PDA

View Full Version : MW50 -Secondary effects were cooling of the engine .


Mustang
03-04-2012, 12:54 PM
1) BF 109 could use full engine power (110%) with MW 50, 10 minutes with MW50 without engine damage.
But the Luftwaffe ONLY, not recommended that.

The pilot could use MW50 more time.. Maximum 20 minutes
It was his choice.

That does not mean, you got engine on fire after 13 minutes.
Ofcourse 15 minutes = cylinder heads developed micro-cracks, But the engine is still operating.


2) A friend uses water methanol in a car.
I can send them pictures of the engine :-P

One Thing... I can assure
It cools the engine

I think I never saw represented in IL2, the effect of the engine cooling for MW 50.
I think ....





MW 50 (Methanol-Wasser 50) was a 50-50 mixture of methanol and water (German: Wasser) that was often sprayed into the supercharger of World War II aircraft engines primarily for its anti-detonant effect, allowing the use of increased boost pressures.

Secondary effects were cooling of the engine and charge cooling. Higher boost was only effective at altitudes below the full-throttle height, where the supercharger could still provide additional boost pressure that was otherwise wasted, while the smaller secondary effects were useful even above that altitude.

MW 50 is something of a misnomer, as it is actually a mixture of three fluids: 50% methanol acting primarily to achieve optimum anti-detonant effect, secondarily as an anti-freeze; 49.5% water; and 0.5% Schutzöl 39, an oil-based anti-corrosion additive.
The similar MW 30 increased the water to 69.5% and decreased methanol to 30%.[1]
This increased the cooling performance[B] but made it easier to freeze, the mixture intended to be used for lower-altitude missions.

EW 30 and EW 50 mixtures also existed, which substituted methanol with ethanol; in emergency, pure water could be used.
The effect of MW 50 injection could be dramatic. Simply turning on the system allowed the engine to pull in more air due to the charge cooling effect, boosting performance by about 100 hp (75 kW) on the BMW 801 and DB 605. However, the MW 50 also allowed the supercharger to be run at much higher boost levels as well, for a combined increase of 500 hp (370 kW).
At sea level, this allowed the 1,600 hp (1,200 kW) engine to run at over 2,000 hp (1,500 kW). MW 50 was fully effective up to about 6,000 m (20,000 ft), above which it added only about 4% extra power, due largely to charge cooling.

[B]The increased power could be used for a maximum of 10 minutes at a time, much like the American war emergency power setting for their own aircraft, with at least five minutes between each application.[2]
Aircraft generally carried enough MW 50 for about two ten-minute periods of use, allowing them to increase their climb rate and level speed in combat for interception missions. Fittings for MW 50 first appeared on the BMW 801D in 1942, but it never went into production for this engine because the cylinder heads developed micro-cracks when MW 50 was used. Instead, the DB 605-engined later versions of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 were fitted with an MW 50 injection system, beginning in early 1944. Later engine designs all included the fittings as well, notably the Junkers Jumo 213, which relied on it to reduce non-boosted performance and tune the supercharger for higher altitudes.

MW 50 was not the only charge cooling system to be used by the Germans. Some engines dedicated to high altitude included an intercooler instead, as they would be needing the cooling for longer periods of time.
The 801D also included the ability to spray gasoline into the supercharger[2] (the Erhöhte Notleistung [Increased Emergency Performance] system), in place of the MW 50. While this was not as effective, it did increase boost without the complexity of the additional tanking and plumbing. Additionally, many of the late-war engines also included a system for high-altitude boost, GM-1, which was intended to add oxygen to the fuel/air mix by injecting nitrous oxide into the supercharger[2] instead of employing higher boost levels.

Due to the cooling effect of the water, aircraft engines can run at much higher manifold pressures without detonating, creating more power. This is the primary advantage of a water injection system when used on an aircraft engine.
The extra weight and complexity added by a water injection system was considered worthwhile for military purposes, while it is usually not considered worthwhile for civil use. The one exception is racing aircraft, which are focused on making a tremendous amount of power for a short time; in this case the disadvantages of a water injection system are less important.




Many water injection systems use a mixture of water and alcohol (approximately 50/50), with trace amounts of water-soluble oil. The water provides the primary cooling effect due to its great density and high heat absorption properties. The alcohol is combustible, and also serves as an antifreeze for the water. The purpose of the oil is to prevent corrosion of water injection and fuel system components. [2] Because the alcohol mixed into the injection solution is often methanol (CH3OH), the system is known as methanol-water injection, or MW50. In the United States, the system is commonly referred to as anti-detonant injection, or ADI.
[edit]Effects

In a piston engine, the initial injection of water cools the fuel-air mixture significantly, which increases its density and hence the amount of mixture that enters the cylinder. The water (if in small liquid droplets) may absorb heat (and lower the pressure) as the charge is compressed, thus reducing compression work.[1] An additional effect comes later during combustion when the water absorbs large amounts of heat as it vaporizes, reducing peak temperature and resultant NOx formation, and reducing the amount of heat energy absorbed into the cylinder walls. This also converts part of combustion energy from the form of heat to the form of pressure. As the water droplets vaporize by absorbing heat, it turns to high pressure steam (water vapor or steam mainly resulted from combustion chemical reaction). The alcohol in the mixture burns, but is also much more resistant to detonation than gasoline. The net result is a higher octane charge that will support very high compression ratios or significant forced induction pressures before onset of detonation.
Fuel economy can be improved with water injection. Depending on the engine, the effect of water injection, with no other modification, like leaning out the mixture, may be quite significant[1] or rather limited and in some cases negligible.
In some cases water may also reduce CO emissions, this might be attributable to the water-gas shift reaction, in which CO and H2O shift to form CO2 and H2.[1] However, water may also increase hydrocarbon emissions, possibly due to an increased quenching layer thickness.
Some degree of control over the water injection is important. It needs to be injected only when the engine is heavily loaded and the throttle is wide open. Otherwise injecting water cools the combustion process unnecessarily and reduces efficiency.

Letum
03-04-2012, 04:57 PM
Due to the cooling effect of the water, aircraft engines can run at much higher manifold pressures without detonating, creating more power.

I think this is wrong.
My understanding is that it's the methanol that causes the engine to run cooler, not the water. The water is just there to prevent the methanol from causing premature detonation.

edit: Looks like I'm wrong.

K_Freddie
03-04-2012, 05:55 PM
Of course this is going to create the Allied whiners club (as compared to the old Luft-Whiners), now that we have a superior booster. :cool:

ahhh! what the hell, ...DT let's do it. ;)

WTE_Galway
03-05-2012, 02:43 AM
I think this is wrong.
My understanding is that it's the methanol that causes the engine to run cooler, not the water. The water is just there to prevent the methanol from causing premature detonation.

edit: Looks like I'm wrong.



Neither will cause the engine itself to run cooler.

The fuel air mix is cooler meaning combustion is cooler and thus detonation is avoided.

Any engine cooling would be negligible, people are just confused.

Crumpp
03-05-2012, 05:14 AM
Mustang,

None of the test of the BMW801D series list "micro-cracks" in the cylinder head as an issue. Where did you get that information from?

The first test in 1941 had an issue with the zinc lining of the tank peeling off. Other than that, Alkohol-Einspritzung was authorized but not adopted because it simply did not deliver the power gains that C3-Einspritzung.

C3-Einspritzung is were fuel was sprayed into the supercharger intake. Its major drawback was thin air made the mixture too rich and the power gains dropped substantially. An altitude restriction of 1Km or below was placed on the system and could be used for two ten minute intervals. The system was fitted to ground attack and bomber variants.

Erhöhte Notleistung in the fighters was just a simple manifold pressure increase and came about because of knock limited performance of the C3 fuel was raised. It did not develop as much power as the other boost systems but did not require heavy additional equipment such as an auxiliary tank. It could only be used once for 10 minutes.

GM-1 was lighter than a turbocharger and offered good power gains at altitude. Its drawback was the altitude restriction and the system was vulnerable to intake icing.

Mustang
03-05-2012, 01:02 PM
The MW50, began to operate at full power.

If Luftwaffe recommended for Bf 109, MW50 ON... for 10 minutes.

I think ..
Then I can fly at full power + MW50, 10 - 12 minutes minimum, without engine damage.

And you can only get that... if you are cooling the engine

That's my point

HundertneunGustav
03-05-2012, 03:13 PM
you said "i think"

and when you say that, you are canceling all your arguments, however good they may be.

Mustang
03-05-2012, 03:46 PM
If Luftwaffe recommended for Bf 109, MW50 ON... for 10 minutes

This is a fact.

Then the BF 109 can fly for 10 minutes full power + MW 50

This is a fact.

And over that time, with risk of overheating and possible engine failure.

This is a fact.

I want see a BF 109 do that in IL2 1946 , and not see the engine on fire.

Only this.

It´s so difficult, see the reality.

:rolleyes:

jameson
03-05-2012, 09:41 PM
Fatcat you have my heartfelt sympathy, having to deal with cut and paste experten. Maybe Gaston will be along shortly, to boldly go where no physics has gone before....

Mustang
03-05-2012, 11:50 PM
I could not understand it.

jameson
03-06-2012, 12:42 AM
Fatcat aka FC99 here is a member of TD. He said on 12th Feb. 2012.

"There will be some changes regarding MW50 in 4.11.1 "

Which we all hope will be with us shortly. Read the thread 4.11 and overheat, page 2, post #15.

jermin
03-06-2012, 01:56 AM
LOL. Oleg built this entire game using what you called cut and paste data.

It sounds as if you have worked on WW2 German fighters for a long time and is a real expert on MW-50 boost system who dare to question historical facts.

I'd like to see some non-cut-and-paste test result from you to prove the historical data was wrong instead of those sour words.

Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk

jameson
03-06-2012, 05:20 AM
If you flew 2x 10 mins @110% with mw50, total flight time would be about 35mins. I rest my case.

jermin
03-06-2012, 05:45 AM
I fail to see the logic here. Please explain.

I'm still waiting for your evidence.

jameson
03-06-2012, 06:43 AM
That you fail to see the logic, makes this exercise a bit pointless really.

Shardur
03-06-2012, 11:59 PM
If you flew 2x 10 mins @110% with mw50, total flight time would be about 35mins. I rest my case.

Poor combat range of the German fighters is a well known fact. However if you are intercepting enemy formations over your own territory 35min of flight time is enough. Nobody says you have to use full engine power for 20min (2x 10min) and if you need more range you shouldn't, but it was historically possible to do so therefore there is no reason why it shouldn't be possible in the game.

Upthair
03-07-2012, 12:15 PM
Someone was trying to behave like a really highly intelligent guy.

HundertneunGustav
03-09-2012, 11:50 AM
flying by the numbers. by the goddamn numbers, and down to the last percentage and second. The numbers, the holy Data.
Thats what FSX is made for...
f'n ell!!

IL2 1946 4.11 (+mods? dare i say?) is a piece of art, so give some tolerance for artistic licence.
The Pilots back then didnt fly be the numbers either.
ridiculous.

WTE_Galway
03-10-2012, 04:09 AM
MW50 is not a magic cure all, it just made up for low octane fuel allowing more power with poor fuels.

How people got the idea it was some magical effect that allowed the pilot ten minutes of totally trashing the engine without damage is beyond me.

If your behaviour is bad for the engine without MW50 engaged such behaviour will be as bad or worse for it with the extra power MW50 provided.

The way some people talk you should be able to park a bf109 with chocks on the ground, run the engine up to full throttle and engage mw50 and then expect the engine to last ten minutes because the "book" said that was the maximum time for mw50.

Sillyness.

Whacker
03-10-2012, 04:45 AM
Here's another idea. How about we try to take all the emotion and armchair mechanicness out of this and try and find some actual sources of data?

I started looking and found this link from the wikipedia DB601 entry: http://www.scribd.com/doc/71362812/1940-Betriebs-und-Wartungsvorschrift-zum-Mercedes-Benz-Flugmotor-DB-601-A-u-B

Can any of our german speaking friends lese through this bitte and then reporten zu backen hier was ist gesayin ist? :cool:

Shardur
03-10-2012, 06:49 AM
Here's another idea. How about we try to take all the emotion and armchair mechanicness out of this and try and find some actual sources of data?

I started looking and found this link from the wikipedia DB601 entry: http://www.scribd.com/doc/71362812/1940-Betriebs-und-Wartungsvorschrift-zum-Mercedes-Benz-Flugmotor-DB-601-A-u-B

Can any of our german speaking friends lese through this bitte and then reporten zu backen hier was ist gesayin ist? :cool:

Very nice find, however this is a manual from 1940 so there is nothing about the MW50 or any other boost system in there.

