Jump to content

BoX Engine WEP Timer tests


EmerlistDavjack
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wrote all this in the main IL2 forums and then thought, hey, maybe JG1 knows more about it, or at least we can have a more concentrated discussion without some of the...more "interesting" members of the IL2 forums.   

 

I'll be honest, one of the main factors why I haven't been playing Multiplayer IL2 is that not understanding the Engine Timers fully feels...wrong.  What pilot would go into combat not understanding "hidden" design features in his aircraft?  Why isn't the mechanic at least in some way tied to in-plane instruments?

 

I feel like the only thing worse than this whole engine-timer-balance system is that we (or I) don't have enough information.  If they are going to implement a "hidden" system like this (IE not tied to any indication on the in-plane instruments), they need to tell us how exactly it works so that we can factor that information into our flying.  If real life planes had worked like this, the militaries involved would have rigorously tested the planes and communicated with pilots what exactly is going on, so that they know how "recharging" works.  I feel really uncomfortable with the gap in knowledge when I play this game.  No pilot should not know how his machine works. 

 

EDIT: See below for some basic testing where I figured out that most planes, unless otherwise stated in the specs, "regenerate" their timer at half the time you spend at a lower mode.  2 min of Cont recharges 1 minute of Combat, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an expert in this area. This won't answer your question completely.   I'm not sure if anyone has an actual chart to tell X*Y=Z on each aircraft.

 

At the 11:00 mark Sheriff talks about performance of the 190A-3.  Watch it then read below.

 

 

 

I used to take note of the time when I take off and climb in combat power. Then I throttle back to continuous power once I was at altitude usually 4K-7K depending on weather and the server I was on. I found that if I get engaged and reduce my throttle in dives and never firewall it in climbs.  Dipping into Emergency Power but never at 100%.  I won't blow my engine. Now I'm not too concerned about the combat power I use in the climb out.

 

Also you will notice that some aircraft you can push the throttles to 100% and not get into Emergency Power. Those engines were known to blow up easily.  The throttle was adjusted in the field or in the factory so were not able to get into the higher RPM's

 

I do recall us having this discussion before. It must have been on T.S, because I can't find it on our forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice video.  He reminds me of Etzel   ^_^

 

I don't know so much about the engine "regenerating" or "recharging", but is it not perhaps that the time that it's running at high temps has a lot to do with it's durability?  The time it gives you would be based on the current (high) temp....if you let it cool back down, you get more total time than you would have, had you not let it cool down and just used the time continuously?

 

Just a theory from a know-nothing.   :rolleyes:   One guess is that the word "recharging" could just be a poor use of English by people who may not fully understand the nuance of that term to us.

 

While in the majority of planes by far, the times allowed might be based on a durability factor that is somewhat or even greatly affected by temperature peaks and variations.  In those cases it would be a complex calculation performed by the game and there really couldn't be any set answers for times that a pilot could accurately keep track of in flight.  I'm sure there would be some kind of curve or set of curves the game may use, which would include time, temperature, and damage factors.

 

In a few cases (planes like the P-47), part of the time limitation could be based on the exhaustion of on-board consumable materials (i.e. water/methanol, nitrous oxide, etc.).  In that way they'd have additional factors taken account of in their durability.

 

In the end, if you were super-dedicated you could do the kind of experiments that he did in the video.  But in the end, there could be endless variations, and what you might learn is just a general guideline, like he did (and Raz did)....like not to be afraid to use 100% power now and then, and a general idea of how much you could abuse it and get away with it.

