4.11 and Engine Overheat

[EZ1]

I tried both a P40B and P40M and found that they are now very, very sensitive to overheating. I could barely run the engine at 60% and still had to back down several times. This is at low levels in nice thick air. I opened the radiator to max with no effect.

In prior releases I could run these planes at 90% or more forever without a problem.

It's pretty are to dogfight at 60% power.

[T}{OR]

What propeller pitch settings?

[IceFire]

Been flying the P-40 quite a bit recently and although it will overheat a fair bit, especially on desert maps where the ambient temperature at low altitudes is higher, backing off on the prop pitch settings to bring the RPM down just a bit usually solves all overheat issues. I think I was running at 90% or 95% and the power is still there but the overheat is dramatically reduced.

[Kwiatek]

What i think new overheat model is not so realistic like some think. Most WW2 planes had 5-10 minutes emergency power use and about 1/2 hour for nominal power. I doubt it is possible to fly now in 4.11 in most planes for about 1/2 hour nominal power ( 100% power without WEP) without overheating. I think in most planes previous overheating model was more realistic then with 4.11.

[EZ1]

Seems to me that the official release is a bit more like a beta.

[FC99]

Most WW2 planes had 5-10 minutes emergency power use and about 1/2 hour for nominal power. I doubt it is possible to fly now in 4.11 in most planes for about 1/2 hour nominal power ( 100% power without WEP) without overheating.
Who says that 100% in game is equivalent of nominal power in RL?

[KG26_Alpha]

What i think new overheat model is not so realistic like some think. Most WW2 planes had 5-10 minutes emergency power use and about 1/2 hour for nominal power. I doubt it is possible to fly now in 4.11 in most planes for about 1/2 hour nominal power ( 100% power without WEP) without overheating. I think in most planes previous overheating model was more realistic then with 4.11.

The problem is getting people to fly in a historical manner, I mean you don't get in your car and drive it flat out everywhere, have a look at the warbirds operating manuals and there's also some videos out there showing how they were handled in real life, it would make flying them in IL2 1946 pretty laborious if you had to fly them like they were supposed to be flown.

The new overheats a step in the right direction you just need to manage your rad's prop rpm's mix and manifold pressure/AtA instead of the old style of flat out throttle as the throttle percentage values are different from the old 100% style of flying.

;)

[Aviar]

I do hope DT continues to refine the overheat functions. Overall, I think they are doing a great job with it. However, some planes may need a little tweeking. For instance, I fly the Tempest and the P-38 a lot.

The P-38 overheats very quickly, especially on a Pacific map. Don't even think about using 100% throttle...even 90% will get you in trouble. Forget about anything higher. Also, other US planes such as the F6F and F4U run much cooler than the P-38. The P-38 in particular just does not seem right....at least when compared to it's contemporaries.

Now with the Tempest, I rarely get an overheat situation, and I run it at much higher throttle settings than the P-38.

The strange thing is that both engines are liquid cooled, so you would think they would have similar overheat qualities. They are not even close, as far as the game is concerned.

Aviar

[pupo162]

Who says that 100% in game is equivalent of nominal power in RL?

THIS pretty much solves all problems.

the one thing about il2 engine management was that 100% was considered the "use at all times safe engine setting" this was not, it isn't , and it will never be true.

most planes have the "use at all times safe engine setting" at maybe 60-70%, some planes have it lower, some have it higher, but it will never be 100% and it will never be the same for all planes.

jsut as an extra, the plane i flew, a 1946 chipmunk, we flew it at about 60% throttle at all times. time limit in 100% was 6 seconds. over about 70% ( you don't have percentages there, so im guessing a bit) the engine would very rapedely overheat, and over rev., BUT it wouldnt blow up, and possible we could fly it like that for HOURS, but when we got home, and the mechanic went to check the engine, it would go directly to garbage.

[Pips]

most planes have the "use at all times safe engine setting" at maybe 60-70%, some planes have it lower, some have it higher, but it will never be 100% and it will never be the same for all planes.


It would be nice then if TD stated just what the heat management parameters were for each aircraft (or group if that's what they've programmed).

At least everyone would know where they stand then, and do much to cut out the quibbling about overheating.

[Kwiatek]

Who says that 100% in game is equivalent of nominal power in RL?

Nobody it was only example for nominal power without WEP/incrased emergency systems.

For example RL Spitfire MK IX at nominal power +12 lbs 2850 RPMs could run 1 hour according to manual.

In game SPitfire MK IX at nominal power ( 99% power - 12lbs, 90% prop pitch - 2850 RPM) after few minutes overheat.

I dont test other planes too much but example LA5FN at 100% power and 100% prop pitch (without Forzah) and radiator 6 could fly all day without overheating.

Some wrote about P-40 and overheting issue.

It looks that something is not correct but surly before 4.11 it wasnt ideal too.

I wonder also why still some planes have still WEP/Emergency Power activated by button? Example some Spitfire have WEP activated above 100% power but some earlier model have still WEP actiavated by button even below 100% power. It seemed unrealistic at all if you could turn ON emergency power below nominal power ( below 100%) - it should be only possible with planes with methanol like 109 with MW50.

[jameson]

MW50 did not operate below 100%. It was operated as in the spitfire by the throttle lever. A rod was connected to the bottom of the throttle lever that opened a valve permitting the MW50 to flow but only after the 100% position had been reached. For someone who has created flight model you should know this. Agree though that the recent improvements show that the whole games performance and flight models need an overhaul.

[FC99]

For example RL Spitfire MK IX at nominal power +12 lbs 2850 RPMs could run 1 hour according to manual.

In game SPitfire MK IX at nominal power ( 99% power - 12lbs, 90% prop pitch - 2850 RPM) after few minutes overheat.

I just run it under standard atmosphere conditions at 20m ASL and at 1500m ASL. You can run your fuel tanks dry at 2850RPM and 12lb boost and you will not overheat.

[jermin]

Warplanes did not fly level to shoot down other planes, period.

Edit:

About the MW50, the WEP button for MW50 is more like an 'arm' switch. Enabling it doesn't mean MW50 fluid is engaged. To do that you should push your throttle pass 100%.

But the current problem on MW50 boost is that it is not able to be engaged over 4 minutes in dogfight, otherwise the engine will be blown out. And although I don't push my throttle pass 100% while it is armed, it still makes engines overheat faster than it is not armed.

