4.11 overheat and engine damage test results

[WhistlinggDeath]

Baato, - Okay, just to for your sake, I will again ask nicely then;

Kindly, dear sirs, what 'engineer' (s) made this patch ?

Snake - My server is up from roughly 7 PM to 12 AM PST (Pacific Time -US), Monday thru Friday and sometimes weekends. It is not famous and many dont like it because it is full real, some very hard opponents and most people get their azz shot clean off when they show up (and that includes me as well ). My callsign on Grij is of course WhistlinggDeath, and some special ones I use when I am testing something out.

More folks will likely follow with their historical manuals in tow, but for me, it is bed time gents. GN

[swiss]

Just tried the Yak9U, it overheats just as fast.
Now reminding the Ta is easy to fly while the 9 is one mean SOB, I think is fair enough.

With every patch this game gets a lot more difficult, in the beginning it's always a pita, but once you adapt you'll love it.
It also requires you to constantly change your style. Trust me, you have no idea how p.o. i was when they introduced the 2sec fuses.
Made me switch to BK, today I'm an export on it. Guess I should say; thank you TD.

[jermin]

WD does have a point. MW50 should be able to be running for 10 minutes continuously. After that the engine should rest for at least 5 minutes to prevent potential damage. Then the MW50 can be engaged for another 10 minutes.

All aircrafts equipped with MW50 have the same overheating problem as the TA.

[shauncm]

ok, sorry, i didnt realise that the manual is actually wrong. it seems that in the aircraft guide the coolant and oil temperature gauges are labeled back to front. the left gauge is actually coolant, not oil...sorry!

once i realised that it was the coolant overheating rather than oil, i opened the radiator and backed off on power.

whoops!

when i said fly at zero prop pitch i was talking about the H model with the variable pitch propellor, the C model is different.

[FC99]

Originally Posted by jermin

WD does have a point. MW50 should be able to be running for 10 minutes continuously.

Unless you exceed max RPM allowed. 10 minutes MW50 limit doesn't mean that some of the other limitations will not kick in first( engine or coolant temperature, revs).

For those who judge people by their nationality I can only say that there is more Germans than Russians in DT, ratio is something like 4:1.

FC

[jermin]

No matter what other limitations might be, engines equipped with MW50 should not be damaged within 10 minutes. But try yourself in game, every engine with MW50 enabled will be damaged within 5 minutes, no matter how you fly.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by shauncm

JtD > thanks for taking the time to write all that! i think im starting to see where the difference in flying styles is here.

it seems that both [icefire] and [jtd] fly significantly more horizontal than what whistlinggdeath describes. although you use energy tactics you stay fast. i get the impression that you keep your high yoyo's in a 45 to 60 degree plane of motion, whilst whistlinggdeath makes me think of vertical hammerhead turns when he talks about apex climbs.

icefire and jtd, you seem to fly team versus team.
whistlinggdeath, you seem to duel more.

if you know that there is only one enemy about you can afford to win the fight by holding in the vertical until the last possible moment. on a server with imperfect situational awareness this is risky.

apex climbs and hammerheads seem to be about the worst possible thing to do with an engine. your really slow for a very long time, whilst using high power levels. in a way you are stall fighting. the spitty needed very big radiators to be able to do that.

i also get the impression that you are working different height bands. the air at 20000 feet is 40 degrees celsius colder than at ground level. from what i have read IL2 models outside air temperature effects.

since 4.11 every plane is a little bit slower. there is a greater difference between peak speed and max sustained speed. from playing about offline it seems like both the tempest and spit25 are about 30 to 40 kph slower. speed is life, height is life-insurance but temperature is offensive capability.

i remember a quote;
"The engine is overheating, and so am I. Either we stand down or blow up"
i think that was from a bunch of p51's sitting on the runway waiting to take off. if the p51 overheated at idle on the runway, a power-on minimum speed apex turn is going to get hot real quick.

in a fair match any of you guys could beat me. i win online because im sneaky. i either use stealth or fool people into thinking i pose less of a threat than i actually do. i consider you all far more knowledgeable about the p51 than i am. my personal interest in this thread is because i think il2 is an incredible simulator and i want to see it keep developing. there are some modern 'simulators' that still cant model stalls, spins and sideslips properly.

i guess the questions are;
what changes are we asking for?
what suggestions do we have for the developers with regard to engine temperature?