This is not the same engine that was fitted with the MW50 later. This is the DB-601, the later engine that used the MW50 was the DB-605. This is the engine used for instance on the Bf-109E.

It says about this engine that you should not run the motor in low rpm before the start on the ground for very long (or not at all if possible).

For this engine rpm should never (ever) go higher than 2400.
In a dive rpm should be 2400 but rpm of 2500 are O.K. for 30 seconds or less.

Ladedruckerhöhung (WEP) Power of 1.4 ata at 2400 rpm should not be used for longer than 1min.
Full Power of 1.3 ata at 2400 rpm should not be used for longer than 5min.
Increased Power of 1.23 ata at 2300 rpm should not be used for longer than 30min.
Power of 1.15 ata at 2200 rpm or lower can be used indefinitely.

Whacker
03-10-2012, 08:15 AM
OK, well then what about some of the data here: http://kurfurst.org/#engines

... ? I didn't find any DB605 engine manual scans after some brief searching.

Shardur
03-10-2012, 04:14 PM
Unfortunately on that site is nothing about the MW50 apart from the mention that it is needed for the maximum power setting on some of the engines.

Mustang
03-10-2012, 10:44 PM
Please we must be logic.
And use the brain


BF 109 - Have reserves Water/ methanol for 23 minutes

These boost only operate at full power, like a swich.

The fact is clear.

For the BF 109 the Luftwaffe said, for more than 10 minutes is dangerous for the BF 109 engine.

The fact is clear.

Under 10 minutes, you must use it, for full climb and full disengage, OR COMBAT.

That's as real as
Like Sturmovik was a flying tank.

Mustang
03-10-2012, 10:56 PM
Please we must be logic.
And use the brain


BF 109 - Have reserves Water/ methanol for 23 minutes

These boost only operate at full power, like a swich.

The fact is clear.

For the BF 109 the Luftwaffe said, for more than 10 minutes is dangerous for the BF 109 engine.

The fact is clear.

Under 10 minutes, you must use it, for full climb and full disengage, OR COMBAT.

That's as real as
Like

The 156th Fighter Air Corps of the 4th Air Army was the next unit to receive the La-7 in October 1944. At one point during the month, they had fourteen aircraft simultaneously unserviceable with engine failures.
By 1 January 1945 there were 398 La-7s in front-line service of which 107 were unserviceable with engine failures




THANKS I HAVE LOW RATED FW 190!!!, AND SHORT RANGE MW50 !!


VERY GOOD !!!

EVERY DAY LESS PEOPLE ARE FLYING.

Ask yourself why

Whacker
03-10-2012, 11:46 PM
Great, so pretty much you've got no data to back up your claims. No cited sources but some apparent handy "quotes" from who the hell knows what. Just some random "facts" with no evidence. Also some appeals to reason, which is a great and common debate fallacy. Then to top it off, you toss in an insult at the developers.



........................

HundertneunGustav
03-11-2012, 01:56 AM
i dont see the insult to the devs?
and no...
he does not need to show his sources to please anyone.
much like TD does not have an obligation to show its sources.

you fly what you get, or go mod.

why less and less people fly?
more along the lines:
why more and more old hands leave the banana forums... the atmosphere in here is shafty at best, with red whiners and blue whiners clinging onto numbers instead of flying...
Egoes instead of smiles and relaxed people...

Mustang
03-11-2012, 02:49 AM
Great, so pretty much you've got no data to back up your claims. No cited sources but some apparent handy "quotes" from who the hell knows what. Just some random "facts" with no evidence. Also some appeals to reason, which is a great and common debate fallacy. Then to top it off, you toss in an insult at the developers.



........................

Without copying and pasting...:D

I would like to see an original flight manual of the La 7 or La 5 FN and the "Flight test".

I never saw one.

That's the point.
Ask for evidence ... Over 10 years ... I see little evidence, for many planes.

I do not want insult Realy.
I want to learn.

.

WTE_Galway
03-11-2012, 04:21 AM
Without copying and pasting...:D

I would like to see an original flight manual of the La 7 or La 5 FN and the "Flight test".

I never saw one.

That's the point.
Ask for evidence ... Over 10 years ... I see little evidence, for many planes.

I do not want insult Realy.
I want to learn.

.




http://www.avsimrus.com/f/documents-16/lavochkin-la-5-fn-flight-manual--29518.html

IceFire
03-11-2012, 04:46 AM
You know, away from these forums people are getting on with life and enjoying the game quite a bit. I was having a blast so far this weekend. I don't see fewer and fewer flying... people have said that for years and yet many servers I frequent online are busier than ever.

I've been watching this thread hoping for some interesting information, but aside from the La-5FN manual, I haven't seen much from the personal attacks and people typing (yelling?) in very large print.

It'd be refreshing to have less of the yelling and more positive discussion. IMHO.

Whacker
03-11-2012, 05:48 AM
i dont see the insult to the devs?
and no...

"and you wonder why noone flies any more" is a pretty clear insult.

he does not need to show his sources to please anyone.
much like TD does not have an obligation to show its sources.

Without showing sources all one is doing is complaining. TD doesn't have to show us their sources, which is true. The makers of the game did so under circumstances that aren't available to us and likely never will. That doesn't mean they are wrong at all, or right. But the burden of proof is on the requester, period. Otherwise, it's just someone complaining.

you fly what you get, or go mod.

100% agree. This is why I fly all the major mods, because they all expand on the game and offer different things.

why less and less people fly?
more along the lines:
why more and more old hands leave the banana forums... the atmosphere in here is shafty at best, with red whiners and blue whiners clinging onto numbers instead of flying...
Egoes instead of smiles and relaxed people...

I can't talk to the forums or atmosphere, it's been an interesting combination of laid back and whining and demanding. I think it's ridiculous though that threads like these pop up with someone making grand claims about some historical "fact" (MW50 use for so and so didn't cause the engine to catch fire) without providing any evidence. Without evidence to back up claims and prove that facts are facts, it's just wasted breath and complaining.

So I go back to my original post in here, and what I've seen others say countless times. What HARD data with REFERENCES does anyone have to back up these claims about MW50 operating procedures. "Use the brain" and other nonsense is just that... nonsense.

Without copying and pasting...:D

I would like to see an original flight manual of the La 7 or La 5 FN and the "Flight test".

I never saw one.

Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with your topic here, MW50 operation in the 109's.

That's the point.
Ask for evidence ... Over 10 years ... I see little evidence, for many planes.

I do not want insult Realy.
I want to learn.

.

So you just admitted to being guilty of what you see... Lots of claims with no evidence. But you're still demanding a change based on what you see as factual.

The burden of proof is on you mate. Show us some manufacturer's testing results to show that's how the DB605's really performed in the field when MW50 was used. Show us some surviving pilot's accounts that all match up. Any hard evidence. Anything less is just pointless conjecture, for every "use the brain" "facts" that you can come up with, I can come up with half a dozen other "facts" based on what I think.

I've been watching this thread hoping for some interesting information, but aside from the La-5FN manual, I haven't seen much from the personal attacks and people typing (yelling?) in very large print.

It'd be refreshing to have less of the yelling and more positive discussion. IMHO.

+1

Whacker
03-11-2012, 06:43 AM
Had a sudden epiphany.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29971

Want a change? Great, follow that format. Post some hard data that the devs can look at and go from there. Otherwise, this thread is a pointless exercise.

Shardur
03-11-2012, 07:23 AM
... Show us some manufacturer's testing results to show that's how the DB605's really performed in the field when MW50 was used. ...


OK, well then what about some of the data here: http://kurfurst.org/#engines

... ? I didn't find any DB605 engine manual scans after some brief searching.

Your lower quote actually contains a link with manufacturer engine data on the performance of the DB-605 in various versions. What it does not contain is the info how long the performance can be sustained. So any specifics you want to know apart form that info?

Whacker
03-11-2012, 07:33 AM
Your lower quote actually contains a link with manufacturer engine data on the performance of the DB-605 in various versions. What it does not contain is the info how long the performance can be sustained. So any specifics you want to know apart form that info?

Not me, Mustang is the plaintiff here. My only interest is improving the "realism" of our game by giving TD some potential hard data if there's something to be corrected, hence why I was trying to coax some actual references out of the situation. Beyond that, I'm pretty much over all this.

HundertneunGustav
03-11-2012, 11:24 AM
whacker,

and if mustang is not proving his point about MW50 helping engine cooling, and thus getting a performance increase either in horsepower or maximum length of the WEP thing...

and IF he was a complainer...
or: about people in general that are complaining...

a) Data is Data, and Test Results. Just that. A must-have, a necessity to base Game performance on. If not, This would not be a simulator.

b) recommendations by the Luftwaffle are just that... like rules meant to be broken occasionally.

c) the state of the planes in the field was different than on the test tracks "back home" (note i say "different" - to encompass good and bad elements alike) the point is that in the field, where this simulation takes place, "the Data" can not be followed down to the last fraction of a percent. sometimes, planes are "uber", sometimes a plane "gets the shaft".
implementing the Data in the game works pretty well if you ask me.
zeroes turn on a dime, Mustangs are a handsful to fly, and a thud dives faster than a 2000lbs bomb. I-16 suffer from fuel cut-out, and the stuka is ridiculously slow. its all pretty close to the real thing.

d) red (corsair, Mustang) and blue (109/190) whining alike = game is in balance.

e) you don't like the game... go play with your dog. Or welcome to the SAS and Freemodding and stuff... "do -it-yourself".

in a nutshell, the CAPITAL and BOLD stuff is irrational and useless. Just noise.

about insulting TD...
i guess they need stronger stuff than than
"EVERY DAY LESS PEOPLE ARE FLYING"

Observe:
Every day i see half a Dozen Noobs pop up at the SAS, or old hands come back.
And no matter what the politics says: the Mod stuff is based on the TD stuff.
SO i figure: TD is doing a decent Job.
If it were xxxx, no more mods, no more new noobs.
Online or offline.

"less people are flying" is not an insult.
It is an exclamation that reflects the poster' s emotional state.
This is what it really does mean, in my opinion:
"Every day, i am less motivated to fly"
"every day, i am more frustrated because the holy data does not match my perfect flying"

That is not an insult.
That is path... err... Sad.

;)

There is nothing gained from this topic. Its been discussed, and will continue to be discussed occasionaly. But, as you say: Good try to interpret the numbers by Mustang, but nothing really relevant to be found here.
Thread has turned towards drama and yelling, and.... that' s it.

This topic=

GAME OVER
Credits 0
Please insert coins

Mustang
03-12-2012, 11:00 PM
@WTE_Galway , Thanks ;) Beautiful manual, I will love the plane
@HundertneunGustav, Thanks ;)



My las credit in this forum.... maybe




and as the mixture absorbs heat and vaporizes,
temperatures inside the cylinder are reduced= cooling

2) Can water/meth injection damage my engine?
With most aftermarket parts there's always the possibility of damage, but not if the unit is installed and used properly. As long as the injection system is working properly, it can only do good things. Since the water and methanol will help dissolve carbon buildup, it can keep your spark plugs, valves, and combustion chambers very clean, too.

Read more: http://www.importtuner.com/tech/impp_1101_water_methanol_injection/viewall.html#ixzz1ownDQALK


3) Can you run just water injection without methanol?
Yes, but you will not be able to take advantage of the octane-boosting properties of methanol, thus you will get cooling from the water, but no increase in octane.
Without methanol, you may not make as much power.

Read more: http://www.importtuner.com/tech/impp_1101_water_methanol_injection/viewall.html#ixzz1owmmuqxK


= cooling

I try not to use capital letters for ... but is very dificult ;)
Point 2) and 3) "it can only do good things" ..."thus you will get cooling from the water"

Read more:

http://www.importtuner.com/tech/impp_1101_water_methanol_injection/viewall.html


Ok.
All can close the eyes ??
As usual , no common sense???

I think not.





.

HundertneunGustav
03-12-2012, 11:52 PM
you are trying hard, so
+1 credit for that
:)

yet, a lot of questions remain un-answered.
i know nothing of either cars nor plane engines, so i can only advise to be careful.

a) the system you present is a modern one - differences between modern W/M injection systems and technology from 1942 should, must be studied before claiming "the effect is the same - it cools the engine"

b) are the fluids used chemically the same?

c) how did pilots operate the system? what were their experiences, advantages and drawbacks, dangers?

d) okay, so... lets take it easy. lets say, the engine is cooled. The Db-60x series are a big piece of machinery, so , more specific questions must be figured out.
-what exact part(s) of the engine will lose temperature?
-how much?
-what does that change to engine operation, and how is power output effected?

