MW50 -Secondary effects were cooling of the engine .
 

1) BF 109 could use full engine power (110%) with MW 50, 10 minutes with MW50 without engine damage.
But the Luftwaffe ONLY, not recommended that.

The pilot could use MW50 more time.. Maximum 20 minutes
It was his choice.

That does not mean, you got engine on fire after 13 minutes.
Ofcourse 15 minutes = cylinder heads developed micro-cracks, But the engine is still operating.


2) A friend uses water methanol in a car.
I can send them pictures of the engine :-P

One Thing... I can assure
It cools the engine

I think I never saw represented in IL2, the effect of the engine cooling for MW 50.
I think ....

I think this is wrong.
My understanding is that it's the methanol that causes the engine to run cooler, not the water. The water is just there to prevent the methanol from causing premature detonation.

edit: Looks like I'm wrong.

Of course this is going to create the Allied whiners club (as compared to the old Luft-Whiners), now that we have a superior booster. :cool:

ahhh! what the hell, ...DT let's do it. ;)

Neither will cause the engine itself to run cooler.

The fuel air mix is cooler meaning combustion is cooler and thus detonation is avoided.

Any engine cooling would be negligible, people are just confused.

Mustang,

None of the test of the BMW801D series list "micro-cracks" in the cylinder head as an issue. Where did you get that information from?

The first test in 1941 had an issue with the zinc lining of the tank peeling off. Other than that, Alkohol-Einspritzung was authorized but not adopted because it simply did not deliver the power gains that C3-Einspritzung.

C3-Einspritzung is were fuel was sprayed into the supercharger intake. Its major drawback was thin air made the mixture too rich and the power gains dropped substantially. An altitude restriction of 1Km or below was placed on the system and could be used for two ten minute intervals. The system was fitted to ground attack and bomber variants.

Erhöhte Notleistung in the fighters was just a simple manifold pressure increase and came about because of knock limited performance of the C3 fuel was raised. It did not develop as much power as the other boost systems but did not require heavy additional equipment such as an auxiliary tank. It could only be used once for 10 minutes.

GM-1 was lighter than a turbocharger and offered good power gains at altitude. Its drawback was the altitude restriction and the system was vulnerable to intake icing.

The MW50, began to operate at full power.

If Luftwaffe recommended for Bf 109, MW50 ON... for 10 minutes.

I think ..
Then I can fly at full power + MW50, 10 - 12 minutes minimum, without engine damage.

And you can only get that... if you are cooling the engine

That's my point

you said "i think"

and when you say that, you are canceling all your arguments, however good they may be.

If Luftwaffe recommended for Bf 109, MW50 ON... for 10 minutes

This is a fact.

Then the BF 109 can fly for 10 minutes full power + MW 50

This is a fact.

And over that time, with risk of overheating and possible engine failure.

This is a fact.

I want see a BF 109 do that in IL2 1946 , and not see the engine on fire.

Only this.

It´s so difficult, see the reality.

:rolleyes:

Fatcat you have my heartfelt sympathy, having to deal with cut and paste experten. Maybe Gaston will be along shortly, to boldly go where no physics has gone before....

I could not understand it.

Fatcat aka FC99 here is a member of TD. He said on 12th Feb. 2012.

"There will be some changes regarding MW50 in 4.11.1 "

Which we all hope will be with us shortly. Read the thread 4.11 and overheat, page 2, post #15.

LOL. Oleg built this entire game using what you called cut and paste data.

It sounds as if you have worked on WW2 German fighters for a long time and is a real expert on MW-50 boost system who dare to question historical facts.

I'd like to see some non-cut-and-paste test result from you to prove the historical data was wrong instead of those sour words.

Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk

If you flew 2x 10 mins @110% with mw50, total flight time would be about 35mins. I rest my case.

I fail to see the logic here. Please explain.

I'm still waiting for your evidence.

That you fail to see the logic, makes this exercise a bit pointless really.

Poor combat range of the German fighters is a well known fact. However if you are intercepting enemy formations over your own territory 35min of flight time is enough. Nobody says you have to use full engine power for 20min (2x 10min) and if you need more range you shouldn't, but it was historically possible to do so therefore there is no reason why it shouldn't be possible in the game.

Someone was trying to behave like a really highly intelligent guy.

flying by the numbers. by the goddamn numbers, and down to the last percentage and second. The numbers, the holy Data.
Thats what FSX is made for...
f'n ell!!

IL2 1946 4.11 (+mods? dare i say?) is a piece of art, so give some tolerance for artistic licence.
The Pilots back then didnt fly be the numbers either.
ridiculous.

MW50 is not a magic cure all, it just made up for low octane fuel allowing more power with poor fuels.

How people got the idea it was some magical effect that allowed the pilot ten minutes of totally trashing the engine without damage is beyond me.

If your behaviour is bad for the engine without MW50 engaged such behaviour will be as bad or worse for it with the extra power MW50 provided.

The way some people talk you should be able to park a bf109 with chocks on the ground, run the engine up to full throttle and engage mw50 and then expect the engine to last ten minutes because the "book" said that was the maximum time for mw50.

Sillyness.

Here's another idea. How about we try to take all the emotion and armchair mechanicness out of this and try and find some actual sources of data?

I started looking and found this link from the wikipedia DB601 entry: http://www.scribd.com/doc/71362812/1...r-DB-601-A-u-B

Can any of our german speaking friends lese through this bitte and then reporten zu backen hier was ist gesayin ist? :cool:

Very nice find, however this is a manual from 1940 so there is nothing about the MW50 or any other boost system in there.

This is not the same engine that was fitted with the MW50 later. This is the DB-601, the later engine that used the MW50 was the DB-605. This is the engine used for instance on the Bf-109E.

It says about this engine that you should not run the motor in low rpm before the start on the ground for very long (or not at all if possible).

For this engine rpm should never (ever) go higher than 2400.
In a dive rpm should be 2400 but rpm of 2500 are O.K. for 30 seconds or less.

Ladedruckerhöhung (WEP) Power of 1.4 ata at 2400 rpm should not be used for longer than 1min.
Full Power of 1.3 ata at 2400 rpm should not be used for longer than 5min.
Increased Power of 1.23 ata at 2300 rpm should not be used for longer than 30min.
Power of 1.15 ata at 2200 rpm or lower can be used indefinitely.