You're probably right. I would have called it fighting in the vertical but ... some may consider it still a more horizontal flight. I never do hammerheads and high angle maneuvers in a Mustang. I shouldn't say never... usually when I do is when they get me Staying fast is much more important.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by WhistlinggDeath

The link below is for Swiss and Icefire (and others interested). The methodology is simple; I load up 4.11, start the QMB on the Okinawa map, start in the TA 152 H1 at 1000m of height, and fly for exactly one minute (so that the random number generator of 4.11 does not start my engine hot or cold), and then slowly ramp up power from 90% to 110% (all this on auto prop pitch) and put it into a combat dive and then semi-steep climb. I achieve overheat on a brand new fresh engine in ~15 seconds. And I am no where close to the apex of the climb or stalling.

Sorry, WTF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did I just say 15 seconds. Wow !

Load it for yourself:

http://www.mediafire.com/?sy2wk0y2b2d71ca

Now Team A can quote their esoteric figures from historical manual C, while Team B quotes their figures from manual D, but in no manner, shape or form did the TA 152 (or the P51, or the FW or the, etc...) overheat a brand new engine in 15 seconds in a dive.

Now, repeat this simple test for yourselves with the Spits 25lbs. Ya know it is coming right..........

....wait for it.....

NO OVERHEAT in the apex climb portion. NONE. In fact I can do several loops in the Spit 25lbs with nada, nothing happening, while the P51 engine or TA engine is long gone. (they even removed the need in the spits to engage boost, you simply just push your throttle up past 100 percent, ... could it get any simpler for the open pit newbers ?)

And the P51 and late Spits have the same engine right ? The Merlin Rolls Royce thingy, correct? That is why, despite his sound testing in the very first post of this thread, JG27 Papa, did not capture the essential point, I am making: The combat climb portion of the overheat model, which is so essential to BnZ planes (but not to TnB ones) widens an already noticeable gap in favor of the UFO fliers and is by far inaccurately modeled (and incorrectly applied to two planes that use the same engine). Not only that, but the source code changes to the flight models of several FWs, and the TA show several reductions. In particular, the TA 152 has been downgraded, point blank. ...........Who did this patch once again ?

I watched your track and I repeated the same experiment. Basically the same overheat in the Ta152H-1. Mine took longer every time by several seconds but that may be random variability. I repeated the same experiment on some of the colder maps (i.e. Moscow) and it takes quite a bit longer to overheat... I also noticed that the Spitfire's auto radiator opened sooner than the Ta152H. Both overheated but the Spitfire did take longer and was at a much lower speed when it did overheat.

The Spitfire WEP modeling is now correct. It was incorrect before. There is no WEP button in a Spitfire...instead you push the throttle to 100%. After 100% you can engage WEP but it requires breaking a wire on the throttle to push it past that point. The Mustang throttle in IL-2 behaves the same way and always has...the inaccuracy was the Spitfire. It doesn't make it a UFO or a "noob machine". You need to stop talking like this as it reflects poorly on any legitimate points you're bringing up.

You are wrong that the Spitfire (I tested a few different models) does overheat in a climb just like the others. It takes a fair bit longer... that said...repeating the same test in a Ta152H-1 without MW50 boost (so normal WEP) and the Ta152H-1 was able to climb and maneuver without the overheat message much in the same way that the Spitfire did. I did some loops in a Ta152H-1 at 110% (non MW50) and it behaved just like the Spitfire did.

Only when pushing to the maximum and injecting MW50 does it increase the overheat. I also notice that the ATA is quite a bit higher and I wonder if going to 110% WEP in a Spitfire is really equivalent to 110% with MW50 boost. Someone else may know? Certainly on the speed charts the MW50 gives a bigger speed increase from 100% than 110% WEP on a Spitfire or Mustang.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Does anyone here ever been thinking about ... the Fokker DXXI ... for example?

[MrBaato]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

Does anyone here ever been thinking about ... the Fokker DXXI ... for example?

As a Dutchman I fly it all the time and am very grateful for it. I noticed it hasn't been affected at all by the new patch.

In 4.09 it had some weird overrev/overheat charactistics, but it pretty hard to overheat at all since 4.10 (and lets keep it that way )