109 engine load vibration

[smokincrater]

G`day

trying to master the 109. When I get into combat the engine gets a vibration in it after volient maneuvers. Engine temps seem to fine thoughout these maneuvers. Vibration disappears after load is removed from the engine. Normally on a real life aircraft the engine mounts or propeller may have been damaged. Any one have any thoughts?

Also when climbing with the rest of the formation I am left for dead yet I am on full noise and full revs also happens with the Heinkel He-111?

Took a video of it.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Keep the oil about 80 or less, water 100. Do not exceed 90 oil and 115 water but it depends on altitude, higher you go the lower the figures... and dont let it go over 2600 rpm and definatley not over 3000 rpm. Also dont keep the Ata over 1.4 for too long.

Sounds to me its the start of an overheat or engine failure. Does it happen usally in a hard climb or when open throttle and boost on? When I leave the ata over 1.4 for a while my 109 will shake sometimes even though temps are fine. Just throttle down to under 1.4

[CaptainDoggles]

I haven't watched the video but with the throttle wide open in a slow, steep climb I get bounced around a noticeable amount.

I think it's just part of the simulation, and also probably an indicator that you're pulling too much AoA.

[SlipBall]

G`day

trying to master the 109. When I get into combat the engine gets a vibration in it after volient maneuvers. Engine temps seem to fine thoughout these maneuvers. Vibration disappears after load is removed from the engine. Normally on a real life aircraft the engine mounts or propeller may have been damaged. Any one have any thoughts?

Also when climbing with the rest of the formation I am left for dead yet I am on full noise and full revs also happens with the Heinkel He-111?

Took a video of it.


I can recommend to apply some steady right rudder to center the ball during your flight. Along with use of the pitch control 1.3 opton, and being careful to not exceed RPM red-line very often.

[smokincrater]

I keep engine temps in the green. Still happens after air combat manuvering. Also flew the Hurrincane dh20-5. Set the unit speed at 250 mph at 12,000 feet. i can only get to just over 200 mph with full boost (6 pounds) and full revs (3000 rpm). According to the Pilots instructions that come with the collectors edition the hurricane should exceed 250 mph at all heights. Me thinks the flight models need some tweaking

[TomcatViP]

You can easily pass the 250mph mark at all height.. But certainly not at +6psi and 3000rpm.

[smokincrater]

In sustained level flight, Tomcat. Even in Lawrence Holland`s `Their Finest Hour` the Hurricane is faster.

[robtek]

No plane reaches max speed with max rpm!
Fly the Hurri at 2650 and be surprised.

[smokincrater]

That`s the rotol airscrew, much more performance than the two speed screw. The two speed of course was fine speed for all operations ( take off, climb and top speed and compression diving) and the course speed for cruising and economy. The two speed is a good 60 mph slower than the constant speed. I must admit I don`t know the difference between the airscrews but one would would think that the two speed in fine speed would be little different for the top speed and climbing(as the aircraft would be optmised for performance)and the real difference would be in the coruse setting where the constant unit would be a lot better for economy and engine life management, considering the mission of the aircraft.

The original aircraft had a fixed wooden unit, the aircraft was a real dog but was brought to life when the aircraft was fitted with the two speed unit and then the constant speed unit.

If anyone has any information about the different airscrews and the difference in performance I would love to know.

[TomcatViP]

OK boys, let me clarify some points here as I see the same error repeated over and over on the forum.

In the 1930's, the plane came from aerodynamics limitation in their race for speed to refined monoplane configuration only limited by their engine's power.

A pilot trained in the 30's was used to deep it's nose to get some airspeed since the available power cld hardly coped with the high drag of the airplane (despite three time the power the bi-planes hardly gained 50% in speed btw 1920 and 1935).

Nowadays, a fighter pilot just slam the throttle and race toward his maximum airplane's Mach as the aerodynamics is much more refined than in the 40's. He will even raise the airplane nose to reach less denser air to increase it's speed !

During the war, most pilot use to dive slightly to get to the max speed available on their type. Just slamming the throttle forward could prove so lengthy that the engine cooling system would hve difficulties reaching it perfectly level (especially in the middle of a mission deep into enemy territory)

Pls view the max speed as the max sustainable speed at level flight (the point at your IAS indicator were the needle will fully stabilize itself after a slight dive). It's way more difficult otherwise. And feel yourself lucky we still not hve any gust model !