Because:
uuhhh, ahhhh, modern systems cool the engine, so, in a 109 that means i get -35° temperature loss, and that again means i can have longer MW50 operation...

--> not commonsense, simplification.
and simplification can not be our common goal, or we would be playing Ace combat.
--> common sense is to preserve your engine, because your life depends on it.
--> not closed eyes, no! eyes wide open, and very critical, analytic, observing, asking questions.

Every time you start a flight, you get a perfectly new plane - right? systems are 100% healthy. There is no option to "use the plane from the last flight" - the game does not remember if you respected the manual last time you flew it. if you used MW50 for too long (7 seconds? 2 seconds?) or if you respected the 5 minutes pause (4:55?)

So, by
- misinterpreting engine and boost systems facts,
- and engine manual, and OKL recommendations,
- and 2x10 with 5 min pause could be possibly maybe correct(?)

-> and then getting a new plane for the next flight... that... is cheating.

Recently, TD has taught us to respect the engine, the Hardware:
you pull too many G- you die
you push too many G - you die
you play with the Throttles like a maniac: you die

basically:
You push your plane to the very extreme corner of its possibilities: you die.
Do not do that, or you will die.

so even IF this system could possibly improve performance of the Db-60X powered planes...
you die.

And NOT DYING... is common sense.

Mustang
03-13-2012, 12:35 AM
a) the system you present is a modern one - differences between modern W/M injection systems and technology from 1942 should, must be studied before claiming "the effect is the same - it cools the engine"
Water cools the engine in present and in 1942 ;).
Read my link
You can buy and put Water/ Methanol kit in any engine virtually, with the same results .


b) are the fluids used chemically the same?
"
Yes common wather and common methanol ;)
No secrets here.


d) okay, so... lets take it easy. lets say, the engine is cooled. The Db-60x series are a big piece of machinery, so , more specific questions must be figured out.
-what exact part(s) of the engine will lose temperature?
-how much?
-what does that change to engine operation, and how is power output effected?

The P51 have many problems like this
C.C. Jordan=

I have data that indicates that the
P-51D, measures 48 lbs in a 3g pull. Up to 86 Lbs at
5g's.
The P-47D, OTOH, requires just 16 lbs at 3g and 27 lbs at 5g's.
The testers state that the Mustang was a true "two hander".
Just do something.
If special ignore other things
Thanks to these omissions
My P51 can be turn with the BF 109


Ok forget Mustang Sorry :P




Because:
uuhhh, ahhhh, modern systems cool the engine, so, in a 109 that means i get -35° temperature loss, and that again means i can have longer MW50 operation...

The luftwaffe tell you. The mw 50 not work over 6000 mts, for system freezes.

Every time you start a flight, you get a perfectly new plane - right? systems are 100% healthy. There is no option to "use the plane from the last flight" - the game does not remember if you respected the manual last time you flew it. if you used MW50 for too long (7 seconds? 2 seconds?) or if you respected the 5 minutes pause (4:55?)
Like the others planes have the same.

For MW50.
"it can only do good things. Since the water and methanol will help dissolve carbon buildup, it can keep your spark plugs, valves, and combustion chambers very clean, too!."


basically:
You push your plane to the very extreme corner of its possibilities: you die.
Do not do that, or you will die.

so even IF this system could possibly improve performance of the Db-60X powered planes...
you die.

And NOT DYING... is common sense.


I'll just say one thing

Are debunking current evidence
Of water methanol , Works.

Is a Fact.

RPS69
03-13-2012, 12:50 AM
Maybe the right question to ask TD is:

What would be the right plane attitude, to get the fastest possible climb using MW50 to a maximum of 10 minutes in game without overheating the engine?

Every plane has a best speed of climb, which combines engine cooling capability vs engine power applied vs Prop Pitch. No point on getting up there with an useless plane.

If there is an in game, intended climbing attitude with MW50, and it is better than without it, then the point is closed.

Now, if it is there not, Mustang will have the right to paraphrase Oleg himself with a different engineer nationality... "Do you think Russian engineers were morons?!"

Mustang
03-13-2012, 01:19 AM
Maybe the right question to ask TD is:
. "Do you think Russian engineers were morons?!"

Surely not !
The La 5 its a good plane!

Due to airflow limitations, the engine boost system (Forsazh) could not be used above 2,000 meters .
Stability in all axes was generally good. The authority of the ailerons was deemed exceptional but the rudder was insufficiently powerful at lower speeds.
Horizontal turn time at 1,000 m (3,281 ft) and maximum engine power was 25 seconds.

But I always see things wrong
I try not to use capital letters for ... but is very dificult
;)


I just have a question.
Someone saw the dive test for BF 109... 906 Kms reached without losing the wings.

In IL2 the Bf 109 loose elevator authority at 470 - 530 Kms... and is wrong.

In dive test With little trim
The pilot pulled out dive just using the stick at 850 kms.

About the 86 lbs in the stick at 5g in the Mustang....
Ok forget Mustang Sorry :P



.

WTE_Galway
03-13-2012, 02:05 AM
Surely not !
In dive test With little trim
The pilot pulled out dive just using the stick at 850 kms.

About the 86 lbs in the stick at 5g in the Mustang....
Ok forget Mustang Sorry :P



.



Online play would be far more interesting if we all had to use force-feedback sticks that required historically correct strength to move the controls.

Though I am sure some people would cheat and get their wife or girlfriend to help pull out of dives. Not sure how to avoid that.

BadAim
03-13-2012, 02:23 AM
Can you people not see that this is just one more Whistling Death disciple? All he is doing is blowing smoke up your Butts. He has nothing but the obvious wisdom from on high, and will accept nothing any of you say no matter how logical if it does not agree with the gospel according to WD.

Mustang. STFU. No one cares.

Reason out.

Mustang
03-13-2012, 02:55 AM
All he is doing is blowing smoke up your Butts.

.
I think many are going to stay with you.
I'll stay with the truth
Although many do not like, the truth

Is the year 2012
Physics is the same now and in 1942

"Do you think German engineers were morons?!"

Of course ??

A tank of water methanol for 23 minutes in BF 109.
And the FW 190 D9 has tank of water methanol for 39 minutes.
"But don't use them" ;)

"OK 23 and 39 minutes of Water methanol.. for over over OVERHEAT THE ENGINE.....German engineers were morons?"
Of Course !!!

"We put the water methanol tanks only to add extra weight" :P




The weight of reality is unsustainable

========>

and as the mixture absorbs heat and vaporizes,
temperatures inside the cylinder are reduced= cooling

2) Can water/meth injection damage my engine?
With most aftermarket parts there's always the possibility of damage, but not if the unit is installed and used properly. As long as the injection system is working properly, it can only do good things. Since the water and methanol will help dissolve carbon buildup, it can keep your spark plugs, valves, and combustion chambers very clean, too.

Read more: http://www.importtuner.com/tech/impp_1101_water_methanol_injection/viewall.html#ixzz1ownDQALK


3) Can you run just water injection without methanol?
Yes, but you will not be able to take advantage of the octane-boosting properties of methanol, thus you will get cooling from the water, but no increase in octane.
Without methanol, you may not make as much power.

Read more: http://www.importtuner.com/tech/impp_1101_water_methanol_injection/viewall.html#ixzz1owmmuqxK


= cooling

WTE_Galway
03-13-2012, 06:14 AM
Can you people not see that this is just one more Whistling Death disciple? All he is doing is blowing smoke up your Butts. He has nothing but the obvious wisdom from on high, and will accept nothing any of you say no matter how logical if it does not agree with the gospel according to WD.

Mustang. STFU. No one cares.

Reason out.

The problem seems to be too much time spent on new age "miracle invention" websites trying to sell dodgy water injection kits for cars.

That and a total confusion between cooling the charge/manifold temperatures allowing more boost (and potentially cooling the heads very very slightly) versus cooling the entire engine.

Mustang
03-13-2012, 06:34 AM
In BF 109 and FW 190 D9
YOU HAVE A BIG TANK OF WATHER METHANOL = 23 and 39 minutes of capacity.

They can not be used....
They not cool the engine... you can only get overheat..

The wather methaol works in BF 109 and FW 190 D9 at full power of Throttle.

What is the reason for such large tanks... If you can´t use ?

Now You need to be the magician merlin to use it and dont break the engine at full power?...
You would need change 3 engines...??

The answer is no..

"octane-boosting properties of methanol, and you get cooling from the water"

otherwise...

How you do? for.. to empty a tank of 39 minutes Wather/Mehanol in FW 190 D9 ?

German engineers were morons?!"

;)

Shardur
03-13-2012, 09:15 AM
That and a total confusion between cooling the charge/manifold temperatures allowing more boost (and potentially cooling the heads very very slightly) versus cooling the entire engine.

The combustion chambers in an engine are the main source of heat, so cooling them will in turn actually cool the entire engine.

There was a question raised somewhere earlier if the MW50 actually raises engine power:
as per http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB605_datasheets_DB.html

On the DB-605DB
At 0km altitude usable power is 1430hp without and 1850hp with MW50 (+-2,5%).
At 6km altitude usable power is 1285hp without and 1600hp with MW50 (+-2,5%).
(1800hp at 0km or 1550hp at 6km can also be gained by using better C-3 fuel and no MW50 instead of the lower grade B-4 fuel + MW50)

The DB-605DC engine that is optimized for C-3 fuel generates 2000hp at 0km with the MW50 active and 1800hp at 4.9km. (+-2,5%)

As an engineering student I can also say that systems that worked in the 40s work the same way today and are usually just optimized. We can't change the physical or chemical bases the systems work on, we can only fine tune the systems to take more effect.

Looking at the 109 and its role as a short range interceptor that tried to save wight wherever it could it is highly unlikely that someone would put a 23min tank on it, if it was not possible to use it.

Whacker
03-13-2012, 10:28 AM
The combustion chambers in an engine are the main source of heat, so cooling them will in turn actually cool the entire engine.

There was a question raised somewhere earlier if the MW50 actually raises engine power:
as per http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB605_datasheets_DB.html

On the DB-605DB
At 0km altitude usable power is 1430hp without and 1850hp with MW50 (+-2,5%).
At 6km altitude usable power is 1285hp without and 1600hp with MW50 (+-2,5%).
(1800hp at 0km or 1550hp at 6km can also be gained by using better C-3 fuel and no MW50 instead of the lower grade B-4 fuel + MW50)

The DB-605DC engine that is optimized for C-3 fuel generates 2000hp at 0km with the MW50 active and 1800hp at 4.9km. (+-2,5%)

As an engineering student I can also say that systems that worked in the 40s work the same way today and are usually just optimized. We can't change the physical or chemical bases the systems work on, we can only fine tune the systems to take more effect.

Looking at the 109 and its role as a short range interceptor that tried to save wight wherever it could it is highly unlikely that someone would put a 23min tank on it, if it was not possible to use it.

You need to stop this, because you're doing it wrong! You're actually... *GASP* ... PROVIDING sources!

My german vocab has always been miserable, so I clicked a few links from that page you showed and found this: http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/605D_clearance198.html Scroll down to see the english text where it talks about a P/W source stating the MW50 injection on the G-14 variants was good for 30 min, in 3 10 minute stretches with 3 min in between. If each of the 3 full 10 minute sessions was used in flight, it reduced the engine lifetime by half.

If you can find anything else very specific to Db605 MW50 operation then be sure to post it here with a translation, but the data seems to be pretty clear it's limited to 10 minute sessions with cool down periods.



So to Mustang's original point, "engine on fire after 13 minutes".

He presumes that the reason his engine is on fire is due to heat. One of the most well known side effects of water injection is increasing the overall pressures inside the engine block due to the additional charge increase from the water and additional fuel. While the engine itself may or may not overheat, it does put tons of wear and tear on other parts that aren't as robust, like piston rings, head gaskets, valve seats, etc. Ironically he talked about his "friend" who used NO2 in his car, which is just peachy. I also work on cars and have participated in engine rebuilds and modifications. One of the biggest dangers from NO2 use is blowing out the engine gaskets due to the increased compression and pressures seen as a result. Two can play this "USE THE BRAIN", provide xxxxxxxx examples to prove a point game.

