IL2 109 Emil modelling

[vanir]

Hi. I'm going to start a thread on the topic to draw some attention to it as it really affects the gameplay in IL2 for historic campaigning enthusiasts of the Me-109.

I've posted this at the Ubi forums, but have now realised Oleg has at least visited this one in recent memory.

As it is so far I've used the compare software to confirm my assumptions that at least three out of four Emils modelled in IL2 use the DB-601A-1 engine, which is kind of annoying. Firstly, what then is the point of having four Emils? Secondly it is simply inaccurate in regards to the deployment of Emils during 1941 at which time they still formed a very strong Luftwaffe fighter presence. These aircraft, E-7 and E/N(GM-1) types should have improved performance, notably climb rate and operating rpm. Also the E-4/B should really have the 601Aa engine which has a lower rated altitude and better climb rates and speed at low altitude, for a reduced top speed and climb rates at higher altitude.

What all four Emil models have is the same engine with a slightly higher rated altitude for the E-7/Z presumably to facilitate GM-1 activation at 6.5km. Performance in the E-4/B, notably climb rate is reduced to reflect a heavier take off weight (increased armouring).

Some engine modelling software like Engine Analyzer Pro can clearly show the transformation of the DB-601A-1 to the DB-601Aa through the fitment of a smaller diameter compressor casing (same impeller size), which reduces rated altitude for the benefit of higher outputs at low altitude. There should be far more clear performance differences than are modelled for the Emils.

The listed max.emergency outputs (official documentation) of the 601A-1 are 1100PS (2400rpm) at sea level and 1020PS (2400rpm) at 4500m. It can only be held for a maximum of one minute before a cool down. Normal maximum outputs are 990PS (2400rpm) at sea level and 960PS (2400rpm) at 5000m.

For the 601Aa they are 1175PS (2500rpm) at sea level and 1100PS (2400rpm) at 3700m. Normal maximums are 1045PS (2400rpm) at sea level and 1050PS (2400rpm) at 4100m. As mentioned the smaller supercharger casing meant you ran out of puff lower, even though the same internal size gives the same manifold pressures through the flight envelope.

The DB-601N engine was a tremendous improvement, involving cylinder head and camshaft profile revision in order to increase operating rpm from 2400-2500 to 2600 max. emergency rating. Whilst this would normally increase manifold pressure beyond engine tolerances, the effect of increasing the intake camshaft duration in fact reduced manifold pressure although the net gain is still increased power outputs. This engine was limited to using C2 or C3 high octane fuel, because it runs hotter than a 601A.

Outputs for the 601N are listed as 1175PS (2600rpm) at sea level and 1175PS (2600rpm) at 4900m. This max.emergency rating is believed to be historically increased for a five minute use before cool down. The normal maximums are 1020PS (2400rpm) at sea level and 1050PS (2400rpm) at 4850m.

One particularly annoying part of the E-7/Z model which definitely uses the 601N is that its operating engine speed is not increased at max.emergency/take off power to reflect the change from the 601A. This is not historical, although for the E-7/B it might be argued that many E-7 airframes were simply modified E-4/B types with the 601A engine, which is historical (similarly many E-4 aircraft were fitted with 601Aa engines and a some were fitted with 601N engines and left otherwise unchanged). The point is the E-7/Z model describes the Luftwaffe Me-109E/N(GM-1) aircraft, which most assuredly uses the 601N, of which all produced without exception, have a 2600rpm maximum take off and emergency setting.

An important point is that the 601N received a new supercharger when fitted to the 109F series airframe, which restored some of its lost manifold pressure and increased maximum output to 1200PS for take off.

According to another documented source these maximum emergency restrictions were removed during 1941, so that any 601 could use maximum emergency ratings until overheating occured. There was no longer a one minute or five minute maximum use restriction.

The later 601E of the Friedrich returned to B4 fuel use, but refined the modifications of the 601N "hotrod" engine to produce even more power. But that doesn't immediately concern discussion of the Emils modelled in IL2. The other Messerschmitt 109's may possibly be improved with more modelling attention to fine engineering details, but they certainly don't cry out for it as much as the Emil models.

PLEASE OH GOD OLEG REMODEL THE PERFORMANCE OF THE EMILS.

I'd say that about covers my sentiments.
I'm an engine enthusiast, IL2 is accurate enough in every other respect for me, but I like flight sims for the realistic engine modelling.

Thank you for your time.

[Feuerfalke]

I'm sorry to bring you the news, but work on IL2 has stopped over a year ago.

[vanir]

That is indeed a sad advisory, since for 1941-45 (or '46) campaigning we will be living with the il2 simulator for a few years to come.

Another saddening point is that I like the value of il2 as an instructional tool. Any combat flight sim with as many detailed flyables as this, and a reasonably good record for historical voracity is prone to such a position which could both help credibility and sales of the SOW series forthcoming, and also continue 1946 sales which is presently a late-2007 gaming/flight simulator system and thus must be considered current for the year 2008.