[FC99]

Warplanes did not fly level to shoot down other planes, period.
Last time I checked you can turn, climb and dive with any of the planes in the game. You just have to understand that time limit for various power setting is just one of the limits and it is used in conjunction with other limits.

In other words, if Military setting is allowed for 10 minutes max. that doesn't mean that you can always use it for 10 minutes. It depends on other factors would you be able to squeeze all 10 minutes of Military Power. Very simple example is plane on the ground, there is no plane that will allow you to use full MP time while you are sitting on the ground. Under these conditions your limit will be temperature and that apply for other flight regimes too.

If you dive at full power and your engine is overrevving you must reduce the throttle no matter that you might be still under permitted time for full power.


But the current problem on MW50 boost is that it is not able to be engaged over 4 minutes in dogfight, otherwise the engine will be blown out.
There will be some changes regarding MW50 in 4.11.1

[jermin]

There will be some changes regarding MW50 in 4.11.1

:) Good to hear that.

[pupo162]

It would be nice then if TD stated just what the heat management parameters were for each aircraft (or group if that's what they've programmed).

At least everyone would know where they stand then, and do much to cut out the quibbling about overheating.

i agree with that.


For example RL Spitfire MK IX at nominal power +12 lbs 2850 RPMs could run 1 hour according to manual.

In game SPitfire MK IX at nominal power ( 99% power - 12lbs, 90% prop pitch - 2850 RPM) after few minutes overheat.

overheat is difeernet from engine blow up. check your temps, if you are in slight over head 1º 2º 3º the engine will not blow up. it wouldnt probably blow up in +20º either. it would simply wear out quicker and be sent to garbage or maintenance sooner.

[swiss]

There will be some changes regarding MW50 in 4.11.1

You mean like, I can activate it, but it will show no effects unless I pass 100%?

Please say yes.

[WTE_Galway]

The P-38 overheats very quickly, especially on a Pacific map. Don't even think about using 100% throttle...even 90% will get you in trouble. Forget about anything higher. Also, other US planes such as the F6F and F4U run much cooler than the P-38. The P-38 in particular just does not seem right....at least when compared to it's contemporaries.


Aviar

According to pilot reports the p38 overheated if the leading edge of the wing was damaged or the turbo was out but otherwise did not really overheat even at excessive boosts. Apparently the turbo blew first.

Note however the anecdotes below are about using high boost for sustained high speed flight. They are NOT talking low speed turn fights, Vx climbs or stall climbs.



MAJOR JOHN W. MITCHELL, USAAF and CAPTAIN THOMAS G. LANPHIER, USAAF, P-38 Pilots - Guadalcanal, interviewed Bureau of Aeronautics 18 June 1943 http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Aircraft/GuadalcanalP-38s/

Page 6 -
... the whole leading edge of the wings is inner-cooled, and a lot of our planes were damaged in the leading edge of the wing, and eventually the motor acted up. In most of our engine failures they've had some warning and feathered the propeller.

Q. Could you use the engine with the turbo cut out?

A. It heats up.


Page 10 -
... we abused the supercharger somewhat. On the mission just mentioned, chasing a Jap full throttle, I was getting about 45 inches and indicating 265-270. Another time I was right down on the tree tops, indicating 310 miles an hour with almost a full ammunition load, full throttle. The needle went clear around past the two so-called stops, to about 10. I guess I was getting about 65 Inches out of each engine, and I held that for about eight or nine minutes, two or three minutes on the ground until the Japs got down to my level. Then, with all that speed, I started to climb, and immediately left them behind. For about eight or nine minutes I gave those two Allisons full power, and the supercharger had turned in long since. Neither engine heated up ...

[Treetop64]

I genuinely mean no disrespect by this, but I think that many (not all, but many) of the complaints of the new overheat model are sired from honest ignorance on how piston aircraft engines actually overheat.

Pre 4.11 engine temps were effected more by manifold pressure than by engine RPMs or mixture settings, which simply is not realistic at all. The pre 4.11 engine temp model was a joke, and I, for one, am glad it's been fixed.

With 4.11 you actually have to resort to some semblance of real-world procedures to manage engine temps in a given situation, and for many of us that meant re-learning how to fly aircraft in the sim that we may have long-since established methods of getting the most out of. It's inevitable that there will be some resistance to do that. More than ever before engine RPMs and mixture settings have more of an effect on temps, as it should be.

Also, as has been stated nearly a hundred times in different threads, the triggering of the ENGINE OVERHEAT HUD message is very, very conservative. Unrealistically so. It's display does not indicate imminent engine destruction if you don't immediately pull back on the levers. One should either turn off HUD messages and learn to use the gauges, or simply ignore the OVERHEAT message. Trust me; you'll find that you can reliably push your chosen aircraft much harder, and for a much longer period of time, than you could if you make yourself a slave to the HUD message.

[mmaruda]

Treetop is right, I've seen many post saying that people experience overheat too early and then at some point they state they were running 80% pitch in a dive or something. I'm not an expert in IL-2 prop mechanics, but with the P-51 for example, if you really want the thing going, at optimal RPM, the pitch would be around 55%. That is something to keep in mind - proper RPM at a given situation. Another thing is the general engine operating conditions, if you push the plane real hard and the engine is quite hot already, don't expect to go for too long before you experience overheat. Real pilots did everything they could to keep their engines cool before engaging in a fight, that means radiator and pitch management, which most gamers don't care about.

Again I believe this an issue with wrong pitch management. I have read many posts and articles trying to explain how it works in the game, but most of the were general and mentioned stuff like "100% in combat as you need full power", which is just wrong since you need speed in combat and the prop generates a lot of drag. It also affects you maneuverability in some planes. I never use 100% pitch unless for landing and take-off or in steep climb and I have never ever damaged my engine in 4.11. The key is watching the temp indicator not the overheat message. That is what real pilots do, since they don't have a virtual hud to tell them everything.

I think it would be nice if the devs wrote some detailed guide as to how to manage you engine in various planes in different situations.

Anyway, though not being an expert on IL-2, I strongly believe that most of the complaints people make about FMs, engine management and other stuff really come from lack of knowledge on how to do it properly, rather than something being porked.

In other words, it's not the software, it's the user.

[Pips]

I think it would be nice if the devs wrote some detailed guide as to how to manage you engine in various planes in different situations.


Absolutely. Well overdue. The overheat parameters have been changed/modified, and Team D really does need to put some specific information out on the subject.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I think it would be nice if the devs wrote some detailed guide as to how to manage you engine in various planes in different situations.