Yeah old Il2 FM was ridiculous for some of the planes on that point. Oh and I didn't mention the "refined" model of some of the Mod patch highly promoted here and there ;)

[41Sqn_Banks]

Isn't the maximum level speed shortly after a dive the same as after a acceleration by engine power alone? Once the acceleration induced by the dive is gone the drag will decelerate the aircraft to the same speed.
Of course it will take time to accelerate by engine power and it will take time to decelerate once the dive ended, but luckily we can disable the heat effect and fly unlimited at full power to do the speed tests.

[TomcatViP]

yes it is

[phoenix1963]

OK boys, let me clarify some points here as I see the same error repeated over and over on the forum.

In the 1930's, the plane came from aerodynamics limitation in their race for speed to refined monoplane configuration only limited by their engine's power.


No, top speed in level flight is ALWAYS limited to the point where engine power (and efficiency in getting that power into actual thrust) matches drag, no matter how old the aircraft is.


A pilot trained in the 30's was used to deep it's nose to get some airspeed since the available power cld hardly coped with the high drag of the airplane (despite three time the power the bi-planes hardly gained 50% in speed btw 1920 and 1935).

Nowadays, a fighter pilot just slam the throttle and race toward his maximum airplane's Mach as the aerodynamics is much more refined than in the 40's. He will even raise the airplane nose to reach less denser air to increase it's speed !

No, the modern fighter pilot has less to gain by dipping the nose because the power-to-weight ratio is so much higher now.


During the war, most pilot use to dive slightly to get to the max speed available on their type. Just slamming the throttle forward could prove so lengthy that the engine cooling system would hve difficulties reaching it perfectly level (especially in the middle of a mission deep into enemy territory)

No, any pursuer could slightly dive as well, but it would be an advantage for the aircraft with less increase in drag with speed.



Pls view the max speed as the max sustainable speed at level flight (the point at your IAS indicator were the needle will fully stabilize itself after a slight dive). It's way more difficult otherwise. And feel yourself lucky we still not hve any gust model !

Diving is simply a convenient way of speeding up.

Nothing personal Tomcat, but either you need to read-up about aerodynamics, or you are trolling.

56RAF_phoenix

[TomcatViP]

No, top speed in level flight is ALWAYS limited to the point where engine power (and efficiency in getting that power into actual thrust) matches drag, no matter how old the aircraft is.



No, the modern fighter pilot has less to gain by dipping the nose because the power-to-weight ratio is so much higher now.



No, any pursuer could slightly dive as well, but it would be an advantage for the aircraft with less increase in drag with speed.



Diving is simply a convenient way of speeding up.

Nothing personal Tomcat, but either you need to read-up about aerodynamics, or you are trolling.

56RAF_phoenix

It might be tht you are reading me trought some critism enhancer lens.

1st no : of course didn't say either... it's just way more simple to let the nose drop down : do the math (thrust to weight approx 0.2+ and 1-cos 30=0.2-)

2nd no : if you are going trought transonic flight it's way much easier to do it at alt.

3rd no : I wasn't discussing tht case. But you are true. We hve alrdy discussed tht point elsewhere do I guess right ?

Your conclusion coroborate what I am only saying : it's way more simle to deep the nose than to fight the ctrls and your eng para in a long flat run to max speed.

For the biplan exemple: you can put a wright cyclone on a Spad XIII it won't go much faster... How wait ... the Russians did it in the An2 ;)

So as I said we went from drag limitted plane to Eng pow limmitted monoplanes. But of course it's a comparaison. You don't hve to take me by the word saying tht I declare the monoplanes to be drag free!

[phoenix1963]

I think the underlying point you are trying to make is that the ratio of drag to lift was sharply reduced when monoplanes were introduced. I suspect we can agree on that.

I do find it interesting that the Italian plane designs seem to have got stuck in the early 1930s, British designs got stuck in about 1942, German designs continued to get better, but they couldn't deliver them, while early US designs were BAD but late war ones excellent.

Each country peaked at different times.

A wild generalisation, but interesting.

56RAF_phoenix