So, as Badaim suggested... we can go back and forth about this as armchair experts, but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is what the manufacturer, pilot, and mechanic wrote down as operational characteristics.

Shardur
03-13-2012, 10:53 AM
... this: http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/605D_clearance198.html Scroll down to see the english text where it talks about a P/W source stating the MW50 injection on the G-14 variants was good for 30 min, in 3 10 minute stretches with 3 min in between. If each of the 3 full 10 minute sessions was used in flight, it reduced the engine lifetime by half...


Thanks, I actually overlooked that part. However you misunderstand a small part of it: It does not reduce engine lifetime but flight endurance, which means that the flight range and time of flight is lower due to the increased fuel consumption at hight power settings. (Of cause none of the military engines of WW2 where created with very long lifetimes in mind anyway so, even if not further lowered, engine lifetime wasn't stellar)
Fuel consumption numbers are actually provided on the page and are for instance for the DB-605DB on maximum power settings 610 l/h plus 180 l/h of MW50 fuel (so a total of 790 l/h). High (climb) power for instance, which is the power setting below the boost setting, only uses 470 l/h.

Mustang
03-13-2012, 01:33 PM
So to Mustang's original point, "engine on fire after 13 minutes".
Later..
I found new information about the MW50, and their effects.
The physics in 2012 are the same as in 1942.



Many are worried about the Engine Life time of BF 109??

The 156th Fighter Air Corps of the 4th Air Army was the next unit to receive the La-7 in October 1944. At one point during the month, they had fourteen aircraft simultaneously unserviceable with engine failures.
By 1 January 1945 there were 398 La-7s in front-line service of which 107 were unserviceable with engine failures

For MW50 ( CH3OH )


Actual Data

3) Can you run just water injection without methanol?
Yes, but you will not be able to take advantage of the octane-boosting properties of methanol, thus you will get cooling from the water, but no increase in octane.
Without methanol, you may not make as much power.




, it can only do good things. Since the water and methanol will help dissolve carbon buildup, it can keep your spark plugs, valves, and combustion chambers very clean, too.

Remember:
and as the mixture absorbs heat and vaporizes, temperatures inside the cylinder are reduced


The combustion chambers in an engine are the main source of heat, so cooling them will in turn actually cool the entire engine.

;)

I like to see in this forum..the futile attempts of

No No No and NOT :D

Mustang
03-13-2012, 04:40 PM
A different system boost known as MW 50 was also used, although GM-1 and MW 50 .....
However, MW-50 was not a nitrous-oxide system, ...
but a Methanol-water injection system, which injected a mixture of methanol and water into the cylinders to cool the mix. Cooling causes the air to become denser, therefore allowing more into each cylinder for a given volume. This is the same principle that intercoolers work on.

I encounter new data in everywhere.
So easy..
All aim to the same point.

.

41Sqn_Banks
03-13-2012, 05:21 PM
Please add the source when you quote something. This also applied when you quote from Wikipedia.

RPS69
03-13-2012, 05:34 PM
I encounter new data in everywhere.
So easy..
All aim to the same point.

.

And do you encounter any data about being polite?

Some irony may be ok, but you really are damaging more your cause than supporting it, with your childish behavior.

At this point, putting you on a ban, will be the sensitive thing to do. Not because of your claims, but on your behaviour.

Shardur
03-13-2012, 06:54 PM
And do you encounter any data about being polite?

Some irony may be ok, but you really are damaging more your cause than supporting it, with your childish behavior.

At this point, putting you on a ban, will be the sensitive thing to do. Not because of your claims, but on your behaviour.

I have to agree. Always ask yourself if what you are about to post is really necessary and provide sources to any claim you are posting, no matter how trivial. Nobody will take your word for any claim, nor should they.

Any post claiming something without sources is a post best not made and will not further any cause.

Any post responding to a claim made without evidence in form of credible sources is a post that just feeds the troll and also does not help the discussion.

I see IL-2 as a real simulator for historical planes and want to see it as accurate as possible. Getting all the data is however a gigantic job and not easily done by the programming team alone. If we all try to act like historians, have a polite discussion and provide sources for historical data, we can help DT to get as much data as possible and to make the game better for everyone.

If however posts look like quotes form a conversation of a few local know-it-alls from the corner pub that argue over a pint or three who is the smartest this discussions won't lead anywhere and DTs time will be better spend not reading in this forum.

Mustang
03-13-2012, 07:55 PM
I quoted many things.

And all quotes are on the same path. ...Water/ methanol = Cooling .

http://www.importtuner.com/tech/impp_1101_water_methanol_injection/viewall.html#ixzz1ownDQALK

At this point, putting you on a ban, will be the sensitive thing to do. Not because of your claims, but on your behaviour.

Lets go...
Ban the truth.

http://www.alcohol-injection.com/en/

DevilsOwn's Benefits Include:

*Increase horsepower safely by 10-15%.
*Lower air temperatures by 50-200+ degrees.
*Decrease cylinder temperatures up to 300 degrees.
*Reduce the effects of heat soak in warmer climates.
*Allows you to safely run more boost and timing.
*Reduces carbon and helps maintain a clean combustion chamber.
*Increases octane at user programmable boost levels.

Give me some credit....

.

Mustang
03-13-2012, 09:13 PM
My respectful question is :

All need a Luftwaffe engineer to explain.. what is posted everywhere for water/methanol systems?

:confused:

.

41Sqn_Banks
03-13-2012, 09:23 PM
How do you know that a cooling effect is not implemented?

Mustang
03-13-2012, 10:07 PM
Was a joke ?

Whacker
03-13-2012, 11:03 PM
Thanks, I actually overlooked that part. However you misunderstand a small part of it: It does not reduce engine lifetime but flight endurance, which means that the flight range and time of flight is lower due to the increased fuel consumption at hight power settings. (Of cause none of the military engines of WW2 where created with very long lifetimes in mind anyway so, even if not further lowered, engine lifetime wasn't stellar)
Fuel consumption numbers are actually provided on the page and are for instance for the DB-605DB on maximum power settings 610 l/h plus 180 l/h of MW50 fuel (so a total of 790 l/h). High (climb) power for instance, which is the power setting below the boost setting, only uses 470 l/h.

Ahh, I see now. Thanks for correcting me there, I read that as endurance == engine lifespan, not flight time.

I have to agree. Always ask yourself if what you are about to post is really necessary and provide sources to any claim you are posting, no matter how trivial. Nobody will take your word for any claim, nor should they.

Any post claiming something without sources is a post best not made and will not further any cause.

Any post responding to a claim made without evidence in form of credible sources is a post that just feeds the troll and also does not help the discussion.

I see IL-2 as a real simulator for historical planes and want to see it as accurate as possible. Getting all the data is however a gigantic job and not easily done by the programming team alone. If we all try to act like historians, have a polite discussion and provide sources for historical data, we can help DT to get as much data as possible and to make the game better for everyone.

If however posts look like quotes form a conversation of a few local know-it-alls from the corner pub that argue over a pint or three who is the smartest this discussions won't lead anywhere and DTs time will be better spend not reading in this forum.

Yeah well, as far as I'm concerned your translations and links from the 109 info site have been the most informative. This topic is basically dead in my eyes, unless you happen to come across something concrete and substantial in the documentation. Would very much be interested if you do.

69th_Dragon
03-13-2012, 11:26 PM
How do you know that a cooling effect is not implemented?

Good question...do you have the answer? I have another,what sources did the designers use to implement the MW50 system into the game? I myself have a tonne of books and manuals on 109's and 190's and they all very from one to the other. One thing I do know as fact is that this was all during wartime and parts,supplies,fuel,political interference there are just too many factors at play to have accurate results on top of the fact that there was a whole bunch of chaos and things blowing up which made for I'm sure a not very good environment for alot of basic field operations.;)

I'm not here to sling mud but I have flown this sim since day one and can only say you all know that we have had to adapt and evolve along with the game from any patch that has come along whether it's good or bad. I would like to see better documentation from TD or anyone else that changes things in the game so when new comers come along or old hands casually return they don't have to sift thru pages of "My computer penis is bigger than yours posts" :rolleyes: Kind of defeats the purpose of community input if one out of every 10 posts contains useful information DIRECTLY RELATED to this sim and the rest is just a fact finding peeing match.

Again not slinging mud at any individual at all,would just like to see less zoo mentality and more info sharing.I try to fly all the time by the book,basically I don't ever see an overheat message because I nurse my plane from startup to when I put it back on the ground.I push the motor to the limits and beyond when I'm in a fight or running away only to keep my virtual life intact.It makes the game fun for me and I'm sure many others flying this way. I really have a hard time believing that these pilots flew around with the throttle firewalled finger on the trigger scanning the skies looking for their next kill marking for the tail,maybe some did but I tend to believe that most spent a lot of their time staring at the photo of the beautiful woman they would like to get home too and not crapping their pants when someone yelled bandits.;)

That being said my question is this.Would a game designer or other person who works on this sim be able to explain in detail how the mw50 system that they have put in this game works so I can fly accordingly? I have always shortly after engine startup turned on the system and left it on during the duration of my flight assuming that it only engages when I throttle past 100% at which time I monitor its use with my clock on panel.I also never engage the system above 6000m. When I say by the book, from a variety of books that I have when they talk about the system it was used very sparingly because of to sum up all accounts there was a war going on and way to many factors were at play and sometimes the chief just told me not to use it today because he didn't get a chance to fix it when I broke it on my last sortie.:shock:

I apologize in advance for any spellin mistakes or grammar cuz I know the grammer police are out there and another apology for this being my first post here and I don't have a signature or pc specs to compare my pc penis with others but believe me it's a lot bigger and better.;):-P

~S~ Dragon

Mustang
03-14-2012, 12:36 AM
The mustang P51 H
Use - water/methanol.


http://www.crazyhorseap.be/Mustangs/History/P-51H/P-51H_02.htm
http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/p51variants/P-51H.php

North American engineers and Rolls Royce Merlin engineers were morons?"
I think not.

The German Luftwaffe increased the horsepower of the Focke-Wulf 190D-9 fighter aircraft from 1776HP to 2240HP using 50/50% water/methanol injection.
The allies soon followed by fitting the P51 Mustang and other high performance aircraft with water/methanol injection.



I think the data I'm looking for are very close,
For the benefits of cooling for water/methanol

BadAim
03-14-2012, 02:47 AM
Wow. I'm utterly blinded by your brilliance Mustang. We're all fools, we should have followed your all seeing omniscience from the beginning, I can't believe that TD does not fall on their faces before you.

You should go immediately and shine your light on more worthy disciples, perhaps at the forums of a much more accurate combat flight sim than this poor sham of an arcade game that does not even deserve your attention, O great master!

Mustang
03-14-2012, 06:15 AM
@BadAim
TD wants to do things right, And them works very hard, I respect them, Really!

1) I never attack anyone in this forum
2) only show realities
3) And I get only harsh words,
4) Is funny ;)
5)Thanks for... "O great master!"

Wow. I'm utterly blinded by your brilliance Mustang. We're all fools,

6) TEN years of development to remove the FW 190 boost.
BadAim .....This answer to you some questions? ;)

?





I saw a thousand discussions about 50 MW in many forums.

And now I find this
"the P51 H use water /methanol system" ;)
And with this the P51 in emergency power get more horsepower and cooling effect on the engine.
Like it or not, Is a fact.

The physics are the same now and in WWII , There is no magic here, only common water and common methanol, and the P51 H use it,.
With equals results in WWII and 2012 year:
Current information, about water methanol systems and their effects.


Which injected a mixture of methanol and water into the cylinders to cool the mix. Cooling causes the air to become denser, therefore allowing more into each cylinder for a given volume. This is the same principle that intercoolers work on.

*Increase horsepower safely by 10-15%.
*Lower air temperatures by 50-200+ degrees.
*Decrease cylinder temperatures up to 300 degrees.

Nobody could show information for denies my "quotes" about water methanol effects ;)

RPS69
03-14-2012, 02:08 PM
Mustang, you have been attacked, but you answered back. That's your mistake.

And believe me, telling another people that they are nuts because they don't see THE truth, is not actually the way to better nothing, unless you are godsend to show mankind the light. And even then, only God will know, but you still have to convince mankind...

And really, in your case God is not going to throw lightning bolts and whatever on miscreants...

So why don't you try to offer the other chick as a more friendly approach?

TD have never appeared here, so which attack is important and which not?