Well yes, we could do that, but you wouldn't see any patch in the next three years then. :grin::rolleyes:

[E.Z.I]

Well yes, we could do that, but you wouldn't see any patch in the next three years then. :grin::rolleyes:

I hope so!

Daidalos team has from the beginning just a job. Complete removal of the red side. 10.1, the Spitfire took from the game and 4.11, the P40 and others. I and many others are out.
Thank you and have fun

[DD_crash]

According to WhistlinggDeath the Spit is far too good and the 190 is "porked" (along with the Corsair)

[FC99]

Also, as has been stated nearly a hundred times in different threads, the triggering of the ENGINE OVERHEAT HUD message is very, very conservative. Unrealistically so. It's display does not indicate imminent engine destruction if you don't immediately pull back on the levers. One should either turn off HUD messages and learn to use the gauges, or simply ignore the OVERHEAT message. Trust me; you'll find that you can reliably push your chosen aircraft much harder, and for a much longer period of time, than you could if you make yourself a slave to the HUD message.
Exactly, people are used to old model where they were able to game the game. Overheat message was sign that timer has started and they could push their plane at full power for the next 3-8 minutes (depending on plane) without the slightest worry.

It is not so now. Overheat message only indicates that damage is possible , higher the temperature bigger are the chances that damage will occur. But if you are just a fraction of degree above the temperature limit "Overheat" message will be displayed but you have better chances to win the lottery than to damage your engine.

OTOH even if you overheat your engine a lot you might get lucky and get away with it without the damage. Just like in RL, you never know what is going to happen, you can't use the stopwatch and exploit simple overheat model like before.

Absolutely. Well overdue. The overheat parameters have been changed/modified, and Team D really does need to put some specific information out on the subject.
There is too many planes in the game for that, we can provide free patches but community should do its part too and help with the things like this. You can take your favorite plane and find best settings for it. If some others do the same for their favorite planes, very soon, we will have comprehensive database which might help other players.

I hope so!

Daidalos team has from the beginning just a job. Complete removal of the red side. 10.1, the Spitfire took from the game and 4.11, the P40 and others. I and many others are out.
Thank you and have fun
We will probably release two more patches this year but as you are out you don't have to worry about it any more. And that's not all, we will not stop until whole planet is blue,hm, maybe it is blue already?:shock:

[Asheshouse]

we can provide free patches but community should do its part too and help with the things like this. You can take your favourite plane and find best settings for it. If some others do the same for their favourite planes, very soon, we will have comprehensive database which might help other players.

Very good idea. I'm sure there are many who could contribute.


We will probably release two more patches this year.
Great news :grin:

Ashe

[moilami]

There is too many planes in the game for that, we can provide free patches but community should do its part too and help with the things like this. You can take your favorite plane and find best settings for it. If some others do the same for their favorite planes, very soon, we will have comprehensive database which might help other players.

Even though I can't pose as a spoke person for the end user community, I have to make my deepest apologies on behalf of the community.

I wish you understand that those extreme arrogant whiners does not represent the whole community either.

You have done absolutely very great job to the point I started playing IL-2 again with 4.11 patch, since after CoD IL-2 was just too arcade.

There is no words for me to express my gratitude of that.

S!

[greybeard1]

...new overheat model are sired from honest ignorance on how piston aircraft engines actually overheat.

REALLY?

Pre 4.11 engine temps were effected more by manifold pressure than by engine RPMs or mixture settings, which simply is not realistic at all. The pre 4.11 engine temp model was a joke, and I, for one, am glad it's been fixed.

REALLY? What about the top realism fame of this game during last ten years? And who grants that's not still so... a joke, I mean?

Actually, heat to waste in internal combustion engine is about three times power developed and this latter is directly proportional to MAP, not to RPM, which is a consequence (that's to say an output, not an input) and, secondarily, by mixture, that contributes to take away some warm before the cooling system does.

There are official values for max time allowed for each power setting in standard atmosphere on aircraft flight manuals: if matched in game they're correctly modeled, otherwise NOT (no matter how many testimonies and fancy theories we can take out).

Regards,
GB

[JtD]

In tests, the Hurricane exceeded allowed water and oil temperatures when flown according to the flight manual, guess it was incorrectly modelled.

[Arrow]

REALLY?



REALLY? What about the top realism fame of this game during last ten years? And who grants that's not still so... a joke, I mean?

Actually, heat to waste in internal combustion engine is about three times power developed and this latter is directly proportional to MAP, not to RPM, which is a consequence (that's to say an output, not an input) and, secondarily, by mixture, that contributes to take away some warm before the cooling system does.

There are official values for max time allowed for each power setting in standard atmosphere on aircraft flight manuals: if matched in game they're correctly modeled, otherwise NOT (no matter how many testimonies and fancy theories we can take out).

Regards,
GB
I don't agree that it is proportional to MAP. Take the prop away from an engine and run it even on low MAP, you will see that it will overheat and explode just in seconds.

[Treetop64]

REALLY?



REALLY? What about the top realism fame of this game during last ten years? And who grants that's not still so... a joke, I mean?

Actually, heat to waste in internal combustion engine is about three times power developed and this latter is directly proportional to MAP, not to RPM, which is a consequence (that's to say an output, not an input) and, secondarily, by mixture, that contributes to take away some warm before the cooling system does.

There are official values for max time allowed for each power setting in standard atmosphere on aircraft flight manuals: if matched in game they're correctly modeled, otherwise NOT (no matter how many testimonies and fancy theories we can take out).

Regards,
GB

For one, starting the first quote from where you did takes what was said out of context and completely changes the meaning. Really.

Secondly, the "top realisim fame" you mention, though warranted when making a general comparison to other WWII flight games, was never by any means a trait homogeneous within the sim. There were numerous unrealistic aspects, including how the engine temp/condition model was implemented. When set up and flown properly, oil and water/cylinder head temps of a given aircraft shouldn't tease the upper limits of the maximum temperature range while configured and established for economy cruise, and quickly go beyond pegging the indicators when adding more mercury and adjusting the RPM accordingly when you needed to do something urgently, which is exactly what happened in pre-4.11 aircraft. The indications in v4.11 show much more plausible indications and now can be read with much more confidence than in the past, which is the reason I suggested turning off the HUD messages. The simulation of the current model my not be Transas-level realistic, but is sure is a hell of a lot better than what it was before. If you're inclined to believe that the current model is a joke, as you eluded to, then by all means you are certainly welcome to do so. Really.