OK, well then what about some of the data here: http://kurfurst.org/#engines

... ? I didn't find any DB605 engine manual scans after some brief searching.

Unfortunately on that site is nothing about the MW50 apart from the mention that it is needed for the maximum power setting on some of the engines.

Please we must be logic.
And use the brain


BF 109 - Have reserves Water/ methanol for 23 minutes

These boost only operate at full power, like a swich.

The fact is clear.

For the BF 109 the Luftwaffe said, for more than 10 minutes is dangerous for the BF 109 engine.

The fact is clear.

Under 10 minutes, you must use it, for full climb and full disengage, OR COMBAT.

That's as real as
Like Sturmovik was a flying tank.

Please we must be logic.
And use the brain


BF 109 - Have reserves Water/ methanol for 23 minutes

These boost only operate at full power, like a swich.

The fact is clear.

For the BF 109 the Luftwaffe said, for more than 10 minutes is dangerous for the BF 109 engine.

The fact is clear.

Under 10 minutes, you must use it, for full climb and full disengage, OR COMBAT.

That's as real as
Like



THANKS I HAVE LOW RATED FW 190!!!, AND SHORT RANGE MW50 !!


VERY GOOD !!!

EVERY DAY LESS PEOPLE ARE FLYING.

Ask yourself why

Great, so pretty much you've got no data to back up your claims. No cited sources but some apparent handy "quotes" from who the hell knows what. Just some random "facts" with no evidence. Also some appeals to reason, which is a great and common debate fallacy. Then to top it off, you toss in an insult at the developers.



........................

i dont see the insult to the devs?
and no...
he does not need to show his sources to please anyone.
much like TD does not have an obligation to show its sources.

you fly what you get, or go mod.

why less and less people fly?
more along the lines:
why more and more old hands leave the banana forums... the atmosphere in here is shafty at best, with red whiners and blue whiners clinging onto numbers instead of flying...
Egoes instead of smiles and relaxed people...

Without copying and pasting...:D

I would like to see an original flight manual of the La 7 or La 5 FN and the "Flight test".

I never saw one.

That's the point.
Ask for evidence ... Over 10 years ... I see little evidence, for many planes.

I do not want insult Realy.
I want to learn.

.

http://www.avsimrus.com/f/documents-...al--29518.html

You know, away from these forums people are getting on with life and enjoying the game quite a bit. I was having a blast so far this weekend. I don't see fewer and fewer flying... people have said that for years and yet many servers I frequent online are busier than ever.

I've been watching this thread hoping for some interesting information, but aside from the La-5FN manual, I haven't seen much from the personal attacks and people typing (yelling?) in very large print.

It'd be refreshing to have less of the yelling and more positive discussion. IMHO.

"and you wonder why noone flies any more" is a pretty clear insult.

Without showing sources all one is doing is complaining. TD doesn't have to show us their sources, which is true. The makers of the game did so under circumstances that aren't available to us and likely never will. That doesn't mean they are wrong at all, or right. But the burden of proof is on the requester, period. Otherwise, it's just someone complaining.

100% agree. This is why I fly all the major mods, because they all expand on the game and offer different things.

I can't talk to the forums or atmosphere, it's been an interesting combination of laid back and whining and demanding. I think it's ridiculous though that threads like these pop up with someone making grand claims about some historical "fact" (MW50 use for so and so didn't cause the engine to catch fire) without providing any evidence. Without evidence to back up claims and prove that facts are facts, it's just wasted breath and complaining.

So I go back to my original post in here, and what I've seen others say countless times. What HARD data with REFERENCES does anyone have to back up these claims about MW50 operating procedures. "Use the brain" and other nonsense is just that... nonsense.

Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with your topic here, MW50 operation in the 109's.

So you just admitted to being guilty of what you see... Lots of claims with no evidence. But you're still demanding a change based on what you see as factual.

The burden of proof is on you mate. Show us some manufacturer's testing results to show that's how the DB605's really performed in the field when MW50 was used. Show us some surviving pilot's accounts that all match up. Any hard evidence. Anything less is just pointless conjecture, for every "use the brain" "facts" that you can come up with, I can come up with half a dozen other "facts" based on what I think.

+1

Had a sudden epiphany.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29971

Want a change? Great, follow that format. Post some hard data that the devs can look at and go from there. Otherwise, this thread is a pointless exercise.

Your lower quote actually contains a link with manufacturer engine data on the performance of the DB-605 in various versions. What it does not contain is the info how long the performance can be sustained. So any specifics you want to know apart form that info?

Not me, Mustang is the plaintiff here. My only interest is improving the "realism" of our game by giving TD some potential hard data if there's something to be corrected, hence why I was trying to coax some actual references out of the situation. Beyond that, I'm pretty much over all this.

whacker,

and if mustang is not proving his point about MW50 helping engine cooling, and thus getting a performance increase either in horsepower or maximum length of the WEP thing...

and IF he was a complainer...
or: about people in general that are complaining...

a) Data is Data, and Test Results. Just that. A must-have, a necessity to base Game performance on. If not, This would not be a simulator.

b) recommendations by the Luftwaffle are just that... like rules meant to be broken occasionally.

c) the state of the planes in the field was different than on the test tracks "back home" (note i say "different" - to encompass good and bad elements alike) the point is that in the field, where this simulation takes place, "the Data" can not be followed down to the last fraction of a percent. sometimes, planes are "uber", sometimes a plane "gets the shaft".
implementing the Data in the game works pretty well if you ask me.
zeroes turn on a dime, Mustangs are a handsful to fly, and a thud dives faster than a 2000lbs bomb. I-16 suffer from fuel cut-out, and the stuka is ridiculously slow. its all pretty close to the real thing.

d) red (corsair, Mustang) and blue (109/190) whining alike = game is in balance.

e) you don't like the game... go play with your dog. Or welcome to the SAS and Freemodding and stuff... "do -it-yourself".

in a nutshell, the CAPITAL and BOLD stuff is irrational and useless. Just noise.

about insulting TD...
i guess they need stronger stuff than than
"EVERY DAY LESS PEOPLE ARE FLYING"

Observe:
Every day i see half a Dozen Noobs pop up at the SAS, or old hands come back.
And no matter what the politics says: the Mod stuff is based on the TD stuff.
SO i figure: TD is doing a decent Job.
If it were xxxx, no more mods, no more new noobs.
Online or offline.

