergency Power, you were supposed to inform the aircraft's crew chief, who had to make several checks and tests before clearing the aircraft for its next flight (and often would say unflattering things about you if your reasons for the extra work seemed insufficient).

cheers

horseback


That's one reason I asked, some aircraft carry enough boost additive to exceed the specified usage limit so conceivably could use it several times without exceeding the limit in any single episode.
I think generally there were tells built in so the crew would know immediately whether WEP had been used, though not necessarily for how long.
In First Light, Geoffrey Wellum didn't seem particularly worried about WEP usage at all.

[horseback]

In First Light, Geoffrey Wellum didn't seem particularly worried about WEP usage at all. As I recall, First Light was about the Battle of Britain and the early part of the war; I don't think that water injection -type boost was available in Allied fighters until mid-war. Water injection for the R-2800 in P-47s, Corsairs and Hellcats was introduced in combat around the winter of 43/44. I'm not aware that it was ever available for Allison or early single staged Merlin powered fighters.

In the early part of the war, I believe that War Emergency Power was simply that last little bit of throttle where the engine was asked for its maximum output where damaging it was much more likely. Taking a high powered engine to its full limits increases wear & tear tremendously, and one of the big factors in that wear & tear was the increased heat and friction, which could cause the engine to fail sooner (or right away, if it was just about due for overhaul). Water or methanol injection cooled the engine that critical extra bit and allowed you to pull that extra few horsepower when you needed them.

cheers

horseback

[bladeracer]

As I recall, First Light was about the Battle of Britain and the early part of the war; I don't think that water injection -type boost was available in Allied fighters until mid-war. Water injection for the R-2800 in P-47s, Corsairs and Hellcats was introduced in combat around the winter of 43/44. I'm not aware that it was ever available for Allison or early single staged Merlin powered fighters.

In the early part of the war, I believe that War Emergency Power was simply that last little bit of throttle where the engine was asked for its maximum output where damaging it was much more likely. Taking a high powered engine to its full limits increases wear & tear tremendously, and one of the big factors in that wear & tear was the increased heat and friction, which could cause the engine to fail sooner (or right away, if it was just about due for overhaul). Water or methanol injection cooled the engine that critical extra bit and allowed you to pull that extra few horsepower when you needed them.

cheers

horseback


Yes, First Light is mainly BoB and Malta. Yes, WEP was merely "War Emergency Power" setting of the throttle. I never suggested additive boost was available for WEP during the early war.

I race motorcycles so I am aware of the significant increase in wear and fatigue from even slight increases in power settings.

[horseback]

I race motorcycles so I am aware of the significant increase in wear and fatigue from even slight increases in power settings. Then you must have used a few tricks to get more power from the engine, possibly replacing the stock throttle system with one that lets you use more of the engine's potential power. Most cars and bikes rated for street use do not use the full throttle capacity of their engines, because the engineers know that the engine will wear out sooner (and the normal user will never need to accelerate at the full throttle rate, much less travel at the speeds it would allow) and use much more fuel. And of course there's that liability thing here in the States.

Of course, we have a much better understanding of metallurgy, coolants and lubricants today than we did in 1939-45.

Similarly, the high performance engines that powered WWII aircraft were limited by the engineers in various ways; how much they were limited depended upon the quality of the fuel and lubricants, the expected atmospheric conditions, including the quality of the cooling systems (as I recall, most early war Soviet fighters lacked glycol cooling, which severely limited both the power of their inline engines and their time between overhaul).

All of this is the long way of saying that the limits on WEP use were very specific to a given engine and aircraft, and in some cases changed with better manufacturing techniques as the wartime workforce learned on the job. Consult your real life aircraft's manual for general guidance, and experiment a little on your own to see if the Il-2 '46 FM matches it (many aircraft do).

cheers

horseback

[bladeracer]

Then you must have used a few tricks to get more power from the engine, possibly replacing the stock throttle system with one that lets you use more of the engine's potential power. Most cars and bikes rated for street use do not use the full throttle capacity of their engines, because the engineers know that the engine will wear out sooner (and the normal user will never need to accelerate at the full throttle rate, much less travel at the speeds it would allow) and use much more fuel. And of course there's that liability thing here in the States.

Of course, we have a much better understanding of metallurgy, coolants and lubricants today than we did in 1939-45.

Similarly, the high performance engines that powered WWII aircraft were limited by the engineers in various ways; how much they were limited depended upon the quality of the fuel and lubricants, the expected atmospheric conditions, including the quality of the cooling systems (as I recall, most early war Soviet fighters lacked glycol cooling, which severely limited both the power of their inline engines and their time between overhaul).

All of this is the long way of saying that the limits on WEP use were very specific to a given engine and aircraft, and in some cases changed with better manufacturing techniques as the wartime workforce learned on the job. Consult your real life aircraft's manual for general guidance, and experiment a little on your own to see if the Il-2 '46 FM matches it (many aircraft do).

cheers

horseback


Yes, I know what WEP means (I'm sure most people playing these games do), my question was _how are the limits specified_, which I don't ever recall seeing mentioned in the aircraft manuals. Where it states a usage limit of "five minutes maximum" it doesn't generally state that "you must not use it again until after the engine has been inspected", for example.
Yes, I could indeed experiment in the game. but this still doesn't answer my question since I'm specifically asking about real world limitations, and specifically, how those limitations are measured. "Five minutes" is meaningless unless it relates to a longer term, such as "five minutes maximum until engine is inspected, regardless of whether it is five minutes continuous or accrued time", or "five minutes maximum until the cylinder head temperature has been reduced to below 100C for a minimum of twenty minutes". I don't see how I can ask it any more clearly than this.