What you talk about in the relation of MP, mixture, and RPM makes some sense in simplistic terms, but I get the impression that, for the sake of validating your argument, you minimized the importance and utility of RPMs. When you're talking about complex, military grade, turbo, super, or turbo-supercharged WWII era aircraft piston engines and their propeller systems, discussing such operating principles to any appreciable understanding can become lengthy. There are plenty of sources online and at bookstores and libraries that can explain this subject in great detail.

[greybeard1]

I don't agree that it is proportional to MAP.

You're free to agree or not, but that's so.

Take the prop away from an engine and run it even on low MAP, you will see that it will overheat and explode just in seconds.

You're confusing mechanical energy with thermal one: overheating is due to this latter.

GB

[greybeard1]

The indications in v4.11 show much more plausible indications and now can be read with much more confidence than in the past, which is the reason I suggested turning off the HUD messages.

Quote from 4.11 User's Guide (page 7, third line from top):
"please don't go by cockpit gauges, they aren't always accurate"


... discussing such operating principles to any appreciable understanding can become lengthy. There are plenty of sources online and at bookstores and libraries that can explain this subject in great detail.

Thanks, I did that many years ago, when I graduated mechanical engineer (included a fair amount of practice, like to test a real engine by dynamometer). I think also complex matters can be easily explained, if one has a deep knowledge and some talent to teach; if Einstein embodied entire universe phenomena into E=mc2, probably a piston engine doesn't require much more... ;)

GB

[Arrow]

You're free to agree or not, but that's so.



You're confusing mechanical energy with thermal one: overheating is due to this latter.

GB

I forgot that mechanical energy doesn't produce any heat ... so now we can delete oil coolers and rev engines to indefinite RPMs. You are oversimplifying things ... Just to say that only MAP is responsible for overheating is ridiculous and certainly you cannot by any means model an engine with some simplified formula. Water and oil temps are measured for a reason...try to figure why.

[Treetop64]

...when I graduated mechanical engineer (included a fair amount of practice, like to test a real engine by dynamometer).

Sure. That's very convincing.

[WTE_Galway]

meh ... its a game

... and after 10 years of playing its all become a bit of a doddle, the flying part is not that challenging anymore (my shooting on the other hand sux), so anything that makes the flying harder and more challenging is in my mind a good thing

if the changes also make it more realistic than that's just a great bonus

[Kittle]

I enjoy the game more with the new engine model. Just flying around requires more attention then before, so obviously combat has become much more complicated. I actually use all 8 axis between the two controllers, on every flight unless the aircraft has auto prop pitch or radiator. The game has far more value to me now then before, and that is nothing but pure GOODNESS in my eyes!

[Marak99]

Does anyone have any tips for take off in the 262 in 4.11?

It's always been a tricky plane to get airborne without blowing it to smithereens, but as long as you followed the guide lines from the pilot's handbook it was usually possible to get up without problems.

Since 4.11 I'm back to square one. I've tried both the RAF and USAAF handbooks, which recommend a very slow power-up to 6-7000 rpm before applying full power for take off, but I find that the engines start to overheat almost immediately I hit 8000 rpm swiftly followed by one or both engines turning into boil in the bag dinners.

It's possible to get airborne at around 80% throttle without cooking anything, but the roll out is excessive, even for the 262.

Also, thanks to everyone at Daidalos for their efforts. Can't believe I've been playing this game for ten years and new things are still arriving.

[IceFire]

Does anyone have any tips for take off in the 262 in 4.11?

It's always been a tricky plane to get airborne without blowing it to smithereens, but as long as you followed the guide lines from the pilot's handbook it was usually possible to get up without problems.

Since 4.11 I'm back to square one. I've tried both the RAF and USAAF handbooks, which recommend a very slow power-up to 6-7000 rpm before applying full power for take off, but I find that the engines start to overheat almost immediately I hit 8000 rpm swiftly followed by one or both engines turning into boil in the bag dinners.

It's possible to get airborne at around 80% throttle without cooking anything, but the roll out is excessive, even for the 262.

Also, thanks to everyone at Daidalos for their efforts. Can't believe I've been playing this game for ten years and new things are still arriving.
I'm not sure if this is a tip or not but I just had a go to see if my normal technique works and it's unchanged for 4.11.

Basically:

- Start both engines, allow both engines to warm at 5-10% throttle (breaks on)
- Drop takeoff flaps
- Release breaks, increase throttle gradually to 95%
- At 190kph or above pull back
- Maintain gentle climb angle at 95% throttle until speed reaches approximately 300kph
- Back off on throttle to a cruise setting around 70%

You will see the overheat about 5-10 seconds after takeoff but it's not a dangerous overheat at that point as you immediately begin to back off on the throttle.

You may need to be more conservative with a Me262A-2 with SC250 attached as your takeoff run will be longer and shallow climb angle and speed may be affected but honestly this isn't any different than what I have done in the past.

[Marak99]

Hi Ice,

Thanks for taking the time to have a look. Your check list does do a good job getting the thing off the ground in one piece.

My problem was that the handbooks call for running up to 7000 rpm while stationary with the brakes on. I used to be able to do that without making the thing go bang, but now not so much.

Than again I'm certain that IL-2 patches are the ultimate proof of the placebo affect in action. Most of the changes are only in our heads. :-)

[T}{OR]

In addition to what Ice says, and this is a trick I learned by taking off with overloaded bombers, drop no more than combat flaps - only when you are close to the end of the runway. This way you will achieve better acceleration.

[shauncm]

may i request a sub-forum in which to post aircraft specific details.

maybe something called 'pilots lounge' or 'online aircraft handbooks'.

i am happy to offer any help i can on my favourite aircraft. maybe we could have a thread for each aircraft type within this sub-forum...?

by doing this pilots could look up what other pilots suggest about flying a particular aircraft without stressing up the developers more :)

also i suggest that we stop using 'per-cent' as a measurement format. revs/rpm, manifold pressure, and degrees should probably be used now. percent has become too mis-leading in my humble opinion.

also i think that the only time when the overheat hud message should be talked about is if we are talking about arcade level settings. it doesnt seem to have a place in a 'realistic' simulation.