More... everybody that matters here knows that MW50 is a cooling device. That was never the issue.

But even so, the general plane dynamics, need to take into account, in which situations it was meant to be used, and if there was a needed plane attitude...

So, the research is on the actual conditions in which it was engaged, not if the MW50 cooled the engine or not.

But... if you get engaged on low speed combat, with your engine at max revs, and MW50 engaged, I do expect your engine to overheat, because the cooling system in general will have a lowered efficiency.

This same concept applies to the SPits MkII with the 100 octane fuel.
WEP is emergency... not dogfight power...

So... why don't you start again from scratch and do the test of climbing with MW50 engaged and disengaged. And find if there is possible to reach higher altitudes faster with MW50 use, AND without overheating?

Maybe you can come back with a better case.

Mustang
03-14-2012, 03:44 PM
But... if you get engaged on low speed combat, with your engine at max revs, and MW50 engaged, I do expect your engine to overheat, because the cooling system in general will have a lowered efficiency.


Let me explain.

You are in dogfight al low speed...you are in bad combat situation...
and you need emergency power,
You must push the throtle over 100%.

Without Water methanol:
You get some power close to max revs and the engine get overheat maybe soon.



You are in dogfight al low speed,you are in bad combat situation...
and you need emergency power,

You must push the throtle over 100%

With water methanol you get more power, injected a

mixture of methanol and water into the cylinders to cool the mix. Cooling causes the air to become denser.
Increase horsepower safely, Lower air temperatures, and Decrease cylinder temperatures.

Nobody can understand ?

In both situations the engines will overheat.
Without methanol water the engine get overheat more quickly.
I'll go find manuals P 51 H .

But with the injection of wather methanol (MW50) , the overheat takes longer time, you can run saflely 10 minutes, in any condition, that's what says the Luftwaffe.

In 4.11 you can get engine on fire with 10 minutes of MW 50 ON.

41Sqn_Banks
03-14-2012, 03:56 PM
But with the injection of wather methanol (MW50) , the overheat takes longer time, you can run saflely 10 minutes, in any condition, that's what says the Luftwaffe.

No way. Even if MW50 is authorized for a 10 minutes duration the maximum allowed oil and coolant temperatures still apply.

For example Merlin emergency power was authorized for 5 minutes, but the oil and coolant temperature must remain in the specified limits, see: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf

The time limit means that the stress on the engine is that high that it will take considerable damage even without overheat after that time.

Mustang
03-14-2012, 04:17 PM
Each engine is different.

Can you explain me...

The FW 190 D9 had a tank for 39 minutes of water/ methanol.

The water methanol only work in emergency power. this is a fact.
Under 100% of throtle dont work.


The FW 190 D9 had a titanium engine ?

The answer is not the MW 50 (Water/methanol) is coolant mixture, the secondary effect is more horsepowers.

Or German engineers were crazy
And no sense a tank (MW50) for 39 minutes in FW 190 D9... or had a titanium engine?

Could resist 4 uses for 10-minutes?

What is more important for the luftwaffe ?
The damage to the engine or in dogfight the pilot's life?

The Ta 152 had MW50 and GM 1 (nitrous oxide) and can use the 2 together at the same time
The luftwaffe engineers built for the pilot a great fireball for fly ? :P

I see many things that only few can see.
;)

Nobody could prove my "mistakes"
My job is done.
I do not say anything more
Good luck and enjoy the flight, IL2 is a great combat sim.

RPS69
03-14-2012, 05:55 PM
I just tried it a bit. Picked a 190G6/AS and tried to climb with the MW50 at manual's speed.

Very bad results indeed...

But most surprising is that overheat message comes on 80º
Manual states, 85º as safety, 100º as practical limit, 110º engine damage.

Now, I could take big damage on an engine from overheat, but injecting the MW50 doesn't mean overheating the engine, it implies over-pressure. (overreving of it, is prevented by prop pitch)

The only reports about engine damage from MW50 use were micro cracks on piston heads. This could be because of high pressures, and more likely for the fast cooling MW50 could have on piston heads when untimely injected.

But I have never read, nor on books, nor in the web anything about engines taking on fire with MW50 use.

Now, testing a bit more, I get some uncomfortable results, being that climbing with 110% without MW50 is a bit slower, but your engine overheats later...

Something is wrong here gents... and I don't believe that the right solution should be limiting the 109 to 100% throttle when MW50 is not engaged... ;)

zipper
03-14-2012, 06:16 PM
Actually, according to the German test reports I've seen, the power increase due to water ALONE was only about 4%. They did get a temp reduction at the same time but I don't recall the particulars of that so I won't throw out numbers (it was a fair amount but not dramatic). 4% isn't the type of WEP I think is being discussed here, though. Normal max power is achieved when you reach the detonation limit*. Where the real power increase comes from with water injection is extra fuel/air can be fed in until you re-reach the detonation limit. So, now you're starting combustion at about the same cylinder inlet temp as non-water but your peak combustion temp is higher because of the additional fuel/air pumped in with the water.


* rpm + compression ratio raises temp a fixed amount.
a given fuel will detonate in a particular combustion chamber and rpm at a specific temperature.

:D

zipper
03-14-2012, 06:42 PM
By the way, talking about emergency power endurance, the Mig-21bis (it's a jet -lol) had an emergency power rating that was limited to three minutes. That doesn't sound like much, but -if allowed- it could burn through all of it's internal fuel in just over six and a half minutes at that setting. Just about right for a dogfight server, eh?

Mustang
03-15-2012, 12:07 AM
You have a the Mig-21bis...



I have ...Physics of 2012 !!!

http://horsepowercalculators.net/tuner_report/water-injection-enhances-supercharger-performance


Why is this important for cooling ?
"
The first-order phase transitions are those that involve a latent heat . During such a transition, a system either absorbs or releases a fixed (and typically large) amount of energy. During this process, the temperature of the system will stay constant as heat is added.” … read more

Which means that the water or methanol will try to keep the air / fuel mixture at a fixed temperature of 65*C for the methanol phase change, and 100*C for the water phase change, for a long time (until the entire fuel has changed state) while absorbing a very large amount of heat energy out of the compressed air.

Since the air entering into the water/methanol spray’s path (especially with a lack of an intercooler) can be as high as 100*C above ambient (so with an ambient temperature of about 40*C for under hood temps we’re talking about an air inlet temperature of around 140*C in the intake piping).

Once this 140*C air meets the water & methanol mixture both the water and methanol will attempt to bring down the air / fuel mixture down to 100*C (the boiling point of water) and if all the water has vaporized into steam, then further down to 65*C the boiling point of methanol. If both operations are successful then the final temperature of our mixture is 65*C or 25*C above ambient which is great for any intercooler, and even more impressive for a higher octane non-intercooled system like ours relying on water methanol injection.

Now there are two possible applications for water / methanol injection:

1- The typical added cooling application:

a. In this setup, the water / methanol mix is usually mixed in a 50/50 mix of water and methanol.

b. The jetting is usually about 10-15% the total fuel flow of the system:

For example a 300hp four cylinder car needs four 450cc/min fuel injectors to produce that power figure. Our total fuel flow at peak power is 450cc/min 4 = 1800cc/min or 1.8 liters per minute of fuel.

1 gallon is four liters and 1 hour is sixty minutes so our total fuel consumption is equivalent to 27 gallons per hour of fuel (if you were able to stay at peak hp and rpm for a whole hour).

The reason we’re doing this math is that water / methanol jets are rated in gallons per hour.

So 10 to 15% of 27 gallons per hour = 2.7 to 4.05 GPH injection nozzle.

Now remember that 50% of our mixture is methanol, which is a high octane gasoline. So when injection 15% water methanol mixture with 50% of that being methanol, then our final air fuel ration will be richer by 7% or about 1 AFR point. This means that to reach optimum power again and our optimum air fuel ration we need to either increase boost pressure or retune our car to optimize it for the added high octane fuel.

2- Using methanol as a fuel

In light of what we just mentioned about methanol being a fuel, you could possibly use water /methanol injection as a supplementary stand alone high octane fuel system. The trick here is to keep in mind that the amount of water you spray in the system must be controlled to prevent the engine from hydro lock.

So in using water / methanol as a supplemental fuel as well as a cooling agent, limit the water content to 5 to 7% of your fuel injector flow, and compensate for your added fuel demands with methanol.





BUMP!

Zipper You can deny..The result of using water methanol?


Show me yours "quotes"



.

Shardur
03-15-2012, 12:10 AM
I see the main problem with this thread is that one of the main posters, Mustang, seems to have a somewhat low competence in the English language that seems to prevent him form actually discussing anything or properly understanding posts made by other users. The fact that he seems to be unfamiliar with the concept of how to properly present sources complicates the matter further.

To the topic:


This same concept applies to the SPits MkII with the 100 octane fuel.
WEP is emergency... not dogfight power...


I think that the Spitfire is a bad comparison here since its boost does not come from a Water/Methanol injection system but from supercharger air compression. Creating additional boost with the help of a supercharger might be effective, but unlike a water injection does not help with heat management and actually creates a lot of additional heat. This also explains why the RAF recommends the WEP boost to be used only for 5min while the MW50 was recommended by the Luftwaffe to be used for 10min at a time.

Mustang
03-15-2012, 12:25 AM
I hope that someone can understand this :(

And the reason For the FW 190 D9 has tank ( 39 minutes for water/methanol)


http://horsepowercalculators.net/tuner_report/water-injection-enhances-supercharger-performance


Why is this important for cooling ?
"
The first-order phase transitions are those that involve a latent heat . During such a transition, a system either absorbs or releases a fixed (and typically large) amount of energy. During this process, the temperature of the system will stay constant as heat is added.” … read more

Which means that the water or methanol will try to keep the air / fuel mixture at a fixed temperature of 65*C for the methanol phase change, and 100*C for the water phase change, for a long time (until the entire fuel has changed state) while absorbing a very large amount of heat energy out of the compressed air.

Since the air entering into the water/methanol spray’s path (especially with a lack of an intercooler) can be as high as 100*C above ambient (so with an ambient temperature of about 40*C for under hood temps we’re talking about an air inlet temperature of around 140*C in the intake piping).

Once this 140*C air meets the water & methanol mixture both the water and methanol will attempt to bring down the air / fuel mixture down to 100*C (the boiling point of water) and if all the water has vaporized into steam, then further down to 65*C the boiling point of methanol. If both operations are successful then the final temperature of our mixture is 65*C or 25*C above ambient which is great for any intercooler, and even more impressive for a higher octane non-intercooled system like ours relying on water methanol injection.

Now there are two possible applications for water / methanol injection:

1- The typical added cooling application:

a. In this setup, the water / methanol mix is usually mixed in a 50/50 mix of water and methanol.

b. The jetting is usually about 10-15% the total fuel flow of the system:

For example a 300hp four cylinder car needs four 450cc/min fuel injectors to produce that power figure. Our total fuel flow at peak power is 450cc/min 4 = 1800cc/min or 1.8 liters per minute of fuel.

1 gallon is four liters and 1 hour is sixty minutes so our total fuel consumption is equivalent to 27 gallons per hour of fuel (if you were able to stay at peak hp and rpm for a whole hour).

The reason we’re doing this math is that water / methanol jets are rated in gallons per hour.

So 10 to 15% of 27 gallons per hour = 2.7 to 4.05 GPH injection nozzle.

Now remember that 50% of our mixture is methanol, which is a high octane gasoline. So when injection 15% water methanol mixture with 50% of that being methanol, then our final air fuel ration will be richer by 7% or about 1 AFR point. This means that to reach optimum power again and our optimum air fuel ration we need to either increase boost pressure or retune our car to optimize it for the added high octane fuel.

2- Using methanol as a fuel

In light of what we just mentioned about methanol being a fuel, you could possibly use water /methanol injection as a supplementary stand alone high octane fuel system. The trick here is to keep in mind that the amount of water you spray in the system must be controlled to prevent the engine from hydro lock.

So in using water / methanol as a supplemental fuel as well as a cooling agent, limit the water content to 5 to 7% of your fuel injector flow, and compensate for your added fuel demands with methanol.

RPS69
03-15-2012, 02:26 PM
To the topic:

I think that the Spitfire is a bad comparison here since its boost does not come from a Water/Methanol injection system but from supercharger air compression. Creating additional boost with the help of a supercharger might be effective, but unlike a water injection does not help with heat management and actually creates a lot of additional heat. This also explains why the RAF recommends the WEP boost to be used only for 5min while the MW50 was recommended by the Luftwaffe to be used for 10min at a time.