"less people are flying" is not an insult.
It is an exclamation that reflects the poster' s emotional state.
This is what it really does mean, in my opinion:
"Every day, i am less motivated to fly"
"every day, i am more frustrated because the holy data does not match my perfect flying"

That is not an insult.
That is path... err... Sad.

;)

There is nothing gained from this topic. Its been discussed, and will continue to be discussed occasionaly. But, as you say: Good try to interpret the numbers by Mustang, but nothing really relevant to be found here.
Thread has turned towards drama and yelling, and.... that' s it.

This topic=

GAME OVER
Credits 0
Please insert coins

@WTE_Galway , Thanks ;) Beautiful manual, I will love the plane
@HundertneunGustav, Thanks ;)



My las credit in this forum.... maybe




= cooling

I try not to use capital letters for ... but is very dificult ;)
Point 2) and 3) "it can only do good things" ..."thus you will get cooling from the water"

Read more:

http://www.importtuner.com/tech/impp...n/viewall.html


Ok.
All can close the eyes ??
As usual , no common sense???

I think not.





.

you are trying hard, so
+1 credit for that
:)

yet, a lot of questions remain un-answered.
i know nothing of either cars nor plane engines, so i can only advise to be careful.

a) the system you present is a modern one - differences between modern W/M injection systems and technology from 1942 should, must be studied before claiming "the effect is the same - it cools the engine"

b) are the fluids used chemically the same?

c) how did pilots operate the system? what were their experiences, advantages and drawbacks, dangers?

d) okay, so... lets take it easy. lets say, the engine is cooled. The Db-60x series are a big piece of machinery, so , more specific questions must be figured out.
-what exact part(s) of the engine will lose temperature?
-how much?
-what does that change to engine operation, and how is power output effected?

Because:
uuhhh, ahhhh, modern systems cool the engine, so, in a 109 that means i get -35° temperature loss, and that again means i can have longer MW50 operation...

--> not commonsense, simplification.
and simplification can not be our common goal, or we would be playing Ace combat.
--> common sense is to preserve your engine, because your life depends on it.
--> not closed eyes, no! eyes wide open, and very critical, analytic, observing, asking questions.

Every time you start a flight, you get a perfectly new plane - right? systems are 100% healthy. There is no option to "use the plane from the last flight" - the game does not remember if you respected the manual last time you flew it. if you used MW50 for too long (7 seconds? 2 seconds?) or if you respected the 5 minutes pause (4:55?)

So, by
- misinterpreting engine and boost systems facts,
- and engine manual, and OKL recommendations,
- and 2x10 with 5 min pause could be possibly maybe correct(?)

-> and then getting a new plane for the next flight... that... is cheating.

Recently, TD has taught us to respect the engine, the Hardware:
you pull too many G- you die
you push too many G - you die
you play with the Throttles like a maniac: you die

basically:
You push your plane to the very extreme corner of its possibilities: you die.
Do not do that, or you will die.

so even IF this system could possibly improve performance of the Db-60X powered planes...
you die.

And NOT DYING... is common sense.

Water cools the engine in present and in 1942 ;).
Read my link
You can buy and put Water/ Methanol kit in any engine virtually, with the same results .


Yes common wather and common methanol ;)
No secrets here.


The P51 have many problems like this
Just do something.
If special ignore other things
Thanks to these omissions
My P51 can be turn with the BF 109


Ok forget Mustang Sorry :P




The luftwaffe tell you. The mw 50 not work over 6000 mts, for system freezes.

Like the others planes have the same.

For MW50.
"it can only do good things. Since the water and methanol will help dissolve carbon buildup, it can keep your spark plugs, valves, and combustion chambers very clean, too!."



I'll just say one thing

Are debunking current evidence
Of water methanol , Works.

Is a Fact.

Maybe the right question to ask TD is:

What would be the right plane attitude, to get the fastest possible climb using MW50 to a maximum of 10 minutes in game without overheating the engine?

Every plane has a best speed of climb, which combines engine cooling capability vs engine power applied vs Prop Pitch. No point on getting up there with an useless plane.

If there is an in game, intended climbing attitude with MW50, and it is better than without it, then the point is closed.

Now, if it is there not, Mustang will have the right to paraphrase Oleg himself with a different engineer nationality... "Do you think Russian engineers were morons?!"

Surely not !
The La 5 its a good plane!

But I always see things wrong
I try not to use capital letters for ... but is very dificult
;)


I just have a question.
Someone saw the dive test for BF 109... 906 Kms reached without losing the wings.

In IL2 the Bf 109 loose elevator authority at 470 - 530 Kms... and is wrong.

In dive test With little trim
The pilot pulled out dive just using the stick at 850 kms.

About the 86 lbs in the stick at 5g in the Mustang....
Ok forget Mustang Sorry :P



.

Online play would be far more interesting if we all had to use force-feedback sticks that required historically correct strength to move the controls.

Though I am sure some people would cheat and get their wife or girlfriend to help pull out of dives. Not sure how to avoid that.

Can you people not see that this is just one more Whistling Death disciple? All he is doing is blowing smoke up your Butts. He has nothing but the obvious wisdom from on high, and will accept nothing any of you say no matter how logical if it does not agree with the gospel according to WD.

Mustang. STFU. No one cares.

Reason out.

I think many are going to stay with you.
I'll stay with the truth
Although many do not like, the truth

Is the year 2012
Physics is the same now and in 1942

"Do you think German engineers were morons?!"

Of course ??

A tank of water methanol for 23 minutes in BF 109.
And the FW 190 D9 has tank of water methanol for 39 minutes.
"But don't use them" ;)

"OK 23 and 39 minutes of Water methanol.. for over over OVERHEAT THE ENGINE.....German engineers were morons?"
Of Course !!!

"We put the water methanol tanks only to add extra weight" :P




The weight of reality is unsustainable

========>

= cooling

The problem seems to be too much time spent on new age "miracle invention" websites trying to sell dodgy water injection kits for cars.

That and a total confusion between cooling the charge/manifold temperatures allowing more boost (and potentially cooling the heads very very slightly) versus cooling the entire engine.

In BF 109 and FW 190 D9
YOU HAVE A BIG TANK OF WATHER METHANOL = 23 and 39 minutes of capacity.

They can not be used....
They not cool the engine... you can only get overheat..