[shauncm]

max continous temperatures:

90-95*C oil, 120*C coolant. manifold pressure, rpm and radiator irrispective.

in the tempest v pilots notes;

climb, 30 minutes limit = 90/120
5 minutes all out emergency power = 95/120

since 4.11 you can overheat the engine to almost any temperature but if you keep it over 'all out temperature' for 2-3 minutes you will get engine damage. if you are seriously overheating at this time expect the engine to stop dead.

the temperture gauges are accurate.

'wep' should be engaged by default. it seems to simulate a throttle gate, but also seems to be at the wrong manifold pressure.

the arcade 'overheat' message will probably be continuously on.

important altitudes for tempest are;

6000 feet = best speed
10'000 feet, supercharger 2


tempest has a laminar flow wing. it is efficient at high speed/low angle of attack. use this to climb at high speeds. best short term climb rate is at 250 kph..(ish), but best long term climb rate is faster.

if you are climbing or flying slowly keep the radiator open. if you are not in combat keep the radiator open. the rest of the time try to keep it closed as it causes significant drag.

the prop reaches 0.95 mach...(im trying to remember off the top of my head).
in a dive the tips of the propellor can near the spead of sound. reduce revs to prevent the tips getting to that speed as it becomes very inefficient. keep the radiator closed in a dive.

think of 3000 rpm as standard, 3750 as emergency fine, (ie for an emergency climb/ takeoff/ scissors)


[i am not trying to give advice on air combat manoevers, nor am i implying that what i say is in any way realistic....im just trying to help with this aircraft, in this game. some of the numbers come from memory, but hopefully it helps to show what i proposed.]

[-)-MAILMAN-]

The release notes state that we should be flying all of the planes at approximately 70% throttle and 70% prop pitch to avoid over heating. It also states that the gages are not to be relied upon.

The F4U Corsair and the F6F Hellcat had a manually operated mechanical two stage, two speed supercharger. I will make a couple of assumptions. I have assumed that in the game supercharger one is neutral blower, supercharger 2 is low blower and supercharger 3 is high blower. In previous versions of the game I could switch supercharger to maintain the correct manifold air pressure as I changed altitudes.

I fly the F4U and F6F a lot. I flew them with historical power settings prior to this latest release even though it would take me a bit longer to get to the combat area. Normally it gave me an edge by giving me a longer duration at high performance because I started combat at cooler engine temperature. I would exceed these settings only when engaged in combat.

The F4U had a normal continuous power setting of 2550 RPM (93% prop pitch in the game) and 44" MAP from Sea Level to 8000 feet with supercharger one and cowl flaps 2/3 open (position 6 in game). The throttle would have to be increased continuously as I climbed. At 8000 ft I would have to exceed 100% throttle to maintain the 44" MAP so I would switch to supercharger two, lower the throttle setting to maintain 48" MAP and continue to climb. At approximately 18,500 feet I would have to exceed 100% throttle to maintain 48" MAP so I would switch to supercharger three and reduce the throttle and maintain 48" and continue to climb where eventually the altitude would not allow me to maintain the 48" MAP. These settings coincided with the actually flight data for the F4U-1 Corsairs. For additional proof go to Zeno's Warbirds Web page and view the movie for flying the F4U-1 Corsair. It describes in detail all of the settings for Normal Power Climb as well as power settings for Military and Cruise. Normal continuous is just that, they could run the power settings like this forever with deviations due to geographical locations where the temperatures would be considerably higher on average. This is not cruise or maximum cruise.

With this latest release you cannot follow the actual flight manual or the official documentation any longer. In previous releases operating with a normal power setting you could easily extend away in a 1000 foot/min climb from a Zero or Oscar and eventually from the Ki-61 unless they went to military or war emergency power. With this release you can no longer maintain the correct manifold pressure settings as you climb below 8000 feet. You reach 100% throttle below 5000 feet and have to exceed 100% to keep 44" manifold air pressure which causes you to overheat prior to reaching 8000 feet where you will switch to supercharger two. The plane then appears to revert to the old engine performance above 8000 feet. The F4U-1 uses the Pratt & Whitney R-2800-8 and later -8W engine.

The F6F which uses the Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10 and later -10W engine and a different carburetor (may explain the different MAP setting) than that used on the F4U has the same issues. A normal power climb in the F6F would use an RPM setting of 2550 RPM and 44" MAP using supercharger position one from Sea Level up to 7,000 feet. As you continued to climb you would would maintain 49.5" MAP and change supercharger settings all the way up to critical altitude. You cannot maintain 49.5" MAP all the way up to7,000 feet without exceeding 100% throttle and overheating the engine.

Taking away water injection on the Corsair MkI (F4U-1) & F6F-3 Late should have no bearing on heating issues nor should it change the performance parameters for normal power settings.

At least in the previous versions of the game you could fly by the gages (flight envelope) and not have to rely on the text telling you what percentage of throttle to have. Why have the gages if they aren't reliable?

[Gabelschwanz Teufel]

That is one excellent post.

[Robo.]

With this latest release you cannot follow the actual flight manual or the official documentation any longer. In previous releases operating with a normal power setting you could easily extend away in a 1000 foot/min climb from a Zero or Oscar and eventually from the Ki-61 unless they went to military or war emergency power. With this release you can no longer maintain the correct manifold pressure settings as you climb below 8000 feet. You reach 100% throttle below 5000 feet and have to exceed 100% to keep 44" manifold air pressure which causes you to overheat prior to reaching 8000 feet where you will switch to supercharger two. The plane then appears to revert to the old engine performance above 8000 feet. The F4U-1 uses the Pratt & Whitney R-2800-8 and later -8W engine.

The F6F which uses the Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10 and later -10W engine and a different carburetor (may explain the different MAP setting) than that used on the F4U has the same issues. A normal power climb in the F6F would use an RPM setting of 2550 RPM and 44" MAP using supercharger position one from Sea Level up to 7,000 feet. As you continued to climb you would would maintain 49.5" MAP and change supercharger settings all the way up to critical altitude. You cannot maintain 49.5" MAP all the way up to7,000 feet without exceeding 100% throttle and overheating the engine.

Taking away water injection on the Corsair MkI (F4U-1) & F6F-3 Late should have no bearing on heating issues nor should it change the performance parameters for normal power settings.

At least in the previous versions of the game you could fly by the gages (flight envelope) and not have to rely on the text telling you what percentage of throttle to have. Why have the gages if they aren't reliable?