I was doing a comparison in between engine blowing UP.

Still I must agree that the stationary condition must be worst for the Spitfire, since MW50 cools the engine even without movement.

Robo.
03-15-2012, 06:07 PM
But most surprising is that overheat message comes on 80º
Manual states, 85º as safety, 100º as practical limit, 110º engine damage

Oil or Water temperature? ;)

RPS69
03-15-2012, 07:49 PM
Oil or Water temperature? ;)

Funny question! If it was oil, it will be extremely cool!! Actually that will be Normal oil temperature, not the overheat mark.

Mustang
03-15-2012, 09:24 PM
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/db601na.jpg


CONSTRUCTION DB 605: Cylinder barrels of steel are screwed and shrunk into the cast Silium-Gamma-alloy cylinder blocks. These dry liners project beyond block providing attachment by means of threaded rings which pull the liners against the finished face of the crankcase. This feature helped to save the weight of the studs and avoided the possibility of distortion. 3
Two inlet and two exhaust valves per cylinder operated by rocker arms directly from a single camshaft carried upon the head. Stellited valve seats, exhaust valve sodium cooled, ball joints interpose rockers and valve stems.

Forged light-alloy pistons have concave heads, each piston has a floating pin and three compression and two oil-scraper rings with one below the pin. Forked type connecting rods with serrated joints at big ends, roller bearing at big end has three tracks of 24 rollers each. Forked rod is keyed to outside of roller race, plain rod runs on lead-bronze bearing over race.

One piece forged steel crankshaft carried in seven plain lead-bronze bearings. Eight balance weights attached to crank webs, splined forward end to receive splined sleeve of reduction gear pinion.

Deep light alloy crankcase with webs at main bearings, tubular mounting at rear below crankshaft for installation of cannon which can fire through propeller shaft, light top cover.

Centrifugal supercharger on port side of engine driven through a fluid coupling by a shaft at right angles to crankshaft. This shaft is driven through bevel gears from the crankshaft, variation in propeller speed secured through variable filling of fluid coupling by two-stage engine driven pump receiving lubricating oil from the main pressure filter.

First stage delivers oil direct to coupling and second stage delivery is passed in varying proportions between crankcase and coupling by piston valve controlled by a capsule which is sensitive to inlet pressure. Second stage cuts in at approximately 5,000 ft. and full delivery occurs at approximately 11,500 ft.

Butterfly throttle which is capsule controlled regulates supercharger delivery, second throttle which is pilot operated controls air supply to engine and manifold pressure, first throttle subjected to pressure between two throttles, increased boost for take-off controlled by clockwork mechanism, mixture delivered by supercharger to looped manifold by large diameter pipe, dry-sump pressure-feed lubrication, gear type oil pumps, spray of oil directed upon reduction gears, main oil pressure line feeds crankshaft bearings, secondary line feeds supercharger fluid pump.

http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/db601a-1.jpg

Mustang
03-15-2012, 09:59 PM
http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h448/totoloco1/Dibujo-1.jpg


http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h448/totoloco1/Dibujo2.jpg


See de red Lines

;)

HundertneunGustav
03-15-2012, 10:19 PM
what fuel do we have ingame?

Mustang
03-16-2012, 01:00 AM
RPS69=
I just tried it a bit. Picked a 190G6/AS and tried to climb with the MW50 at manual's speed.
Very bad results indeed...
But most surprising is that overheat message comes on 80º
Manual states, 85º as safety, 100º as practical limit, 110º engine damage

Robo=
Oil or Water temperature?

RPS69=
If it was oil, it will be extremely cool!! Actually that will be Normal oil temperature

BF 109 engines uses Oil, The overheat temp for BF 109 is wrong, at the ends something is wrong here gents!


what fuel do we have ingame?

In IL2 , many BF 109 dont reach the speed for C3 fuel usage, and their speed is for B4 fuel.


HundertneunGustav ...Give me time... please;)

I must read many many MANY data.
At the end I found the truth ...Alone!! No one helpme :(


1) Bf 109 MW50 cooling the engine, is a fact



2)***Some BF 109 engines, only can use C3

+With C3 fuel + NO MW50/MW30
And had 110% emergency power OK


3)***Others BF109 engines can use both B4 fuel + MW50/MW30 and C3 fuel NO MW50/MW30

+With B4 fuel + MW50 / MW30.
And had 110% emergency power OK

+With C3 fuel + NO MW50/MW30
And had 110% emergency power OK



4)***And others BF109 can use Both C3 fuel + MW50/MW30 and B4 fuel +MW50/MW30

+With C3 fuel + MW50/MW30
And had 110% emergency power OK

+With B4 fuel + MW50/MW30
And had 110% emergency power OK



http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h448/totoloco1/Sinttulo.jpg


ONLY An example ;), I must read more
I Flight my P51 over Germany Then I encounter BF 109 G14.

The BF 109 G14, is the same plane with diferents setups

A) ***Maybe use only *B4 fuel, and don´t have MW50 methanol supply
Dont have allowed 110% emergency power, dont get cooling from MW50- *Its a easy kill

B) ***Or maybe I encounter G14 uses only C3 fuel and don´t have MW50 methanol supply, He can use 110% emergency power, and get extra power only from C3 fuel, but dont have extra power and cooling effect from MW50.- But this G14 have best performance than "A)".

C) ***Or I can encounter G14 with *B4 fuel + MW50 - He can use 110% of emergency power , and get more power from MW50 and get engine and cooling for 10 minutes. have best performace than "A)" and "B)" - Maybe is a more dificult kill

D) ***Or I encounter a G14 with C3 fuel + MW50, He can use 110% emergency power, and get extra power from C3 fuel , and again get more power from MW50 and get engine cooling for 10 minutes, have best performance than "A)" "B)" "C)"

If C3 fuel is limited, the luftwaffe give the "D)" BF 109 to the best pilots

Then I must call my wingman.

I think...
Is difficult to find performance charts for all these possible situations.




No I can understand

Because Oleg made ​​a "combat simulator" and not make a "flight simulator"



For Cliffs of Dover....
if they will want to simulate the BF 109.. one day
They will go crazy :(





.

Shardur
03-16-2012, 10:43 AM
...
I think...
Is difficult to find performance charts for all these possible situations.
...


This link has been posted a couple of times, but I'll do it one more time so nobody can miss it. All the performance data is here:

http://kurfurst.org/#engines

Robo.
03-16-2012, 03:04 PM
BF 109 engines uses Oil, The overheat temp for BF 109 is wrong, at the ends something is wrong here gents!

Bf 109s had switchable temperature gauges irl, meaning that same instruments could display Water OR inlet Oil temperature. I've been asking RPS69 because he didn't specify which temperatures he ment (as per post No 67) but obviously he was talking about oil temperatures ;)

The limit temperatures for DB 605 ASM in game is 115°C water, 110°C Oil. The only problem with the 109s at the moment is that the switchable gauges are not modelled. Overheat at 80°C displayed might seem wrong but in fact the message is due to water temp being above 115 degrees (which you can't see obviously) by the time oil inlet temp is 80. That's all...

cheers

Mustang
03-16-2012, 04:56 PM
I get some data here

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29526&page=3

Robo
1) Many Thanks for the data Realy ;).
I hope you can understand me, despite my bad English



Personal Opinion Only
I believe that the oil temperature will always be greater than that of water temp, although I think I could justify that...


TD obviously work very hard, but the can not simulate all from the engines and the many fuels subtypes, in IL2 program engine dont allow them.

2) Anyway, I think that could easily simulate the cooling of the cylinders, when water methanol is injected in cylinder chamber. Always Wather and Oil must raises the temp slowly.

3)At the end I dont Know...
How spend a full tank of water 39 minutes of methanol, In the FW 190 D9.
I need be ... magician Merlin for do this in 4.11.
But the German pilots did it in combat.

4)
The limit temperatures for DB 605 ASM in game is 115°C water, 110°C Oil. The only problem with the 109s at the moment is that the switchable gauges are not modelled. Overheat at 80°C displayed might seem wrong but in fact ...


But.. in 4.11
If the pilot does not get all the information from the gauges , and him can not open manualy the water cooler radiator, or him can not measure all information in the cockpit

Why TD, must be so tough ( strict ) about the engines now??
Personal Opinion Only, I do not want to offend anyone, please undertand
But ..they chose the wrong path!
Is the reason of the unreason. , For a flight simulator ?

5)For this reason Oleg make a combat simulator and dont make a flight simulator, or "engine simulator"

I must repeat something is wrong
At the end I dont Know...
How spend a full tank of MW50 -( 39 minutes ), In the FW 190 D9.
I need be ... magician Merlin for do this in 4.11.
But the German pilots did it in combat.

6)At the end thats is the way of the wrong path.


Please undertand, I do not want to offend anyone.
But I must say the true.

Robo.
03-16-2012, 05:41 PM
I get some data here

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29526&page=3

Yeah that's all good regarding BoB, been reading through it as well and I actually contributed with Spitfire and Hurricane fuel system problems in CloD.

The above is regarding Bf 109E which had 2 separate gauges, one for oil and one for water temperature. The oil temp was also switchable between inlet and outlet temperature, but this is not correctly modelled in CloD. This is also the case for Il-2 - oil temp gauge is showing outlet temperature only.

Later 109 models (F-2 - G-14 in Il-2) only have one gauge in game as I explained before. K-4 has got 2 separate instruments again.

Robo
1) Many Thanks for the data Realy ;).
I hope you can understand me, despite my bad English

No worries, I understand.

Personal Opinion Only
I believe that the oil temperature will always be greater than that of water temp, although I think I could justify that...

As per 4.11 guide, water (or CHT) temp is more depending on MFP, oil temp more on your revs. 109s have got no manual prop. pitch (as RPM control) and as I stated above, on automatic PP, water 115 means oil some 80 (that is inlet temp). There are no issues with the 109s regarding temperatures except for the water / oil switchable instrument not being modelled (yet).

I think that could easily simulate the cooling of the cylinders, when water methanol is injected in cylinder chamber. Always Wather and Oil must raises the temp slowly.

As it has been stated before, MW50 will be looked at in the future.

As for the rest, it's matter of opinion. Il-2 is becoming less of a game and more of a sim. You can still disable the new features if you wish.

OberstDanjeje
03-17-2012, 10:31 AM
Anyway the MW50 is wrong modelled in IL2, only the DB605DC engine could use the WEP (I mean 110% power) without MW50, so the Bf109G-10, G-14, G-6 AS can't use 110% power without MW 50, only the K-4 C3 could use 110% power without MW50

Well, I don't sure wich engine the G-10 used in game but I think it used the DB engine, so B4 fuel with MW50.

Mustang
03-17-2012, 08:13 PM
Anyway the MW50 is wrong modelled in IL2, only the DB605DC engine could use the WEP (I mean 110% power) without MW50, so the Bf109G-10, G-14, G-6 AS can't use 110% power without MW 50, only the K-4 C3 could use 110% power without MW50

Well, I don't sure wich engine the G-10 used in game but I think it used the DB engine, so B4 fuel with MW50.
;)



MAYBE IT CAN HELP

1) Only DB605A and DB605AS use only B4 Fuel and dont have MW50 = (G6 - G6/U2 - G6/U4 - G6/U4/AS - G6/AS - G6/U2/AS) , But they can use 110% of power allowed / and optional + GM-1
2)All other BF 109 must be modeled with C3 fuel + MW50- the can use it !!!!
Most of the BF 109 in game, are not modeled for proper performance with C3 or C3+MW50

3)The exepcions are;
DB605 D-2, this engine was not mass produced
And (G14/AS - G14/U4/AS - G10 - G10/U4) they can use B4 + MW50 - 110% of power allowed - and/or C3 + MW50 -110% of power allowed

We have only the "castrated" BF 109 in game, te exeption is BF 109 K4 C3.
Always made ​​the worst choice for modeling the BF 109. ???


http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h448/totoloco1/Engines.jpg
http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h448/totoloco1/Planes.jpg

If someone can show something like this.
For the FW 190 "A" "G" "F" and all its sub-variants with boost
I'll be Very happy!

The BF 109 is difficult to understand
At least all FW 190 use C3 fuel
I think there are many things about FW 190, that can not be easily simplified.
Only I think ...


;)



.