The wather methaol works in BF 109 and FW 190 D9 at full power of Throttle.

What is the reason for such large tanks... If you can´t use ?

Now You need to be the magician merlin to use it and dont break the engine at full power?...
You would need change 3 engines...??

The answer is no..

"octane-boosting properties of methanol, and you get cooling from the water"

otherwise...

How you do? for.. to empty a tank of 39 minutes Wather/Mehanol in FW 190 D9 ?

German engineers were morons?!"

;)

The combustion chambers in an engine are the main source of heat, so cooling them will in turn actually cool the entire engine.

There was a question raised somewhere earlier if the MW50 actually raises engine power:
as per http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB6...sheets_DB.html

On the DB-605DB
At 0km altitude usable power is 1430hp without and 1850hp with MW50 (+-2,5%).
At 6km altitude usable power is 1285hp without and 1600hp with MW50 (+-2,5%).
(1800hp at 0km or 1550hp at 6km can also be gained by using better C-3 fuel and no MW50 instead of the lower grade B-4 fuel + MW50)

The DB-605DC engine that is optimized for C-3 fuel generates 2000hp at 0km with the MW50 active and 1800hp at 4.9km. (+-2,5%)

As an engineering student I can also say that systems that worked in the 40s work the same way today and are usually just optimized. We can't change the physical or chemical bases the systems work on, we can only fine tune the systems to take more effect.

Looking at the 109 and its role as a short range interceptor that tried to save wight wherever it could it is highly unlikely that someone would put a 23min tank on it, if it was not possible to use it.

You need to stop this, because you're doing it wrong! You're actually... *GASP* ... PROVIDING sources!

My german vocab has always been miserable, so I clicked a few links from that page you showed and found this: http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclea...arance198.html Scroll down to see the english text where it talks about a P/W source stating the MW50 injection on the G-14 variants was good for 30 min, in 3 10 minute stretches with 3 min in between. If each of the 3 full 10 minute sessions was used in flight, it reduced the engine lifetime by half.

If you can find anything else very specific to Db605 MW50 operation then be sure to post it here with a translation, but the data seems to be pretty clear it's limited to 10 minute sessions with cool down periods.



So to Mustang's original point, "engine on fire after 13 minutes".

He presumes that the reason his engine is on fire is due to heat. One of the most well known side effects of water injection is increasing the overall pressures inside the engine block due to the additional charge increase from the water and additional fuel. While the engine itself may or may not overheat, it does put tons of wear and tear on other parts that aren't as robust, like piston rings, head gaskets, valve seats, etc. Ironically he talked about his "friend" who used NO2 in his car, which is just peachy. I also work on cars and have participated in engine rebuilds and modifications. One of the biggest dangers from NO2 use is blowing out the engine gaskets due to the increased compression and pressures seen as a result. Two can play this "USE THE BRAIN", provide xxxxxxxx examples to prove a point game.

So, as Badaim suggested... we can go back and forth about this as armchair experts, but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is what the manufacturer, pilot, and mechanic wrote down as operational characteristics.

Thanks, I actually overlooked that part. However you misunderstand a small part of it: It does not reduce engine lifetime but flight endurance, which means that the flight range and time of flight is lower due to the increased fuel consumption at hight power settings. (Of cause none of the military engines of WW2 where created with very long lifetimes in mind anyway so, even if not further lowered, engine lifetime wasn't stellar)
Fuel consumption numbers are actually provided on the page and are for instance for the DB-605DB on maximum power settings 610 l/h plus 180 l/h of MW50 fuel (so a total of 790 l/h). High (climb) power for instance, which is the power setting below the boost setting, only uses 470 l/h.

Later..
I found new information about the MW50, and their effects.
The physics in 2012 are the same as in 1942.



Many are worried about the Engine Life time of BF 109??

For MW50 ( CH3OH )


Actual Data




Remember:

;)

I like to see in this forum..the futile attempts of

No No No and NOT :D

I encounter new data in everywhere.
So easy..
All aim to the same point.

.

Please add the source when you quote something. This also applied when you quote from Wikipedia.

And do you encounter any data about being polite?

Some irony may be ok, but you really are damaging more your cause than supporting it, with your childish behavior.

At this point, putting you on a ban, will be the sensitive thing to do. Not because of your claims, but on your behaviour.

I have to agree. Always ask yourself if what you are about to post is really necessary and provide sources to any claim you are posting, no matter how trivial. Nobody will take your word for any claim, nor should they.

Any post claiming something without sources is a post best not made and will not further any cause.

Any post responding to a claim made without evidence in form of credible sources is a post that just feeds the troll and also does not help the discussion.

I see IL-2 as a real simulator for historical planes and want to see it as accurate as possible. Getting all the data is however a gigantic job and not easily done by the programming team alone. If we all try to act like historians, have a polite discussion and provide sources for historical data, we can help DT to get as much data as possible and to make the game better for everyone.

If however posts look like quotes form a conversation of a few local know-it-alls from the corner pub that argue over a pint or three who is the smartest this discussions won't lead anywhere and DTs time will be better spend not reading in this forum.

I quoted many things.

And all quotes are on the same path. ...Water/ methanol = Cooling .

http://www.importtuner.com/tech/impp...#ixzz1ownDQALK

Lets go...
Ban the truth.

http://www.alcohol-injection.com/en/

Give me some credit....

.

My respectful question is :

All need a Luftwaffe engineer to explain.. what is posted everywhere for water/methanol systems?

:confused:

.

How do you know that a cooling effect is not implemented?

Was a joke ?

Ahh, I see now. Thanks for correcting me there, I read that as endurance == engine lifespan, not flight time.

Yeah well, as far as I'm concerned your translations and links from the 109 info site have been the most informative. This topic is basically dead in my eyes, unless you happen to come across something concrete and substantial in the documentation. Would very much be interested if you do.

Good question...do you have the answer? I have another,what sources did the designers use to implement the MW50 system into the game? I myself have a tonne of books and manuals on 109's and 190's and they all very from one to the other. One thing I do know as fact is that this was all during wartime and parts,supplies,fuel,political interference there are just too many factors at play to have accurate results on top of the fact that there was a whole bunch of chaos and things blowing up which made for I'm sure a not very good environment for alot of basic field operations.;)

I'm not here to sling mud but I have flown this sim since day one and can only say you all know that we have had to adapt and evolve along with the game from any patch that has come along whether it's good or bad. I would like to see better documentation from TD or anyone else that changes things in the game so when new comers come along or old hands casually return they don't have to sift thru pages of "My computer penis is bigger than yours posts" :rolleyes: Kind of defeats the purpose of community input if one out of every 10 posts contains useful information DIRECTLY RELATED to this sim and the rest is just a fact finding peeing match.

