MW50 -Secondary effects were cooling of the engine .

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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.

Originally Posted by jermin

Very informative, Kurfürst!

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

[OberstDanjeje]

Thanks Kurfürst, you give us the info we need

[Kurfürst]

You are welcome and thanks. Now that I am home I can find the datasheets I mentioned, I hope the upload system handles them well.

Anyway, these are DB datasheets for the MW50-less DB 605A and the MW boosted 605AM. Otherwise the engines were exactly the same. They give the following data for heat generation (see the middle, 'Abzufuehrende Waermenge' - or something like heat to be transferred/dissipated/carried away)

1) For the 605A (no MW, powering G-1 through G-6) the maximum heat generation was 340 000 kcal/h at the critical altitude, this is understood for 1,3ata / 2600 rpm 30-min output, which is 1250 HP (PS) at 5,8 km.

2) For the 605AM (MW boost, powering the G-14) the maximum heat generation was 345 000 kcal/h at the critical altitude, practically identical, but this is understood for something like 450 HP more produced 1,7ata / 2800 rpm 10-min output, which is 1700 HP (PS) at 4,0 km.

So for all practical purposes, MW cooled the engine enough that coolant system did not have to cope with more heat while generating 1700 PS than when it generated 1250 PS without MW injection. And as the previous post's engine temperatures showed, the 109G coolant system easily coped with the latter even in climb at around 270 kph IAS.

In short, the coolant is very likely next to impossible to reach critical temperature values in the G-14 and its reasonable to say, in any other MW boosted variants, since they had similiar output of 1800 PS, except the 'C-3' 1.98ata K-4/G-10. In addition, the high altitude variants, ie. G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 and K-4 had larger radiators than the previous 109G - see previous posts again)

Oil temperature can be a different matter, since as the data shows the 605A 65 000 kcal/h at 1.3ata while the AM 96 000 kcal/h at 1.7ata. Though here it should be mentioned that the MW boosted 109 typically had larger oil coolers as well (the G-14 is actually the only exception, since in some cases it retained the older oil cooler, the later and high alt models all had larger ones).

I hope the above information is useful for the developers to create an accurate overheat model.

[Whacker]

Kurfurst, does the documentation say how much heat the larger and smaller size oil radiators could dissipate? Also does it say anything about other engine components not doing well under the increased pressures during MW50 operation (like head gaskets, piston rings, etc)?

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Whacker

Kurfurst, does the documentation say how much heat the larger and smaller size oil radiators could dissipate? Also does it say anything about other engine components not doing well under the increased pressures during MW50 operation (like head gaskets, piston rings, etc)?

Many think... the MW50 is like nitrous oxide system
But it is NOT.
Need to change the thoughts
.

In 2012 you can buy and put in your´s Car - Kits (Water methanol)
The engineers say
Sience 2012

Possible applications for water / methanol injection:

1- The typical added cooling application:

a. In this setup, the water / methanol mix is usually mixed in a 50/50 mix of water and methanol.

b. The jetting is usually about 10-15% the total fuel flow of the system:

For example a 300hp four cylinder car needs four 450cc/min fuel injectors to produce that power figure. Our total fuel flow at peak power is 450cc/min 4 = 1800cc/min or 1.8 liters per minute of fuel.

1 gallon is four liters and 1 hour is sixty minutes so our total fuel consumption is equivalent to 27 gallons per hour of fuel (if you were able to stay at peak hp and rpm for a whole hour).

*Water methanol 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.
*Increase horsepower safely .
*Lower air temperatures by 50-200+ degrees.
*Decrease cylinder temperatures up to 300 degrees.
*Reduce the effects of heat soak in warmer climates.
*Allows you to safely run more boost and timing.
*Reduces carbon and helps maintain a clean combustion chamber.

I think...they dont want have many complaints.
If engineers lie..
You can sue the company, with your lawyer


The only thing I know
Luftwaffe said the 10 minutes

And put a tank MW50 for 26 minutes in the BF 109
And put a tank MW50 for 39 minutes in the FW 190 D9

I think the Luftwaffe was studied and analyzed everything.

Like it or not
39 minutes of water methanol .. OMG!

Whacker obviously
All engines at full emergency power will Suffer, ofcourse
Ofcourse all engines

A question...

But about 150 grade fuel for allies
....about other engine components not doing well under the increased pressures during 150 grade fuel operation (like head gaskets, piston rings, etc)?


That's the point now, Not the BF 109.


Offtopic
And no one answered this..


http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...=29083&page=11

I was scammed for 9 years in online wars???

For something that is in sight in a flight manual.-
???


Sorry for offtopic .

TD has much work to do.
hopefully they have time, and especially patience.

[II/JG54_Emil]

Thanks to Kurfürst there is finally some written evidence of the old days.