OberstDanjeje
03-18-2012, 09:55 PM
I think this table is a bit wrong, if you read this page,at the table's end you will find this line (for the DB605ASM):

Das Triebwerk Daimler Benz DB 605 ASM entsprach dem Ausgangmuster
DB 605 AS, wurde jedoch im Gegensatz zu diesem Verbesserung der Start-
und Notleistung mit dem Sonderkraftstoff C 3 und zusätzlicher Wasser
Methanol-Einspritzung geflogen (MW 50).


Roughly it say:

The ASM is the sameas the AS but with improved Special Emergency power designed to run with C3 fuel and MW50

The same is for AM engine

Only the DB/DC engine colud use B4 or C3 fuel

DB/DC engine are the same with just a different setting, you can change this setting with simple screwdriver

Mustang
03-19-2012, 04:18 PM
OberstDanjeje

Thanks !

;)

OberstDanjeje
03-19-2012, 07:37 PM
If you PM me I will send you an usefull original DB605 datasheet that cover all the engines.
As I already said all the MW50 equipped (except DB/DC and ASB/ASC) need C3 fuel,them can't run max boost without C3 and MW50.
There is a switch that enable the MW50 when the throttle is 110% open.

Probable SM/ASM could run with B4 and without MW50 but with B4 them are the same as A/AS, less boost, less power.

Clearly is quite strange that an DB605A engine could run it's max boost for 5 minutes when an DB605AM could run it's max boost (it mean with MW50) for 10 minutes.
Probable it mean that with MW50 an engine could endure more time at his max boost ;)

OberstDanjeje
03-21-2012, 12:02 PM
I found an interesting article aboutBf109K-4, C3 and MW50:

http://kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm

NZtyphoon
03-21-2012, 12:34 PM
I found an interesting article aboutBf109K-4, C3 and MW50:

http://kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm

Compare what Kurfürst, a well known obsessive about the "inferiority" of the Spitfire (eg:http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/436339-Quad-Cannons-Spitfire-Mk-Vc-Forums ) says, with the actual article http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html before you go believing everything that's written by Kurfurst.

Mustang
03-21-2012, 01:37 PM
If you PM me I will send you an usefull original DB605 datasheet that cover all the engines.



I send the PM.


;)

Mustang
03-21-2012, 04:15 PM
I found an interesting article aboutBf109K-4, C3 and MW50:

http://kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm


Many Thanks

This explains many things .

Shardur
03-21-2012, 07:05 PM
Compare what Kurfürst, a well known obsessive about the "inferiority" of the Spitfire (eg:http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/436339-Quad-Cannons-Spitfire-Mk-Vc-Forums ) says, with the actual article http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html before you go believing everything that's written by Kurfurst.

After reading both articles I have to say that the Kurfürst article seems to be way better researched. As a German native I can definitely say that the Kurfürst translations are way more accurate.

Whacker
03-21-2012, 08:31 PM
Compare what Kurfürst, a well known obsessive about the "inferiority" of the Spitfire (eg:http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/436339-Quad-Cannons-Spitfire-Mk-Vc-Forums ) says, with the actual article http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html before you go believing everything that's written by Kurfurst.

Err... I was under the impression from multiple, varied sources that the early Spits generally *were* inferior to their chronological counterpart 109's in a number of ways.

As I understand it, Spits always had better turn rates across the board and the 109's were never able to take the lead. The early Merlins were inferior and had fuel starvation problems in negative G situations, there was a band-aid solution that partially worked until several years later it was fixed. All but the earliest 109's had the Kommandogerat device which automated pitch and mixture, most also had automated radiator controls. Later Spits had more automation that worked, and as the war went on they had better armament, the later Merlins and Griffons were on par with or superior to their German counterparts, and the performance gap was finally closed.

WTE_Galway
03-21-2012, 09:32 PM
Compare what Kurfürst, a well known obsessive about the "inferiority" of the Spitfire


Well its not so much inferior, its more that its effete and girly. The Spitfire is far too pretty and only flown by nancy boys and big girls blouses. The Hurri on the other hand, like the 109, is a mans airplane 8-)

Kurfürst
03-22-2012, 10:10 AM
I think this table is a bit wrong, if you read this page,at the table's end you will find this line (for the DB605ASM):

Das Triebwerk Daimler Benz DB 605 ASM entsprach dem Ausgangmuster
DB 605 AS, wurde jedoch im Gegensatz zu diesem Verbesserung der Start-
und Notleistung mit dem Sonderkraftstoff C 3 und zusätzlicher Wasser
Methanol-Einspritzung geflogen (MW 50).


Roughly it say:

The ASM is the sameas the AS but with improved Special Emergency power designed to run with C3 fuel and MW50

The same is for AM engine

Only the DB/DC engine colud use B4 or C3 fuel

DB/DC engine are the same with just a different setting, you can change this setting with simple screwdriver

The AM could use B-4 as well with maximum power (1.7ata), a G-14 MW 50 manual mentions that while C-3 is preferred as normal fuel, its possible to use B-4 in emergency with MW-50. It was more risky than using straight C-3 and MW 50 combo, since any failure in the MW system meant that the engine would immidiately start knocking and self destroy in short order. B-4 alone could not take the compression at 1.7 ata without detonation, while C-3 could. I have not seen a similar manual for the ASM but its a rather safe bet it worked the same, given the minimal difference (supercharger) between the AM and ASM.

Kurfürst
03-22-2012, 10:18 AM
Err... I was under the impression from multiple, varied sources that the early Spits generally *were* inferior to their chronological counterpart 109's in a number of ways.

As I understand it, Spits always had better turn rates across the board and the 109's were never able to take the lead. The early Merlins were inferior and had fuel starvation problems in negative G situations, there was a band-aid solution that partially worked until several years later it was fixed. All but the earliest 109's had the Kommandogerat device which automated pitch and mixture, most also had automated radiator controls. Later Spits had more automation that worked, and as the war went on they had better armament, the later Merlins and Griffons were on par with or superior to their German counterparts, and the performance gap was finally closed.

IMHO the corresponding Marks of the Spitfire were more or less on par with the 109s, ie. Mark I vs 109E, Mark IX vs 109G, Mark XIV vs 109K - the only exception of the Mark V that was a bit inferior to the 109F from the start, and later Mark IX (1943 with the Merlin 66) that took a lead on the contemporary 109G-6.

The problem with not so much with development, but deployment. Even though there were as good Marks of the Spitfire at the same time, they were never entering service as quickly as the newest 109s. Mark Is may have been as good as 109Es, the difference was that all 109s were Emils in 1939/40, while most of the RAF still had Hurricanes and only a handful of Spitfires in comparisons. The Mark IX may have been about as good as the 109F/G in 1942/43, but again the difference was that while all 109 units had 109Gs, most of the RAF Spitfire Squadrons were still flying Mark Vs - even at the start of 1944 the Mark V was the most common Spitfire, just about to be replaced by the Mark Niners but the LW was moving to the next phase of MW boosted 109s and/or AS engines; the Mark XIV may have been as good as the 109K, but it mattered little given that 90% of the RAF Spitfire Squadrons were still flying Mark IXs, which were a bit overhwhelmed in performance by late 1944.

Kurfürst
03-22-2012, 10:20 AM
Many Thanks

This explains many things .

A bit more was added to that subject of 1.98ata 109K (and G-10s! people always seem to forget the G-10 had the same engine and ratings!) here: http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/605D_clearance198.html

There are some new developments in the matter about the role of II/JG 11, but essentially the facts remain the same.

As to the question at hand - cooling effects of MW-50 - it can be stated with definite certainty that overheat of coolant should not be a problem at all. We have German datasheets of DB 605A and DB 605AM showing the max. heat transfer data of the engine (how much heat the engine generate to be carried away - max. abzufahrende Waermemenge in German table). The data shows that the 605AM, with MW-50 and operating at max boost, ie. 1.7ata / 1800 HP actually makes less heat than the MW-less DB 605A at 1.3ata / 1310 HP. I don't have that paper on my site yet, only extracts, but I think it was referred above.

Now the 109G's cooling system was effective enough to keep the temperatures down well below safe limits at around 85 Celsius in full power climbs, ei. 1.3ata / 1310 HP, when airflow through the radiators is minimum (the DB 605 manual notes the engine can tolerate around 110 Celsius coolant for 10 minutes). http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G1_messung601e605a/files/blatt10.jpg

As noted above with MW 50 the coolant system had to cope with even less heat. Add to that that high altitude 109s (G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10, K-4) had larger sized oil/coolant radiators fitted. See http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_PBLeistungen/Leistungen_g14u4_am-asm.html

1.) DB 605 AM i = 1,685 mit MW-50
G = 3515 kg
Wasserkühler Fk = 33,6 dm2
Ölkühler Fk = 6,5 dm2
Luftschraube 3 flg. vorhanden als 9-12078

2.) DB 605 ASM i = 1,685 mit MW-50
G = 3550 kg
Wasserkühler Fk = 42.0 dm2
Ölkühler Fk = 8,5 dm2
Luftschraube 3 flg. vorhanden als 9-12159

and http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/Leist_109K_EN.html for 109K

Radiators : Coolant radiators Fk = 36 dm2
Oil cooler Fk = 8.5 "

This seems to be a general weakness in the Il-2 engine - coolant overheating was generally overdone, probably to impose some limit on using max. power or to simulate 'engine wear'. At least I can confirm that for 109s, which as per historical data very unlikely to ever reach maximum limits without closing the radiators completely or something similiarly stupid. The worst thing that can happen is that the coolant radiator flaps open.

MadCat242
03-22-2012, 11:48 AM
IMHO the corresponding Marks of the Spitfire were more or less on par with the 109s, ie. Mark I vs 109E, Mark IX vs 109G, Mark XIV vs 109K - the only exception of the Mark V that was a bit inferior to the 109F from the start, and later Mark IX (1943 with the Merlin 66) that took a lead on the contemporary 109G-6.

The problem with not so much with development, but deployment. Even though there were as good Marks of the Spitfire at the same time, they were never entering service as quickly as the newest 109s. Mark Is may have been as good as 109Es, the difference was that all 109s were Emils in 1939/40, while most of the RAF still had Hurricanes and only a handful of Spitfires in comparisons. The Mark IX may have been about as good as the 109F/G in 1942/43, but again the difference was that while all 109 units had 109Gs, most of the RAF Spitfire Squadrons were still flying Mark Vs - even at the start of 1944 the Mark V was the most common Spitfire, just about to be replaced by the Mark Niners but the LW was moving to the next phase of MW boosted 109s and/or AS engines; the Mark XIV may have been as good as the 109K, but it mattered little given that 90% of the RAF Spitfire Squadrons were still flying Mark IXs, which were a bit overhwhelmed in performance by late 1944.

I dare to say that it was a common thing that outdated planes were still in service although they had already been succeeded by newer versions. According to Eric Membeek's JG 5 chronicles the Jagdgruppen of JG 5 which were operating from Kirkennes/Petsamo used the 109 T in 1941 (which is basicially an Emil). As far as I remember (don't have the book right here) they still had Ts in 1942 and were recieving their first F2 and F4s. In Il-2 you are flying G2s by that time. Dunno when they got their first Gs, prolly in 1943.
And while this Gruppe still had Ts and Fs their neighbour-Gruppe in Stavanger got the 190A in spring/summer of 1942.
I guess that the Luftwaffe had some kind of priority list for upgrades. Those units at the channel (JG 26) were probably on top while the parts of JG5 at the edge of the theatre were down on the bottom.

On the other hand, when the RAF sent their 151st wing to support the VVS at the Murmansk theatre, this wing was equiped with Hurricanes. So in winter '41/42 it was 109Es vs. Hurricanes (once again).
I don't know about the 2nd half of the war and the Reichsverteidigung. I could imagine that the Luftwaffe had more recent planes in their units (cause their losses increased and the old ones were "outphased" this way).

jermin
03-22-2012, 11:49 AM
Very informative, Kurfürst!

Let's hope TD will rectify the MW-50 in the incoming patch.

Mustang
03-22-2012, 04:37 PM
A bit more was added to that subject of 1.98ata 109K (and G-10s! people always seem to forget the G-10 had the same engine and ratings!) here: http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/605D_clearance198.html

There are some new developments in the matter about the role of II/JG 11, but essentially the facts remain the same.