Again not slinging mud at any individual at all,would just like to see less zoo mentality and more info sharing.I try to fly all the time by the book,basically I don't ever see an overheat message because I nurse my plane from startup to when I put it back on the ground.I push the motor to the limits and beyond when I'm in a fight or running away only to keep my virtual life intact.It makes the game fun for me and I'm sure many others flying this way. I really have a hard time believing that these pilots flew around with the throttle firewalled finger on the trigger scanning the skies looking for their next kill marking for the tail,maybe some did but I tend to believe that most spent a lot of their time staring at the photo of the beautiful woman they would like to get home too and not crapping their pants when someone yelled bandits.;)

That being said my question is this.Would a game designer or other person who works on this sim be able to explain in detail how the mw50 system that they have put in this game works so I can fly accordingly? I have always shortly after engine startup turned on the system and left it on during the duration of my flight assuming that it only engages when I throttle past 100% at which time I monitor its use with my clock on panel.I also never engage the system above 6000m. When I say by the book, from a variety of books that I have when they talk about the system it was used very sparingly because of to sum up all accounts there was a war going on and way to many factors were at play and sometimes the chief just told me not to use it today because he didn't get a chance to fix it when I broke it on my last sortie.:shock:

I apologize in advance for any spellin mistakes or grammar cuz I know the grammer police are out there and another apology for this being my first post here and I don't have a signature or pc specs to compare my pc penis with others but believe me it's a lot bigger and better.;):-P

~S~ Dragon

The mustang P51 H
Use - water/methanol.


http://www.crazyhorseap.be/Mustangs/...H/P-51H_02.htm
http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51...ants/P-51H.php

North American engineers and Rolls Royce Merlin engineers were morons?"
I think not.



I think the data I'm looking for are very close,
For the benefits of cooling for water/methanol

Wow. I'm utterly blinded by your brilliance Mustang. We're all fools, we should have followed your all seeing omniscience from the beginning, I can't believe that TD does not fall on their faces before you.

You should go immediately and shine your light on more worthy disciples, perhaps at the forums of a much more accurate combat flight sim than this poor sham of an arcade game that does not even deserve your attention, O great master!

@BadAim
TD wants to do things right, And them works very hard, I respect them, Really!

1) I never attack anyone in this forum
2) only show realities
3) And I get only harsh words,
4) Is funny ;)
5)Thanks for... "O great master!"

6) TEN years of development to remove the FW 190 boost.
BadAim .....This answer to you some questions? ;)

?





I saw a thousand discussions about 50 MW in many forums.

And now I find this
"the P51 H use water /methanol system" ;)
And with this the P51 in emergency power get more horsepower and cooling effect on the engine.
Like it or not, Is a fact.

The physics are the same now and in WWII , There is no magic here, only common water and common methanol, and the P51 H use it,.
With equals results in WWII and 2012 year:
Current information, about water methanol systems and their effects.

Nobody could show information for denies my "quotes" about water methanol effects ;)

Mustang, you have been attacked, but you answered back. That's your mistake.

And believe me, telling another people that they are nuts because they don't see THE truth, is not actually the way to better nothing, unless you are godsend to show mankind the light. And even then, only God will know, but you still have to convince mankind...

And really, in your case God is not going to throw lightning bolts and whatever on miscreants...

So why don't you try to offer the other chick as a more friendly approach?

TD have never appeared here, so which attack is important and which not?

More... everybody that matters here knows that MW50 is a cooling device. That was never the issue.

But even so, the general plane dynamics, need to take into account, in which situations it was meant to be used, and if there was a needed plane attitude...

So, the research is on the actual conditions in which it was engaged, not if the MW50 cooled the engine or not.

But... if you get engaged on low speed combat, with your engine at max revs, and MW50 engaged, I do expect your engine to overheat, because the cooling system in general will have a lowered efficiency.

This same concept applies to the SPits MkII with the 100 octane fuel.
WEP is emergency... not dogfight power...

So... why don't you start again from scratch and do the test of climbing with MW50 engaged and disengaged. And find if there is possible to reach higher altitudes faster with MW50 use, AND without overheating?

Maybe you can come back with a better case.

Let me explain.

You are in dogfight al low speed...you are in bad combat situation...
and you need emergency power,
You must push the throtle over 100%.

Without Water methanol:
You get some power close to max revs and the engine get overheat maybe soon.



You are in dogfight al low speed,you are in bad combat situation...
and you need emergency power,

You must push the throtle over 100%

With water methanol you get more power, injected a

mixture of methanol and water into the cylinders to cool the mix. Cooling causes the air to become denser.
Increase horsepower safely, Lower air temperatures, and Decrease cylinder temperatures.

Nobody can understand ?

In both situations the engines will overheat.
Without methanol water the engine get overheat more quickly.
I'll go find manuals P 51 H .

But with the injection of wather methanol (MW50) , the overheat takes longer time, you can run saflely 10 minutes, in any condition, that's what says the Luftwaffe.

In 4.11 you can get engine on fire with 10 minutes of MW 50 ON.

No way. Even if MW50 is authorized for a 10 minutes duration the maximum allowed oil and coolant temperatures still apply.

For example Merlin emergency power was authorized for 5 minutes, but the oil and coolant temperature must remain in the specified limits, see: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf

The time limit means that the stress on the engine is that high that it will take considerable damage even without overheat after that time.

Each engine is different.

Can you explain me...

The FW 190 D9 had a tank for 39 minutes of water/ methanol.

The water methanol only work in emergency power. this is a fact.
Under 100% of throtle dont work.


The FW 190 D9 had a titanium engine ?

The answer is not the MW 50 (Water/methanol) is coolant mixture, the secondary effect is more horsepowers.

Or German engineers were crazy
And no sense a tank (MW50) for 39 minutes in FW 190 D9... or had a titanium engine?

Could resist 4 uses for 10-minutes?

What is more important for the luftwaffe ?
The damage to the engine or in dogfight the pilot's life?