 

I am still in the stage of being over-cautious in normal use, but when in combat I don't think about it too much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not flown the planes with consumables very much, so I cant help much there, but I tend NOT to go into boost unless I absolutely have to, I dont even take off in boost.  The time before an engine blows in Combat and Emerg power is a set time, plus a random variable, just like in real life.  Damage caused to the engine while in boost mode is cumulative, meaning if you constantly go into and out of boost, eventually you will blow the engine.  In most cases, if I enter combat and have to enter boost, if I survive, I immediately RTB, cause I dont know how much damage it caused.  I'll see if I still have the Emergency/Boost time chart and upload it if I can find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This page gives some of the info you're looking for broken down into each aircraft.  I actually think these numbers are lifted directly from the game specifications tab.  You have to remember though that there is a random component to the listed max times.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25993-aircraft-flight-and-technical-specifications-and-operational-details/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an expert in this area. This won't answer your question completely.   I'm not sure if anyone has an actual chart to tell X*Y=Z on each aircraft.

 

At the 11:00 mark Sheriff talks about performance of the 190A-3.  Watch it then read below.

 

 

 

I used to take note of the time when I take off and climb in combat power. Then I throttle back to continuous power once I was at altitude usually 4K-7K depending on weather and the server I was on. I found that if I get engaged and reduce my throttle in dives and never firewall it in climbs.  Dipping into Emergency Power but never at 100%.  I won't blow my engine. Now I'm not too concerned about the combat power I use in the climb out.

 

Also you will notice that some aircraft you can push the throttles to 100% and not get into Emergency Power. Those engines were known to blow up easily.  The throttle was adjusted in the field or in the factory so were not able to get into the higher RPM's

 

I do recall us having this discussion before. It must have been on T.S, because I can't find it on our forums.

 

Good video, Raz!  I think the answer to all my questions is to spend hours doing real world testing because the devs have not release any in-depth explanations.   

 

Loopy (not much good information there, as I say, this is a dead horse topic):

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/43632-how-come-the-yak-1-and-lagg-3-can-use-full-throttle-in-continuous-operation-power-setting/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick look at the Bf109K engine specs:

 

"The aircraft is equipped with MW-50 water-methanol mixture injection system that prevents the engine detonation in the emergency power mode. It engages automatically when the throttle is set to maximum, there is enough mixture for 25-30 minutes. However, the engine can work up to 10 minutes at this mode, wait for another 10 minutes at the combat mode before engaging the emergency mode again. Attention: running the engine at the emergency mode without the water-methanol mixture or at altitudes higher than 6 km is forbidden! A pilot can check the system using the injection pressure indicator on the left: its normal pressure is 0.6...0.7 atm, stop using it if the pressure is lower than 0.4 atm and switch the engine to combat mode."

 

I do seem to recall reading somewhere that, like Kleig says, that boost (or "emergency") power time is cumulative but that hasn't been my experience (see the highlighted line above) It seems that as long as you don't exceed the max  rated time at boost and you allow sufficient (perhaps equal amount of time out of boost as was spent in boost?) the engine will be fine. I've only blown them when either exceeding the time or spending lots of time in and out of boost without allowing sufficient time out of boost.

I haven't done any serious testing though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like that about the 109K4:  There is a physical gauge in the cockpit that shows whether or not you have MW-50 left.  Timer or no, when that pressure drops, you stop going WEP!

 

Re: Luft, I highly doubt that what is going on in this game has to do with engine temps (sadly...), since it is possible on planes like the P-47 to keep the engine from overheating with rads/intercooler.  You can even keep the engine cooler than "boost temps" during boost, as given by the color coding/dash placards that we Americans love so much.  Maybe some of the Ruski planes that I don't fly have a tendency for temps to correlate to boost, but it doesn't seem like that with the LW.  It really does feel like a timer on the planes that don't have injection fluids.   

 

Here is my idea for science!

 

For any given plane: take at least 5 flights at 1km alt, level flight, max emergency/boost power.  Average the time it takes for technochat to register "Engine damaged."

 

Now, take at least 5 flights and run Emergency power for 1 minute less than the average time given above (if the average is 5'30'', run for 4'30'').  At that point, switch to Combat power for one minute, then back to Emergency power until the technochat registers "engine damaged."  Add the time it takes to damage the engine from the second application of Emergency power to 4'30'', and then compare that to the first average.  This should determine whether or not 1 minute of reduction to Combat power (within margin of error) results in 1 minute more of Emergency power. 