As to the question at hand - cooling effects of MW-50 - it can be stated with definite certainty that overheat of coolant should not be a problem at all. We have German datasheets of DB 605A and DB 605AM showing the max. heat transfer data of the engine (how much heat the engine generate to be carried away - max. abzufahrende Waermemenge in German table). The data shows that the 605AM, with MW-50 and operating at max boost, ie. 1.7ata / 1800 HP actually makes less heat than the MW-less DB 605A at 1.3ata / 1310 HP. I don't have that paper on my site yet, only extracts, but I think it was referred above.

Now the 109G's cooling system was effective enough to keep the temperatures down well below safe limits at around 85 Celsius in full power climbs, ei. 1.3ata / 1310 HP, when airflow through the radiators is minimum (the DB 605 manual notes the engine can tolerate around 110 Celsius coolant for 10 minutes). http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G1_messung601e605a/files/blatt10.jpg

As noted above with MW 50 the coolant system had to cope with even less heat. Add to that that high altitude 109s (G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10, K-4) had larger sized oil/coolant radiators fitted. See http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_PBLeistungen/Leistungen_g14u4_am-asm.html

1.) DB 605 AM i = 1,685 mit MW-50
G = 3515 kg
Wasserkühler Fk = 33,6 dm2
Ölkühler Fk = 6,5 dm2
Luftschraube 3 flg. vorhanden als 9-12078

2.) DB 605 ASM i = 1,685 mit MW-50
G = 3550 kg
Wasserkühler Fk = 42.0 dm2
Ölkühler Fk = 8,5 dm2
Luftschraube 3 flg. vorhanden als 9-12159

and http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/Leist_109K_EN.html for 109K

Radiators : Coolant radiators Fk = 36 dm2
Oil cooler Fk = 8.5 "

This seems to be a general weakness in the Il-2 engine - coolant overheating was generally overdone, probably to impose some limit on using max. power or to simulate 'engine wear'. At least I can confirm that for 109s, which as per historical data very unlikely to ever reach maximum limits without closing the radiators completely or something similiarly stupid. The worst thing that can happen is that the coolant radiator flaps open.

:arrow:
:arrow::arrow:
Very informative, Kurfürst!

Let's hope TD will rectify the MW-50 in the incoming patch.

OberstDanjeje
03-22-2012, 08:02 PM
Thanks Kurfürst, you give us the info we need

Kurfürst
03-23-2012, 12:05 AM
You are welcome and thanks. :) Now that I am home I can find the datasheets I mentioned, I hope the upload system handles them well.

Anyway, these are DB datasheets for the MW50-less DB 605A and the MW boosted 605AM. Otherwise the engines were exactly the same. They give the following data for heat generation (see the middle, 'Abzufuehrende Waermenge' - or something like heat to be transferred/dissipated/carried away)

1) For the 605A (no MW, powering G-1 through G-6) the maximum heat generation was 340 000 kcal/h at the critical altitude, this is understood for 1,3ata / 2600 rpm 30-min output, which is 1250 HP (PS) at 5,8 km.

2) For the 605AM (MW boost, powering the G-14) the maximum heat generation was 345 000 kcal/h at the critical altitude, practically identical, but this is understood for something like 450 HP more produced 1,7ata / 2800 rpm 10-min output, which is 1700 HP (PS) at 4,0 km.

So for all practical purposes, MW cooled the engine enough that coolant system did not have to cope with more heat while generating 1700 PS than when it generated 1250 PS without MW injection. And as the previous post's engine temperatures showed, the 109G coolant system easily coped with the latter even in climb at around 270 kph IAS.

In short, the coolant is very likely next to impossible to reach critical temperature values in the G-14 and its reasonable to say, in any other MW boosted variants, since they had similiar output of 1800 PS, except the 'C-3' 1.98ata K-4/G-10. In addition, the high altitude variants, ie. G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 and K-4 had larger radiators than the previous 109G - see previous posts again)

Oil temperature can be a different matter, since as the data shows the 605A 65 000 kcal/h at 1.3ata while the AM 96 000 kcal/h at 1.7ata. Though here it should be mentioned that the MW boosted 109 typically had larger oil coolers as well (the G-14 is actually the only exception, since in some cases it retained the older oil cooler, the later and high alt models all had larger ones).

I hope the above information is useful for the developers to create an accurate overheat model.

Whacker
03-23-2012, 02:40 AM
Kurfurst, does the documentation say how much heat the larger and smaller size oil radiators could dissipate? Also does it say anything about other engine components not doing well under the increased pressures during MW50 operation (like head gaskets, piston rings, etc)?

Mustang
03-23-2012, 04:15 AM
Kurfurst, does the documentation say how much heat the larger and smaller size oil radiators could dissipate? Also does it say anything about other engine components not doing well under the increased pressures during MW50 operation (like head gaskets, piston rings, etc)?

Many think... the MW50 is like nitrous oxide system
But it is NOT.
Need to change the thoughts
.

In 2012 you can buy and put in your´s Car - Kits (Water methanol)
The engineers say
Sience 2012


Possible applications for water / methanol injection:

1- The typical added cooling application:

a. In this setup, the water / methanol mix is usually mixed in a 50/50 mix of water and methanol.

b. The jetting is usually about 10-15% the total fuel flow of the system:

For example a 300hp four cylinder car needs four 450cc/min fuel injectors to produce that power figure. Our total fuel flow at peak power is 450cc/min 4 = 1800cc/min or 1.8 liters per minute of fuel.

1 gallon is four liters and 1 hour is sixty minutes so our total fuel consumption is equivalent to 27 gallons per hour of fuel (if you were able to stay at peak hp and rpm for a whole hour).

*Water methanol it can only do good things. Since the water and methanol will help dissolve carbon buildup, it can keep your spark plugs, valves, and combustion chambers very clean, too.
*Increase horsepower safely .
*Lower air temperatures by 50-200+ degrees.
*Decrease cylinder temperatures up to 300 degrees.
*Reduce the effects of heat soak in warmer climates.
*Allows you to safely run more boost and timing.
*Reduces carbon and helps maintain a clean combustion chamber.


I think...they dont want have many complaints.
If engineers lie..
You can sue the company, with your lawyer :D


The only thing I know
Luftwaffe said the 10 minutes

And put a tank MW50 for 26 minutes in the BF 109
And put a tank MW50 for 39 minutes in the FW 190 D9

I think the Luftwaffe was studied and analyzed everything.

Like it or not
39 minutes of water methanol .. OMG!

Whacker obviously
All engines at full emergency power will Suffer, ofcourse ;)
Ofcourse all engines

A question...

But about 150 grade fuel for allies
....about other engine components not doing well under the increased pressures during 150 grade fuel operation (like head gaskets, piston rings, etc)?


That's the point now, Not the BF 109.


Offtopic
And no one answered this..

:arrow:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29083&page=11

I was scammed for 9 years in online wars???

For something that is in sight in a flight manual.- :( :( :( :(
???


Sorry for offtopic .

TD has much work to do.
hopefully they have time, and especially patience.

:(

II/JG54_Emil
04-07-2012, 03:56 PM
Thanks to Kurfürst there is finally some written evidence of the old days.

I just want to add an article from Flugzeug Classic from 12/2004, that was passed on from a friend to me.
This article is talking about increasing the power of the FW-190s BMW 801 D engine.
In the article the MW50 testing is explained in detail.

First tests showed:
-Temperature increase was only 7°C
-The charge air intake temperature was reduced by 45°C
-No engine disturbance where witnessed
-Speed increase of 16km/h at 100m
NOT VERY IMPESSSIVE ON THE FOCKE BUT EXPLAINS AND DOCUMENTS THE DECREASE OF ENGINE TEMPERATURE WHEN USING MW-50.


Later performance was increased by injecting C3 named Erhöhte Notleisting (documented since 1943):
-Increasing the manifold pressure
-additional Injection of C3
-below 1000m
-duration 10-15 minutes
-only at Full Throttle at automatic PropPitch
-Speed-Increase was 22km/h at low level and 25km/h at higher altitudes

THIS IS ONLY REFLECTING TEST ON FW-190 SERIES!!!!

The article apparently refers in the very end that very much later MW-50 and C3 injection was used in the later D9 series.



http://oi44.tinypic.com/e7dsnq.jpg

http://oi43.tinypic.com/34tb9fl.jpg

http://oi40.tinypic.com/6p7q60.jpg

http://oi41.tinypic.com/2u9gvoh.jpg

http://oi39.tinypic.com/34smiyv.jpg

http://oi40.tinypic.com/33vltdv.jpg

Crumpp
04-09-2012, 02:31 PM
This article is talking about increasing the power of the FW-190s BMW 801 D engine.

Some interesting developments have occurred in the research of BMW801D series.

What I can definitely state is that NONE of the BMW801 series used Alkohol-Einspritzung operationally outside of limited testing. It was developed, tested, and perfectly feasible but was dumped for systems which produced better results without the weight penalty of Alkohol-Einspritzung.

In a meeting with BMW engineers that occurred in January of 1945 an order to immediately approve an expedient MW installation for the BMW801D series is issued. The engine is authorized for a manifold pressure of 1.8ata @ 2700U/min in the order.

In the meeting, Focke Wulf asks for clarification about which engines are authorized. The BMW801D2 production incorporated almost all of the developments in the BMW801F/E series but they wanted a serial numbered range to put out to the Geschwaders as to which motors to authorized.

The Chief Technical Officer of the Luftwaffe Office became involved and issued clarification that is recorded in his war diary. The BMW801 was tested in flight on an FW-190 at 1.8 ata. It passed endurance and operational trials. An order was scheduled to be issued in February 1945 authorizing all BMW801 series to use 1.8 ata as a straight manifold pressure increase. Technical clarification would be issued to the Geschwaders. This manifold pressure increase brought the motors output to 2400PS.

It specifically state MW is not to be used and this is a straight manifold pressure increase just like Erhöhte Notleisting for fighters.

C3-Einspritzung was not authorized for fighter aircraft. It is a separate system for ground attack variants.

The fighters were given a straight manifold pressure increase to 1.58ata/1.65ata in the 1st/2nd gear supercharger. It was authorized for ONE 10 minute use. It required a stronger fuel pump, E series piston/liners, and pressurized ignition system found on the fighter engines.

How did this occur? The development of C3 fuel was not static. The designation remain C3 but the knock limited performance of the fuel was consistently upgraded. By late 1943 it was equivalent to 100/140 grade on the allied rating scale.

The fighters could also use GM-1 which was tested and authorized. The use of GM-1 was not encouraged by the technical office because of increased risk of intake icing.

jameson
09-07-2012, 02:48 PM
Just came across this 2003 interview with Franz Steigler: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/pilots/stigler/stigler.htm
He talks about MW50 and it's use on the me109.

Did you ever have the GM-1 boost or MW-50 in any of your planes?

Oh yeah, we used it quite often�in combat you know.

How long did it last?

Uhh,you were not allowed to have it at more than 5 min., you know,if you used it 10 minutes, then motor has to come out.

It makes the engine worse?

It wrecks the motor.

And this was for the higher altitude?

Higher,yes.

And at what speed could you get up to?

Oh boy,I don't remember,450 or 500 km.

Like you said, you could only use it for 5 min. otherwise you would burn out the engine. How many 5 min. intervals could you use? Did you have to shut it down for a period of time to let the engine cool?

That's okay.that uh.it didn't matter. You, but you never used it for five minutes, a minute, minute and a half and that's it.

II/JG54_Emil
09-08-2012, 05:53 PM
He seems to be refering to the GM-1 boost, since MW50 was introduced for ground attack a/c.

The interview is great by the way!

jameson
09-09-2012, 08:02 PM
Steigler doesn't make a distinction between them and you seem to be missing the point. He didn't use either for anymore than a minute or ninety seconds. If this is implemented ingame with 10 mins usage permitted and yet another 10mins after 5 mins cooling of the engine as some seem to be hoping for, then TD may as well not bother doing it as it'll be just as historically inaccurate, usage wise, as what we have now. I hope there are penalities for it's overuse, together with heavy vibration modelled in cockpit view when used, (Spitfires as well, from the BOB era, shook like crazy when the throttle was pushed through the gate :). Barely functioning engine sounding like bag of spanners after more than 5 mins usage with random engine failure as well would be good IMHO, and I'm a 109 flyer.

Shardur
09-10-2012, 01:42 PM
The GM-1 is a nitrous oxide (laughing gas) injection that DOES NOT cool the engine, while the MW50 is a 50:50 Water-Methanol injection that DOES cool the engine.

A distinction between the two systems has to be made always and performance in the game should be influenced by technical specs rather than the 60 year old memories of an old man, no matter how good of a pilot he once was.