4.11 and Engine Overheat

[EZ1]

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

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

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

[T}{OR]

What propeller pitch settings?

[IceFire]

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

[Kwiatek]

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

[EZ1]

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

[Aviar]

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

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

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

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

Aviar

[FC99]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

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

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

[pupo162]

Originally Posted by FC99

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

THIS pretty much solves all problems.

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

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

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

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by FC99

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

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

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

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

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

Some wrote about P-40 and overheting issue.

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

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

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

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

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

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