 

Repeat the above test, but using Continuous power instead of combat power to attempt to recharge the damage timer, which will give a result that will tell you whether or not Continuous recharges the damage timer faster than Combat power. 

 

This is probably different for every plane, and probably different from Combat to Continuous.   I will definitely do this (and more!) for the P-38. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did some messing about with it tonight with the P-47 and discovered this about it:

 

1) The damage is truly random after the "Time Exceeded" message.  After 5 min in boost, I would get catastrophic engine damage anywhere from 1.5 to 4 minutes after the "boost time exceeded" message.  Once, it even gave me an "engine damaged" message at 5:10 worth of boost, but the engine sounded okay and I was at full power (tiny fluctuation in RPM, lost ~5mph) for another 4 minutes for about 9 minutes of boost total.  So yeah, that is just random. 

 

2)  The recharge (for the P-47) is twice the time spent in a lower engine state.  So I can fly 5 minutes of boost, get the time exceeded (TE) message, 5 minutes of continuous, and then another 2.5 minutes of boost before I get the TE message again.  If I fly 10 minutes of continuous, I get all 5 min of boost back.  Note:  Boost time is also Combat time, so it's harder to recharge boost with combat in the P-47, much easier in a K4 with its ungodly 30min combat timer.  Simple in Mig-3 since all it has is Boost and Cont.   

 

3)  I never noticed this, but if you get the TE message, and then fly at a lower state for the entire time to recharge, the technochat will tell you that boost/combat time has been replenished.  If you use boost but not all the way to get the TE message, and then fly at Cont, the technochat will not tell you when you have recharged.  

 

4) It does recharge the timer in small amounts, so yes, if I boost in a climbing turn for 20 seconds to catch up to an enemy, then back to combat for 40 seconds, it has erased the boost time (but consumed water for the injection).  At least, with the P-47. That's very important for me to know, because that is how I want to use boost: for short moments when I need that kick to make the turn or complete a loop.

 

5) Interesting note, during this testing I made sure to run out of Water for the P-47 injection system at the end of a flight, to see what happened.  The Water Pressure still showed the same values as working injection, but the Cyl-Head and Oil temps skyrocketed with the boost mode turned on. So I did run out of water, but there was no way to know except for suddenly my temps went wild.  I didn't test it, but as far as I read in the Specs for the Dora: if you run out of MW-50 you can still hit the boost button and get 3 minutes at a time of "Emergency mode."    

 

In conclusion:  I have a strong suspicion that most of the timers work the same.  1 Minute in "Boost/Emergency/WEP" can be mitigated by 2 minutes in either "Combat" or "Continuous" modes.  1 minute in Combat mode can be mitigated by 2 minutes in Continuous mode. 

 

The planes I tested were the P-47 extensively, the Dora, and the Mig-3.  All of those had 1:2 recharging ratios as explained above.  I also tested the K4 and Vonrd's quote of the manual is correct:  It will recharge Emergency mode at a 1:1 rate to combat.  I didn't test combat vs Cont because frankly...30 minutes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the same key as boost.  Really, it's all just terminology.  AFAIK WEP is American, Boost is British, and the Germans and Soviets had their own words that we translate into Boost and/or Emergency Power.  The Mig-3, for instance, does not use the boost button at all, but full mixture is called Boost none-the-less. 

 

Another strange thing I noticed today:  Below 3.5km, the Dora is in combat mode at full throttle with no MW-50 Boost enabled.  If you climb up over that, the Supercharger kicks to second gear and the technochat calls it "Emergency Power."  On the spec sheet, it says "Emergency Power with no MW-50 for 3 mins,"  but I let her run for 25 min (8x, using in cockpit clock) before I got the technochat message that I had exceeded Emergency time.  So who knows.  

 

Starting to build confidence in my knowledge of how to use the planes.  Now I just need to learn how to identify targets without icons!  Yeesh I am terrible at that offline.  Maybe I should take up level bombing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to keep all my IL2 testing/worrying in one thread so as not to clutter the forum up on my voyage of discovery.  If you haven't been able to tell, sometimes something bugs me, and I just must understand how it works.