The Ta 152 had MW50 and GM 1 (nitrous oxide) and can use the 2 together at the same time
The luftwaffe engineers built for the pilot a great fireball for fly ? :P

I see many things that only few can see.
;)

Nobody could prove my "mistakes"
My job is done.
I do not say anything more
Good luck and enjoy the flight, IL2 is a great combat sim.

I just tried it a bit. Picked a 190G6/AS and tried to climb with the MW50 at manual's speed.

Very bad results indeed...

But most surprising is that overheat message comes on 80º
Manual states, 85º as safety, 100º as practical limit, 110º engine damage.

Now, I could take big damage on an engine from overheat, but injecting the MW50 doesn't mean overheating the engine, it implies over-pressure. (overreving of it, is prevented by prop pitch)

The only reports about engine damage from MW50 use were micro cracks on piston heads. This could be because of high pressures, and more likely for the fast cooling MW50 could have on piston heads when untimely injected.

But I have never read, nor on books, nor in the web anything about engines taking on fire with MW50 use.

Now, testing a bit more, I get some uncomfortable results, being that climbing with 110% without MW50 is a bit slower, but your engine overheats later...

Something is wrong here gents... and I don't believe that the right solution should be limiting the 109 to 100% throttle when MW50 is not engaged... ;)

Actually, according to the German test reports I've seen, the power increase due to water ALONE was only about 4%. They did get a temp reduction at the same time but I don't recall the particulars of that so I won't throw out numbers (it was a fair amount but not dramatic). 4% isn't the type of WEP I think is being discussed here, though. Normal max power is achieved when you reach the detonation limit*. Where the real power increase comes from with water injection is extra fuel/air can be fed in until you re-reach the detonation limit. So, now you're starting combustion at about the same cylinder inlet temp as non-water but your peak combustion temp is higher because of the additional fuel/air pumped in with the water.


* rpm + compression ratio raises temp a fixed amount.
a given fuel will detonate in a particular combustion chamber and rpm at a specific temperature.

:D

By the way, talking about emergency power endurance, the Mig-21bis (it's a jet -lol) had an emergency power rating that was limited to three minutes. That doesn't sound like much, but -if allowed- it could burn through all of it's internal fuel in just over six and a half minutes at that setting. Just about right for a dogfight server, eh?

You have a the Mig-21bis...



I have ...Physics of 2012 !!!

http://horsepowercalculators.net/tun...er-performance


BUMP!

Zipper You can deny..The result of using water methanol?


Show me yours "quotes"



.

I see the main problem with this thread is that one of the main posters, Mustang, seems to have a somewhat low competence in the English language that seems to prevent him form actually discussing anything or properly understanding posts made by other users. The fact that he seems to be unfamiliar with the concept of how to properly present sources complicates the matter further.

To the topic:

I think that the Spitfire is a bad comparison here since its boost does not come from a Water/Methanol injection system but from supercharger air compression. Creating additional boost with the help of a supercharger might be effective, but unlike a water injection does not help with heat management and actually creates a lot of additional heat. This also explains why the RAF recommends the WEP boost to be used only for 5min while the MW50 was recommended by the Luftwaffe to be used for 10min at a time.

I hope that someone can understand this :(

And the reason For the FW 190 D9 has tank ( 39 minutes for water/methanol)


http://horsepowercalculators.net/tun...er-performance

I was doing a comparison in between engine blowing UP.

Still I must agree that the stationary condition must be worst for the Spitfire, since MW50 cools the engine even without movement.

Oil or Water temperature? ;)

Funny question! If it was oil, it will be extremely cool!! Actually that will be Normal oil temperature, not the overheat mark.

http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/db601na.jpg


http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/db601a-1.jpg

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...1/Dibujo-1.jpg


http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...o1/Dibujo2.jpg


See de red Lines

;)

what fuel do we have ingame?

BF 109 engines uses Oil, The overheat temp for BF 109 is wrong, at the ends something is wrong here gents!


In IL2 , many BF 109 dont reach the speed for C3 fuel usage, and their speed is for B4 fuel.


HundertneunGustav ...Give me time... please;)

I must read many many MANY data.
At the end I found the truth ...Alone!! No one helpme :(


1) Bf 109 MW50 cooling the engine, is a fact



2)***Some BF 109 engines, only can use C3

+With C3 fuel + NO MW50/MW30
And had 110% emergency power OK


3)***Others BF109 engines can use both B4 fuel + MW50/MW30 and C3 fuel NO MW50/MW30

+With B4 fuel + MW50 / MW30.
And had 110% emergency power OK

+With C3 fuel + NO MW50/MW30
And had 110% emergency power OK



4)***And others BF109 can use Both C3 fuel + MW50/MW30 and B4 fuel +MW50/MW30

+With C3 fuel + MW50/MW30
And had 110% emergency power OK

+With B4 fuel + MW50/MW30
And had 110% emergency power OK



http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...1/Sinttulo.jpg


ONLY An example ;), I must read more
I Flight my P51 over Germany Then I encounter BF 109 G14.

The BF 109 G14, is the same plane with diferents setups

A) ***Maybe use only *B4 fuel, and don´t have MW50 methanol supply
Dont have allowed 110% emergency power, dont get cooling from MW50- *Its a easy kill

B) ***Or maybe I encounter G14 uses only C3 fuel and don´t have MW50 methanol supply, He can use 110% emergency power, and get extra power only from C3 fuel, but dont have extra power and cooling effect from MW50.- But this G14 have best performance than "A)".

C) ***Or I can encounter G14 with *B4 fuel + MW50 - He can use 110% of emergency power , and get more power from MW50 and get engine and cooling for 10 minutes. have best performace than "A)" and "B)" - Maybe is a more dificult kill

D) ***Or I encounter a G14 with C3 fuel + MW50, He can use 110% emergency power, and get extra power from C3 fuel , and again get more power from MW50 and get engine cooling for 10 minutes, have best performance than "A)" "B)" "C)"

If C3 fuel is limited, the luftwaffe give the "D)" BF 109 to the best pilots

Then I must call my wingman.

I think...
Is difficult to find performance charts for all these possible situations.




No I can understand

Because Oleg made ​​a "combat simulator" and not make a "flight simulator"



For Cliffs of Dover....
if they will want to simulate the BF 109.. one day
They will go crazy :(





.