Lastly the modifications required to enjoy full historical voracity of the Emil series modelled in il2 are relatively minor and could easily be incorporated in the forthcoming v4.09m full patch. It is simply a matter of adjusting climb rates and maximum speeds versus altitude between the E-4 (601A-1), E-4/B (601Aa) and E-7 and E/N(GM-1) models (601N).

Hence I nevertheless wished to attempt maximum attention to the subject being that the 4.09 version is still in the Beta stage as we speak.

I've tried placing the topic as a question which hopefully could be put to Oleg for his next visit by the site administrators. All the research I've done only slightly challenges any other flyable model and the overall quality of the game is quite near definitive in the realm of flight sims for WW2 aircraft in general.

I mean say I want to fly for JG 77 on the new Bessarabia map (or Rumania for that matter)? I'm stuck with a September 1940 era E-4 when I should be in an E-7 or an E/N(GM-1). It's as if I've just got straight E-4's with 601A-1 engines to choose from and a bunch of equipment options, instead of what I should be flying.

You might as well just drop the Emil from il2 altogether, because as it stands it is Friedrich or nothing, the older Emils were pre-eminently used for conversion training by this stage and there is only the cosmetic representation of something in between. Not very exciting for a combat flight sim, where accurate model performance is paramount.

Plus according to my family the E/N was big news in Germany at the time.

[Former_Older]

Vanir-

how are you determining engine performance for each variant? By what the sim documents in the aircraft viewer?

[Fearfactor]

Originally Posted by Former_Older

Vanir-

how are you determining engine performance for each variant? By what the sim documents in the aircraft viewer?

It don't matter Chuck, the fact is that 4.09 will not have any aircraft adjustments, let alone new aircraft.
Oleg and his cronies are working solely on SoW. There is no need to debate this. No changes to the Emil ( however nice it would be ) will be forthcoming.
4.09 is only third-party added maps and objects and such.

[vanir]

Originally Posted by Former_Older

Vanir-

how are you determining engine performance for each variant? By what the sim documents in the aircraft viewer?

This is the best way to explain it:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=t...256#4051056256

[DKoor]

Originally Posted by Former_Older

Vanir-

how are you determining engine performance for each variant? By what the sim documents in the aircraft viewer?

[Former_Older]

Originally Posted by vanir

This is the best way to explain it:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=t...256#4051056256

I apologize for the late reply. My old PC committed suicide and I've just now gotten a replacement up and running

You are misunderstanding me, I think. I am an amateur engine builder, myself. "Amateur" as in : I don't get paid to do it, not as in "I can't rebuild a Chevy 350 without a video tutorial and an assistant" I am not a master mechanic, but I am a competent one nonetheless

I am not asking about how one determines volumetric efficiency and can enhance power-generating principles in an internal combustion engine, or how one can simulate engine output with PC programs to determine ratings for horsepower.

I am asking: how do you determine in the simulation that each engine has the correct available power. It seems to me that you may be over-complicating. The sim does not model every valve, every coupling, every octane fuel, every reduction gear and every supercharger impeller

So I am curious as to how you are determining that the engines you are talking about are producing incorrect power

I am 100% willing to agree with you that they are; however, the method you are using to come to this conclusion is not clear to me so I am asking about how you've reached this conclusion- what was your method for determining the engines in the sim are incorrect

Dkoor is laughing, incidentally, because of my mention of the Aircraft Viewer. It's something of a mild joke, the aircraft viewer. Some people don't realize this, and they think that what's in the aircraft viewer is precisely fact as far as the sim goes. Perhaps it even was at one time, but as the sim was patched and updated, the aircraft viewer was neglected and not updated

[Former_Older]

Originally Posted by Fearfactor

It don't matter Chuck, the fact is that 4.09 will not have any aircraft adjustments, let alone new aircraft.
Oleg and his cronies are working solely on SoW. There is no need to debate this. No changes to the Emil ( however nice it would be ) will be forthcoming.
4.09 is only third-party added maps and objects and such.

I'm not debating. I'm asking a question. And I'm asking it because I'm interested in the answer. I'm curious about it, and to me, that's a good enough reason for me to post. Didn't you ever just want to know something, no matter how inconsequential it might turn out to be?

And of course it matters. If Vanir has an issue, the least we can do is try to discuss it. Everyone might end up with a more perfect understanding

[Aviar]

vanir,

May I suggest that you send any relative information directly to 1C. The e-mail address is pf@1c.ru.


Fearfactor,

What you said about 4.09 ("It don't matter Chuck, the fact is that 4.09 will not have any aircraft adjustments, let alone new aircraft.") may not necessarily be true.

I've already found at least one non-documented 'aircraft adjustment' in 4.09.

In any event, it can never hurt to ask. In the past, IL-2 has been termed as 'development closed', and yet those terms were reversed as new add-ons and patches were eventually released.

Aviar