![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ![]() 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 .... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Mustang; 03-04-2012 at 12:07 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. Last edited by Letum; 03-04-2012 at 04:02 PM. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.
![]() ahhh! what the hell, ...DT let's do it. ![]()
__________________
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 Last edited by Mustang; 03-05-2012 at 12:25 PM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
you said "i think"
and when you say that, you are canceling all your arguments, however good they may be. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
__________________
Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than themselves regarding the argument while they actually don't have a clue who they are arguing with in the first place? ![]() Last edited by jermin; 03-06-2012 at 04:45 AM. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If you flew 2x 10 mins @110% with mw50, total flight time would be about 35mins. I rest my case.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I fail to see the logic here. Please explain.
I'm still waiting for your evidence.
__________________
Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than themselves regarding the argument while they actually don't have a clue who they are arguing with in the first place? ![]() Last edited by jermin; 03-06-2012 at 04:48 AM. |
![]() |
|
|