This link has been posted a couple of times, but I'll do it one more time so nobody can miss it. All the performance data is here:

http://kurfurst.org/#engines

Bf 109s had switchable temperature gauges irl, meaning that same instruments could display Water OR inlet Oil temperature. I've been asking RPS69 because he didn't specify which temperatures he ment (as per post No 67) but obviously he was talking about oil temperatures ;)

The limit temperatures for DB 605 ASM in game is 115°C water, 110°C Oil. The only problem with the 109s at the moment is that the switchable gauges are not modelled. Overheat at 80°C displayed might seem wrong but in fact the message is due to water temp being above 115 degrees (which you can't see obviously) by the time oil inlet temp is 80. That's all...

cheers

I get some data here

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=29526&page=3

Robo
1) Many Thanks for the data Realy ;).
I hope you can understand me, despite my bad English



Personal Opinion Only
I believe that the oil temperature will always be greater than that of water temp, although I think I could justify that...


TD obviously work very hard, but the can not simulate all from the engines and the many fuels subtypes, in IL2 program engine dont allow them.

2) Anyway, I think that could easily simulate the cooling of the cylinders, when water methanol is injected in cylinder chamber. Always Wather and Oil must raises the temp slowly.

3)At the end I dont Know...
How spend a full tank of water 39 minutes of methanol, In the FW 190 D9.
I need be ... magician Merlin for do this in 4.11.
But the German pilots did it in combat.

4)
But.. in 4.11
If the pilot does not get all the information from the gauges , and him can not open manualy the water cooler radiator, or him can not measure all information in the cockpit

Why TD, must be so tough ( strict ) about the engines now??
Personal Opinion Only, I do not want to offend anyone, please undertand
But ..they chose the wrong path!
Is the reason of the unreason. , For a flight simulator ?

5)For this reason Oleg make a combat simulator and dont make a flight simulator, or "engine simulator"

I must repeat something is wrong
At the end I dont Know...
How spend a full tank of MW50 -( 39 minutes ), In the FW 190 D9.
I need be ... magician Merlin for do this in 4.11.
But the German pilots did it in combat.

6)At the end thats is the way of the wrong path.


Please undertand, I do not want to offend anyone.
But I must say the true.

Yeah that's all good regarding BoB, been reading through it as well and I actually contributed with Spitfire and Hurricane fuel system problems in CloD.

The above is regarding Bf 109E which had 2 separate gauges, one for oil and one for water temperature. The oil temp was also switchable between inlet and outlet temperature, but this is not correctly modelled in CloD. This is also the case for Il-2 - oil temp gauge is showing outlet temperature only.

Later 109 models (F-2 - G-14 in Il-2) only have one gauge in game as I explained before. K-4 has got 2 separate instruments again.

No worries, I understand.

As per 4.11 guide, water (or CHT) temp is more depending on MFP, oil temp more on your revs. 109s have got no manual prop. pitch (as RPM control) and as I stated above, on automatic PP, water 115 means oil some 80 (that is inlet temp). There are no issues with the 109s regarding temperatures except for the water / oil switchable instrument not being modelled (yet).

As it has been stated before, MW50 will be looked at in the future.

As for the rest, it's matter of opinion. Il-2 is becoming less of a game and more of a sim. You can still disable the new features if you wish.

Anyway the MW50 is wrong modelled in IL2, only the DB605DC engine could use the WEP (I mean 110% power) without MW50, so the Bf109G-10, G-14, G-6 AS can't use 110% power without MW 50, only the K-4 C3 could use 110% power without MW50

Well, I don't sure wich engine the G-10 used in game but I think it used the DB engine, so B4 fuel with MW50.

;)



MAYBE IT CAN HELP

1) Only DB605A and DB605AS use only B4 Fuel and dont have MW50 = (G6 - G6/U2 - G6/U4 - G6/U4/AS - G6/AS - G6/U2/AS) , But they can use 110% of power allowed / and optional + GM-1
2)All other BF 109 must be modeled with C3 fuel + MW50- the can use it !!!!
Most of the BF 109 in game, are not modeled for proper performance with C3 or C3+MW50

3)The exepcions are;
DB605 D-2, this engine was not mass produced
And (G14/AS - G14/U4/AS - G10 - G10/U4) they can use B4 + MW50 - 110% of power allowed - and/or C3 + MW50 -110% of power allowed

We have only the "castrated" BF 109 in game, te exeption is BF 109 K4 C3.
Always made ​​the worst choice for modeling the BF 109. ???


http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...o1/Engines.jpg
http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...co1/Planes.jpg

If someone can show something like this.
For the FW 190 "A" "G" "F" and all its sub-variants with boost
I'll be Very happy!

The BF 109 is difficult to understand
At least all FW 190 use C3 fuel
I think there are many things about FW 190, that can not be easily simplified.
Only I think ...


;)



.

I think this table is a bit wrong, if you read this page,at the table's end you will find this line (for the DB605ASM):

Das Triebwerk Daimler Benz DB 605 ASM entsprach dem Ausgangmuster
DB 605 AS, wurde jedoch im Gegensatz zu diesem Verbesserung der Start-
und Notleistung mit dem Sonderkraftstoff C 3 und zusätzlicher Wasser
Methanol-Einspritzung geflogen (MW 50).


Roughly it say:

The ASM is the sameas the AS but with improved Special Emergency power designed to run with C3 fuel and MW50

The same is for AM engine

Only the DB/DC engine colud use B4 or C3 fuel

DB/DC engine are the same with just a different setting, you can change this setting with simple screwdriver

OberstDanjeje

Thanks !

;)

If you PM me I will send you an usefull original DB605 datasheet that cover all the engines.
As I already said all the MW50 equipped (except DB/DC and ASB/ASC) need C3 fuel,them can't run max boost without C3 and MW50.
There is a switch that enable the MW50 when the throttle is 110% open.

Probable SM/ASM could run with B4 and without MW50 but with B4 them are the same as A/AS, less boost, less power.

Clearly is quite strange that an DB605A engine could run it's max boost for 5 minutes when an DB605AM could run it's max boost (it mean with MW50) for 10 minutes.
Probable it mean that with MW50 an engine could endure more time at his max boost ;)

I found an interesting article aboutBf109K-4, C3 and MW50:

http://kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm

Compare what Kurfürst, a well known obsessive about the "inferiority" of the Spitfire (eg:http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...e-Mk-Vc-Forums ) says, with the actual article http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html before you go believing everything that's written by Kurfurst.

