4.11 and Engine Overheat

[Arrow]

Originally Posted by greybeard1

REALLY?



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

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

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

Regards,
GB

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

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by greybeard1

REALLY?



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

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

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

Regards,
GB

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

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

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

[greybeard1]

Originally Posted by Arrow

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

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

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

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

GB

[greybeard1]

Originally Posted by Treetop64

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

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

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

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

GB

[Arrow]

Originally Posted by greybeard1

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



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

GB

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

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by greybeard1

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

Sure. That's very convincing.

[WTE_Galway]

meh ... its a game

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

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

[Kittle]

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

[Marak99]

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

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

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

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

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

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Marak99

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure if this is a tip or not but I just had a go to see if my normal technique works and it's unchanged for 4.11.

Basically:

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

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

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