Hi Mailman - very good post. Regarding the F4U and 4.11 Il2 compare, the issue seems to be that the altitude for 2nd blower is actualy around 5000-5500ft (cca 1800m as per Il-2 compare graph). I just did a quick test in WIP 4.11.1 and you definitely will be able to fly her by the book now - cold start, taking off at full power (99p no ADI), maintaining climb power of ''44 @ 2550RPM to 5000ft... Exact alt very much depends on the map (atm. pressure etc) as it did in RL, so I simply tend to switch the blower when my throttle hits the limit. Then ''48 @ 2550RPM... With my climb speed reasonably high (around 160MPH IAS), cowling flaps 2/3 open, CHT around 200C, oil temp around 100, slightly lower when I get higher up, switching to high blower appropriately (around 15k) and no issue with overheating whatsoever.

Good news is also that all the temp gauges (all of them, yes- on all aircraft) will be working correctly in 4.11.1. With MFP / RPM setting you state, you will be able to monitor your temps (oil is more likely to give you some grief than CHT here, mind you Corsairs temp gauges are OK already in 4.11). Tested on rather ambient Crimea map using earliest F4U, not sure about hotter environments. I am also not able to comment if the supercharger alts are correct and in match with the manual as I don't have it with me but quick search on WWIIacperformance shows pretty much identical climb curve (ac No 02155)... Can't do the same test with clean 4.11 version at the moment, but I will check that as well later on and come back to you as I am not sure how much of that is related to the take-off issue. Hope that helped.

[-)-MAILMAN-]

Originally Posted by Robo
"I just did a quick test in WIP 4.11.1 and you definitely will be able to fly her by the book now - cold start, taking off at full power (99p no ADI), maintaining climb power of ''44 @ 2550RPM to 5000ft."




5000 feet is still too low to be shifting from supercharger 1 (neutral blower) to supercharger 2 (low blower) in the F4U-1 Corsairs. The Real Life Corsairs (F4U-1/-1A/1C/1D) used the R-2800-8 and -8w engines and maintained 44" MAP up to 8000 feet before shifting from neutral blower to low blower then maintaining 48" MAP. This matches exactly the USN Pilot training film for the Corsairs and until v4.11 the game matched this.

Hellcats used the R-2800-10 and -10W engines and had a different carburetor than those used in the Corsairs. Once source has the Hellcat shifting from neutral blower to low blower at 5500 ft (USN training film uses this altitude) and another source has it at 7000 feet. The Hellcats in versions previous to v4.11 shifted at 5500 feet. Shifting the supercharger at 5000 feet in this version is also too low for the Hellcats.

[Whacker]

Originally Posted by Robo
"I just did a quick test in WIP 4.11.1 and you definitely will be able to fly her by the book now - cold start, taking off at full power (99p no ADI), maintaining climb power of ''44 @ 2550RPM to 5000ft."




5000 feet is still too low to be shifting from supercharger 1 (neutral blower) to supercharger 2 (low blower) in the F4U-1 Corsairs. The Real Life Corsairs (F4U-1/-1A/1C/1D) used the R-2800-8 and -8w engines and maintained 44" MAP up to 8000 feet before shifting from neutral blower to low blower then maintaining 48" MAP. This matches exactly the USN Pilot training film for the Corsairs and until v4.11 the game matched this.

Hellcats used the R-2800-10 and -10W engines and had a different carburetor than those used in the Corsairs. Once source has the Hellcat shifting from neutral blower to low blower at 5500 ft (USN training film uses this altitude) and another source has it at 7000 feet. The Hellcats in versions previous to v4.11 shifted at 5500 feet. Shifting the supercharger at 5000 feet in this version is also too low for the Hellcats.

I have the actual pilot manual for the F4U-1 series open right now, revision 1944.

The climb section calls for the following:

Max continuous normal rated power calls for 44" MAP at 2550 RPM, with the blower shift from neutral to low when MAP drops to 41.5" between 5500 and 7000 ft. above MSL.

Military power climb calls for 2700 RPM at 52.5" MAP, shifting to low blower when MAP drops to 45" between 1700 and 5500 ft. above MSL.

Edit - I posted this for discussion sake, not to indicate that anyone is wrong or right.

[Robo.]

5000 feet is still too low to be shifting from supercharger 1 (neutral blower) to supercharger 2 (low blower) in the F4U-1 Corsairs. The Real Life Corsairs (F4U-1/-1A/1C/1D) used the R-2800-8 and -8w engines and maintained 44" MAP up to 8000 feet before shifting from neutral blower to low blower then maintaining 48" MAP. This matches exactly the USN Pilot training film for the Corsairs and until v4.11 the game matched this.

Hi Mailman, I said it was around 5000-5500ft at that particular map (Crimea). The MFP is obviously very much depending on the atmospheric pressure and this is actually modelled in Il-2, e.g. your results may vary on a different map.

44'' up to 8000ft.? Which source is stating this as the alt where pilots normally switched from neutral to low blower?

US manual section b ''Power plant'', page 6:

neutral - S.L - 5500ft
low - 16500ft
high - 22000ft

= exactly what 4.11 Il-2compare states and what is also replicable in game in my climb test including best climbing speed and limit temperatures.

With water injection used, neutral blower only up to 2000ft, low from 2000 up to 15000ft. (e.g. page 24 of the British AP2351A manual)

It seems to me that the blower altitudes in 4.11 are pretty much spot on for Corsairs. Coud you please post some sources (preferably links) stating otherwise?

Hellcats used the R-2800-10 and -10W engines and had a different carburetor than those used in the Corsairs. Once source has the Hellcat shifting from neutral blower to low blower at 5500 ft (USN training film uses this altitude) and another source has it at 7000 feet. The Hellcats in versions previous to v4.11 shifted at 5500 feet. Shifting the supercharger at 5000 feet in this version is also too low for the Hellcats.

I have not tested the F6Fs yet. Again, shifting of blowers was fairly complicated, there were certain restrictions in throttle movement in Low and High blower position especially. Also, pilot had to reduce MFP and desirably RPM when switching, actual reaction time varied from plane to plane, and from the atmospheric conditions, that in the first place. Altitudes at normal rated powers should be as follows:

neutral 2550rpm, 44'' - SL - 7000ft
low 2550rpm, 49.5'' - 7000-22000ft
high 2550rpm, 49.5'' 22000ft up

From what I know from the Hellcat FM development, the 1st blower was impossible to set correctly withinh how the game works (I know nothing about that, sorry), and DT simply focused on getting the actual performance and speeds right at any altitude. The blower alt seems to be about 600m too low which is not a biggie considering you have got correct performance now. Hope that helped.