I just want to add an article from Flugzeug Classic from 12/2004, that was passed on from a friend to me.
This article is talking about increasing the power of the FW-190s BMW 801 D engine.
In the article the MW50 testing is explained in detail.

First tests showed:
-Temperature increase was only 7°C
-The charge air intake temperature was reduced by 45°C
-No engine disturbance where witnessed
-Speed increase of 16km/h at 100m
NOT VERY IMPESSSIVE ON THE FOCKE BUT EXPLAINS AND DOCUMENTS THE DECREASE OF ENGINE TEMPERATURE WHEN USING MW-50.


Later performance was increased by injecting C3 named Erhöhte Notleisting (documented since 1943):
-Increasing the manifold pressure
-additional Injection of C3
-below 1000m
-duration 10-15 minutes
-only at Full Throttle at automatic PropPitch
-Speed-Increase was 22km/h at low level and 25km/h at higher altitudes

THIS IS ONLY REFLECTING TEST ON FW-190 SERIES!!!!

The article apparently refers in the very end that very much later MW-50 and C3 injection was used in the later D9 series.

[Crumpp]

This article is talking about increasing the power of the FW-190s BMW 801 D engine.

Some interesting developments have occurred in the research of BMW801D series.

What I can definitely state is that NONE of the BMW801 series used Alkohol-Einspritzung operationally outside of limited testing. It was developed, tested, and perfectly feasible but was dumped for systems which produced better results without the weight penalty of Alkohol-Einspritzung.

In a meeting with BMW engineers that occurred in January of 1945 an order to immediately approve an expedient MW installation for the BMW801D series is issued. The engine is authorized for a manifold pressure of 1.8ata @ 2700U/min in the order.

In the meeting, Focke Wulf asks for clarification about which engines are authorized. The BMW801D2 production incorporated almost all of the developments in the BMW801F/E series but they wanted a serial numbered range to put out to the Geschwaders as to which motors to authorized.

The Chief Technical Officer of the Luftwaffe Office became involved and issued clarification that is recorded in his war diary. The BMW801 was tested in flight on an FW-190 at 1.8 ata. It passed endurance and operational trials. An order was scheduled to be issued in February 1945 authorizing all BMW801 series to use 1.8 ata as a straight manifold pressure increase. Technical clarification would be issued to the Geschwaders. This manifold pressure increase brought the motors output to 2400PS.

It specifically state MW is not to be used and this is a straight manifold pressure increase just like Erhöhte Notleisting for fighters.

C3-Einspritzung was not authorized for fighter aircraft. It is a separate system for ground attack variants.

The fighters were given a straight manifold pressure increase to 1.58ata/1.65ata in the 1st/2nd gear supercharger. It was authorized for ONE 10 minute use. It required a stronger fuel pump, E series piston/liners, and pressurized ignition system found on the fighter engines.

How did this occur? The development of C3 fuel was not static. The designation remain C3 but the knock limited performance of the fuel was consistently upgraded. By late 1943 it was equivalent to 100/140 grade on the allied rating scale.

The fighters could also use GM-1 which was tested and authorized. The use of GM-1 was not encouraged by the technical office because of increased risk of intake icing.

[jameson]

Just came across this 2003 interview with Franz Steigler: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articl...er/stigler.htm
He talks about MW50 and it's use on the me109.

Did you ever have the GM-1 boost or MW-50 in any of your planes?

Oh yeah, we used it quite often�in combat you know.

How long did it last?

Uhh,you were not allowed to have it at more than 5 min., you know,if you used it 10 minutes, then motor has to come out.

It makes the engine worse?

It wrecks the motor.

And this was for the higher altitude?

Higher,yes.

And at what speed could you get up to?

Oh boy,I don't remember,450 or 500 km.

Like you said, you could only use it for 5 min. otherwise you would burn out the engine. How many 5 min. intervals could you use? Did you have to shut it down for a period of time to let the engine cool?

That's okay.that uh.it didn't matter. You, but you never used it for five minutes, a minute, minute and a half and that's it.

[II/JG54_Emil]

He seems to be refering to the GM-1 boost, since MW50 was introduced for ground attack a/c.

The interview is great by the way!

[jameson]

Steigler doesn't make a distinction between them and you seem to be missing the point. He didn't use either for anymore than a minute or ninety seconds. If this is implemented ingame with 10 mins usage permitted and yet another 10mins after 5 mins cooling of the engine as some seem to be hoping for, then TD may as well not bother doing it as it'll be just as historically inaccurate, usage wise, as what we have now. I hope there are penalities for it's overuse, together with heavy vibration modelled in cockpit view when used, (Spitfires as well, from the BOB era, shook like crazy when the throttle was pushed through the gate . Barely functioning engine sounding like bag of spanners after more than 5 mins usage with random engine failure as well would be good IMHO, and I'm a 109 flyer.