I send the PM.


;)

Many Thanks

This explains many things .

After reading both articles I have to say that the Kurfürst article seems to be way better researched. As a German native I can definitely say that the Kurfürst translations are way more accurate.

Err... I was under the impression from multiple, varied sources that the early Spits generally *were* inferior to their chronological counterpart 109's in a number of ways.

As I understand it, Spits always had better turn rates across the board and the 109's were never able to take the lead. The early Merlins were inferior and had fuel starvation problems in negative G situations, there was a band-aid solution that partially worked until several years later it was fixed. All but the earliest 109's had the Kommandogerat device which automated pitch and mixture, most also had automated radiator controls. Later Spits had more automation that worked, and as the war went on they had better armament, the later Merlins and Griffons were on par with or superior to their German counterparts, and the performance gap was finally closed.

Well its not so much inferior, its more that its effete and girly. The Spitfire is far too pretty and only flown by nancy boys and big girls blouses. The Hurri on the other hand, like the 109, is a mans airplane 8-)

The AM could use B-4 as well with maximum power (1.7ata), a G-14 MW 50 manual mentions that while C-3 is preferred as normal fuel, its possible to use B-4 in emergency with MW-50. It was more risky than using straight C-3 and MW 50 combo, since any failure in the MW system meant that the engine would immidiately start knocking and self destroy in short order. B-4 alone could not take the compression at 1.7 ata without detonation, while C-3 could. I have not seen a similar manual for the ASM but its a rather safe bet it worked the same, given the minimal difference (supercharger) between the AM and ASM.

IMHO the corresponding Marks of the Spitfire were more or less on par with the 109s, ie. Mark I vs 109E, Mark IX vs 109G, Mark XIV vs 109K - the only exception of the Mark V that was a bit inferior to the 109F from the start, and later Mark IX (1943 with the Merlin 66) that took a lead on the contemporary 109G-6.

The problem with not so much with development, but deployment. Even though there were as good Marks of the Spitfire at the same time, they were never entering service as quickly as the newest 109s. Mark Is may have been as good as 109Es, the difference was that all 109s were Emils in 1939/40, while most of the RAF still had Hurricanes and only a handful of Spitfires in comparisons. The Mark IX may have been about as good as the 109F/G in 1942/43, but again the difference was that while all 109 units had 109Gs, most of the RAF Spitfire Squadrons were still flying Mark Vs - even at the start of 1944 the Mark V was the most common Spitfire, just about to be replaced by the Mark Niners but the LW was moving to the next phase of MW boosted 109s and/or AS engines; the Mark XIV may have been as good as the 109K, but it mattered little given that 90% of the RAF Spitfire Squadrons were still flying Mark IXs, which were a bit overhwhelmed in performance by late 1944.

A bit more was added to that subject of 1.98ata 109K (and G-10s! people always seem to forget the G-10 had the same engine and ratings!) here: http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/Boost...arance198.html

There are some new developments in the matter about the role of II/JG 11, but essentially the facts remain the same.

As to the question at hand - cooling effects of MW-50 - it can be stated with definite certainty that overheat of coolant should not be a problem at all. We have German datasheets of DB 605A and DB 605AM showing the max. heat transfer data of the engine (how much heat the engine generate to be carried away - max. abzufahrende Waermemenge in German table). The data shows that the 605AM, with MW-50 and operating at max boost, ie. 1.7ata / 1800 HP actually makes less heat than the MW-less DB 605A at 1.3ata / 1310 HP. I don't have that paper on my site yet, only extracts, but I think it was referred above.

Now the 109G's cooling system was effective enough to keep the temperatures down well below safe limits at around 85 Celsius in full power climbs, ei. 1.3ata / 1310 HP, when airflow through the radiators is minimum (the DB 605 manual notes the engine can tolerate around 110 Celsius coolant for 10 minutes). http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...es/blatt10.jpg

As noted above with MW 50 the coolant system had to cope with even less heat. Add to that that high altitude 109s (G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10, K-4) had larger sized oil/coolant radiators fitted. See http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...u4_am-asm.html

1.) DB 605 AM i = 1,685 mit MW-50
G = 3515 kg
Wasserkühler Fk = 33,6 dm2
Ölkühler Fk = 6,5 dm2
Luftschraube 3 flg. vorhanden als 9-12078

2.) DB 605 ASM i = 1,685 mit MW-50
G = 3550 kg
Wasserkühler Fk = 42.0 dm2
Ölkühler Fk = 8,5 dm2
Luftschraube 3 flg. vorhanden als 9-12159

and http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...t_109K_EN.html for 109K

Radiators : Coolant radiators Fk = 36 dm2
Oil cooler Fk = 8.5 "

This seems to be a general weakness in the Il-2 engine - coolant overheating was generally overdone, probably to impose some limit on using max. power or to simulate 'engine wear'. At least I can confirm that for 109s, which as per historical data very unlikely to ever reach maximum limits without closing the radiators completely or something similiarly stupid. The worst thing that can happen is that the coolant radiator flaps open.

I dare to say that it was a common thing that outdated planes were still in service although they had already been succeeded by newer versions. According to Eric Membeek's JG 5 chronicles the Jagdgruppen of JG 5 which were operating from Kirkennes/Petsamo used the 109 T in 1941 (which is basicially an Emil). As far as I remember (don't have the book right here) they still had Ts in 1942 and were recieving their first F2 and F4s. In Il-2 you are flying G2s by that time. Dunno when they got their first Gs, prolly in 1943.
And while this Gruppe still had Ts and Fs their neighbour-Gruppe in Stavanger got the 190A in spring/summer of 1942.
I guess that the Luftwaffe had some kind of priority list for upgrades. Those units at the channel (JG 26) were probably on top while the parts of JG5 at the edge of the theatre were down on the bottom.

On the other hand, when the RAF sent their 151st wing to support the VVS at the Murmansk theatre, this wing was equiped with Hurricanes. So in winter '41/42 it was 109Es vs. Hurricanes (once again).
I don't know about the 2nd half of the war and the Reichsverteidigung. I could imagine that the Luftwaffe had more recent planes in their units (cause their losses increased and the old ones were "outphased" this way).

Very informative, Kurfürst!

Let's hope TD will rectify the MW-50 in the incoming patch.