[Pips]

I have the actual pilot manual for the F4U-1 series open right now, revision 1944.

The climb section calls for the following:

Max continuous normal rated power calls for 44" MAP at 2550 RPM, with the blower shift from neutral to low when MAP drops to 41.5" between 5500 and 7000 ft. above MSL.

Military power climb calls for 2700 RPM at 52.5" MAP, shifting to low blower when MAP drops to 45" between 1700 and 5500 ft. above MSL.



Whacker, does the manual make any mention of radiator settings for the above? Does it also cover temps and times at certain RPM before overheating sets in? Cheers. :)

[Whacker]

Whacker, does the manual make any mention of radiator settings for the above? Does it also cover temps and times at certain RPM before overheating sets in? Cheers. :)

No specific radiator settings are mentioned for those two profiles. Also no clear answer to your second question. Here's some data that seems to be relevant.

- There's no air speed restriction regarding any of the cooling flaps (cowl, intercooler, oil cooler) and apparently they can be open at any speed up to Vne, and are covered by some kind of "relief system".

- Max open cowl flaps can lead to some buffeting at the tail, so it's recommended they only be full open on the ground. Take off and climb are recommended at 2/3 open, and high speed or cruising are recommended full closed.

- Max cyl head temp *period* seems to be 260 degrees C (500 F), and the manual says at several places *never* to exceed that under any circumstances.

- Max rated continuous power cyl head temp is stated to be 232 degrees C, with the provision that 260 never be exceed as per previous bullet point.

- Take off and Emergency War Power engine profiles are to be used for no more than 5 minutes.

- Re: Emergency War Power, it doesn't say whether this is 5 minutes max per flight (and between ground servicing) or if it can be used multiple times. I imagine the Wasp radial ground service manual would be the authority for this. It's also clearly limited by the amount of water in the water tanks, but I can't determine if the total water capacity would be used up during that 5 minutes or not.

- Military Power is to be utilized for no more than 30 minutes. Again it doesn't say if this is the total per flight or if it can be used, let to cool down, then used again.

- If I had to make a semi-educated guess given what I know about radials, the 5 min/30 min limits for those power profiles is per flight, with some ground maintenance and checks that need to occur before the engine can be used again. Radials had rather low mean time between overhauls, and higher power settings and temperatures are going to cause rapidly increased wear and tear the worse it gets.

[-)-MAILMAN-]

Here is a link to the film used for pilot training for flying the F4U-1 Corsair from wing fold, start up, takeoff, climb, and landing. the narrator gives the Manifold Air Pressure, Propeller RPM, Radiator settings and altitudes that the supercharger shifts. At the normal rated power climb neutral blower is used, 43.5" MAP at 2550 RPM and shifts from neutral blower to low blower at "approximately" 8,000 feet. Viewing the film is free. In the past you had to use Real Player to view the film, but there are now new choices, I used WMP. Over the last few years I have watched the Hellcat, Thunderbolt, P-40, P-39 and P-38. This was the first reference I had seen to 44" (43.5" to be exact) up to 8,000 feet.

The film is using the F4U-1 with the framed canopy at a time frame when the six position national insignia was being used.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/F4U.html

[Robo.]

43.5" MAP at 2550 RPM and shifts from neutral blower to low blower at "approximately" 8,000 feet. (...) This was the first reference I had seen to 44" (43.5" to be exact) up to 8,000 feet.
[/url]

Very interesting movie, thanks for that. As it seems, the devs seemed to stick to the actual manual which states 5500ft. It is not unusual to see different sources stating different values, it is hard to make a decision then. In this case, the movie happens to be the only source refering to 8000ft. Both US and British manuals state 5500ft.

As long as you can fly the a/c as per book (and you certainly can as I described above), I don't see any problem.

[Bolelas]

Not a question about the game itself, but as real life aircraft behaved: In a dive, in a over-rev situation (lets say i cut throttle but forgot to pitch back), does the plane heat the same way as if i was adding more fuel? (with less pitch). I know compressed air heats, plus there is fuel going in (the idle fuel), and also friction, but should it overheat slowly?
Hope you people can understand question, because it is a little confusing.
I have not much knowledge about engine, just what i read in foruns, books etc. Also in the spitfire manual it says that in a dive they could do a little over-rev, but had to add at least one third of throttle : Was this to lubbricate pistons?

[Whacker]

Not a question about the game itself, but as real life aircraft behaved: In a dive, in a over-rev situation (lets say i cut throttle but forgot to pitch back), does the plane heat the same way as if i was adding more fuel? (with less pitch). I know compressed air heats, plus there is fuel going in (the idle fuel), and also friction, but should it overheat slowly?
Hope you people can understand question, because it is a little confusing.
I have not much knowledge about engine, just what i read in foruns, books etc. Also in the spitfire manual it says that in a dive they could do a little over-rev, but had to add at least one third of throttle : Was this to lubbricate pistons?

Over-revving any engine is very, very bad for it. It creates a lot of heat very rapidly (mostly from friction, not combustion), and it pushes parts of the engine far beyond what they were designed to work at.

Some common failures include piston rods breaking ("throwing a rod"), cam and crankshaft bearings rapidly being burnt out and seizing up, valve heads colliding with pistons, etc. Even if everything manages to hold together, it can also cause critical "soft" components like gaskets to fail, which may not cause an immediate seize-up but could cause other things to fail in a chain reaction.

It's very complicated and I don't pretend to understand the actual ways and means of doing it, but calculating a particular engine's red-line rev rating is done based on it's design. Beyond that red-line the probability of partial or total failure rapidly goes up to where it's essentially guaranteed.

Lastly, keep in mind this was almost 80 years ago. Aeronautics was a very young field and technology was pushing boundaries once held to be insurmountable. Warbird engines were pushed to their absolute limits and designed to run at just below those with minimal safety cushions. Overspeeding your prop and motor will invariably give you those really bad results, and the game seems to do a great job of simulating that as best as it can.

Hope that helps.

[K_Freddie]

So what were saying here is... a slower revving engine is a lot cooler, whether it be driven by wind or combustion.

Common sense says that combustion would be hotter :cool:
:)

[Crumpp]

Also in the spitfire manual it says that in a dive they could do a little over-rev,

The Spitfire manual does not say to over-rev the engine in a dive. It says to keep the throttle 1/3 open in a dive to maintain 3000 rpm. Do not use the propeller rpm control to maintain rpm, adjust the throttle (manifold pressure) to maintain rpm.

That the correct way to operate a constant speed propeller while maneuvering in any aircraft. You adjust manifold pressure to maintain rpm. On many manifold pressure gauges, a green arc is provided to assist the pilot in keeping the engine within limits to maintain that required rpm while maneuvering.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3 Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dmanifold%2Bpressure%2Bgauge&w=160&h=122&imgurl=www.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dmanifo ld%2Bpressure%2Bgauge%23focal%3Dfb83bca28b5fbccf4a 413855f3fe2c79%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.fre e-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com%252fimages%252fmanifold-pressure-gauge.gif&size=&name=search&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch% 3Fq%3Dmanifold%2Bpressure%2Bgauge%23focal%3Dfb83bc a28b5fbccf4a413855f3fe2c79%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f %252fwww.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com%252fimages%252fmanifold-pressure-gauge.gif&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dmanifold%2Bpressure%2Bgauge%23focal%3Dfb83bca 28b5fbccf4a413855f3fe2c79%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f% 252fwww.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com%252fimages%252fmanifold-pressure-gauge.gif&p=manifold+pressure+gauge&type=&no=3&tt=115&oid=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fimages%2Fthumbn ail.aspx%3Fq%3D4610489002626970%26id%3D8d1a0e82118 48a825fe8bf93cd92a6b7&tit=...+Engine+power+output+is+indicated+on+the+ma nifold+pressure+gauge&sigr=16bfo2qgj&sigi=164hhu7ci&sigb=121pdac1f&fr=sfp

[Pips]

That's interesting - that the throttle should be adjusted during manoeuvering, but not the prop. Does the manual state what the prop setting should be during manoeuvering?

[julian265]

I don't agree that it is proportional to MAP. Take the prop away from an engine and run it even on low MAP, you will see that it will overheat and explode just in seconds.

If you have killed an engine in a few seconds by over-revving it, then the engine has suffered mechanical failure, which in this case has nothing to do with coolant or oil temperature.

Actually, heat to waste in internal combustion engine is about three times power developed and this latter is directly proportional to MAP, not to RPM, which is a consequence (that's to say an output, not an input) and, secondarily, by mixture, that contributes to take away some warm before the cooling system does.
I agree... in the scope of normal operating speeds.

Imagine two identical engines, each producing the SAME SHAFT POWER. One is running at 2500 RPM, and higher MAP, the other at 3000 RPM, and lower MAP.
The engine running at 3000 rpm will be producing more heat, due mainly to decreased efficiency at the higher rpm. It is the efficiency change which determines how much more heat is generated. Without knowing what it is, we're all just guessing, however I don't think the difference between 2500 and 3000 would be more than around 20%, meaning that MAP is still the main factor in heat generation... Which is why i disagree with "Pre 4.11 engine temps were effected more by manifold pressure than by engine RPMs or mixture settings, which simply is not realistic at all.".

Does anyone have an efficiency (or BSFC) chart for one of these aero engines?

[Crumpp]

Does the manual state what the prop setting should be during manoeuvering?

The maximum propeller setting is 3000 rpm with a "momentary" allowance of 3600 rpm in a dive. The lower the rpm, the higher the manifold pressure will be to produce the same power. That means it is easier to reach the limits of the green arc on the manifold pressure gauge.

Most of the WWII vets I have talked too rarely used any boost system. They just did not have time for most combats as it was over too quickly and they were too busy during it to worry about a boost system. The most common engine setting these aircraft used in combat is the maximum continuous rating. For the Spitfire I, that is listed as 4 1/2lbs manifold pressure at 2600 rpm. That is the maximum power the engine is designed to produce without damage. That is one very unrealistic aspect of games. It is like turning. In a game, players go around and round making small circles. In real life, the accelerations after a few turns will leave a pilot exhausted and vulnerable.

It is not that hard to adjust your rpm to full fine (maximum rpm). Just remember to correct sequence:

Reducing power - Manifold pressure first then reduce propeller rpm

Increasing power - Propeller rpm first then increase manifold pressure.

Maneuvering - adjust manifold pressure to keep it within acceptable limits.

[-)-MAILMAN-]

Very interesting movie, thanks for that. As it seems, the devs seemed to stick to the actual manual which states 5500ft. It is not unusual to see different sources stating different values, it is hard to make a decision then. In this case, the movie happens to be the only source refering to 8000ft. Both US and British manuals state 5500ft.

As long as you can fly the a/c as per book (and you certainly can as I described above), I don't see any problem.

Specific Engine flight chart Airplane Models F4U-1, FG-1, F3A-1 R-2800-8



Normal Rated (MAX. CONT.) 2550 RPM / 44" MAP / 7000' Critical Altitude WITH RAM / 5,500' Critical Altitude NO RAM / N Blower

Normal Rated (MAX. CONT.) 2550 RPM / 49.5" MAP / 19000' Critical Altitude WITH RAM / 16500' Critical Altitude NO RAM / L Blower

NOrmal Rated (MAX. CONT.) 2550 RPM / 49.5" MAP / 24000' Critical Altitude WITH RAM / 22000 Critical Altitude NO RAM / H Blower

Am I wrong thinking that WITH RAM is what the pre IL2 1946 4.11 engine performance was set to while IL2 1946 4.11 is using NO RAM engine performance. This applies to 4.12m as well?
Could you please explain to me what the difference between WITH RAM and NO RAM? How are each of these conditions acheived? Is WITH RAM the condition when the carburator inlet door is open creating a ram air effect and NO RAM the condition of the carburator inlet door being shut? In the game is it true that when we open/close the radiator this operates the cowl, coolant, oil cooler and carburator air intake flaps/doors simultaneously instead of individually like the real aircraft did?
Thanks in advance for the explanation whoever explains it.

Additional question. Takeoff Power Setting is 5 minutes maximum duration, Military Power Setting is 5 minutes maximum duration, War Emergency Power Settings is 5 minutes maximum duration. In the game we get an engine overheat warning when exceeding normal operating performance at various altitudes. Does the warning in the game come at the 5 minute max duration mark or does the warning come earlier than the 5 minute mark so you had better noted the time you went to military power or war emergency power?