 

I have been practicing HE-111 5000m bombing, and overall I am starting to understand a bunch of how it works.  Not just using the bomb sight, which I do understand, but also how to line up a run for maximum effect on a single pass, how to deal with crosswinds on approach, that sort of thing.  All very fun. I was doing a QMB over Stalingrad at 5000m in Winter, and I noticed something that just bothered me:  No altitude values matched.  Technochat clearly reads AGL at 4870m.  Altimeter on STP mode reads 5.43km, ("Friendly Airfield" mode it reads 5.31km, but those should be relatively different values), and the Bomb Sight reads 5km exactly. 

 

Kliegmann today told me that the bombsight altimeter just works for accuracy all the time, and that it appears to be MSL. 

 

In Autumn (which I've read is STP in QMB), all values match except the Technochat AGL (which should only really match sitting on an airfield).  So this has to be due to temperature!  The Bombsight is giving absolute MSL, whereas the Altimeter gives the correct pressure altitudes uncorrected for temperature.  The reason I needed to understand just how it works is that now I know to ignore the cockpit and just fly to the Altimeter reading for the best winds aloft match, especially in overly cold or hot weather! 

 

Aeronautics guys, correct me if I am wrong:  I took a rough equation for Density Altitude {Ad=Ap+[120x(OAT-ISA)]} and worked it back to give Outside Air Temp (altitude must be in feet, temp in C).  If I use the MSL given by the Bomb sight as a "density altitude," and the STP Altimeter reading as my Pressure Altitude, with a standard ISA temp of -17.5 at 5000m, I get an OAT of -28.75C.  I wonder how close that is to what the game thinks.  If we then add the standard lapse rate for 16000 ft (2C/1000ft), we get an estimated 4.75C on the ground.  Not the coldest day in Russia!  Kinda makes me want to learn enough of the editor to peer inside the game's fidelity, but my guess is: pretty great. 

 

Now I just need to find a resource for topographic maps or something I can use to gauge AGL.  I wonder why TAW doesn't list it with their airfield recon photos.  <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to keep all my IL2 testing/worrying in one thread so as not to clutter the forum up on my voyage of discovery.  If you haven't been able to tell, sometimes something bugs me, and I just must understand how it works.

 

I have been practicing HE-111 5000m bombing, and overall I am starting to understand a bunch of how it works.  Not just using the bomb sight, which I do understand, but also how to line up a run for maximum effect on a single pass, how to deal with crosswinds on approach, that sort of thing.  All very fun. I was doing a QMB over Stalingrad at 5000m in Winter, and I noticed something that just bothered me:  No altitude values matched.  Technochat clearly reads AGL at 4870m.  Altimeter on STP mode reads 5.43km, ("Friendly Airfield" mode it reads 5.31km, but those should be relatively different values), and the Bomb Sight reads 5km exactly. 

 

Kliegmann today told me that the bombsight altimeter just works for accuracy all the time, and that it appears to be MSL. 

 

In Autumn (which I've read is STP in QMB), all values match except the Technochat AGL (which should only really match sitting on an airfield).  So this has to be due to temperature!  The Bombsight is giving absolute MSL, whereas the Altimeter gives the correct pressure altitudes uncorrected for temperature.  The reason I needed to understand just how it works is that now I know to ignore the cockpit and just fly to the Altimeter reading for the best winds aloft match, especially in overly cold or hot weather! 

 

Aeronautics guys, correct me if I am wrong:  I took a rough equation for Density Altitude {Ad=Ap+[120x(OAT-ISA)]} and worked it back to give Outside Air Temp (altitude must be in feet, temp in C).  If I use the MSL given by the Bomb sight as a "density altitude," and the STP Altimeter reading as my Pressure Altitude, with a standard ISA temp of -17.5 at 5000m, I get an OAT of -28.75C.  I wonder how close that is to what the game thinks.  If we then add the standard lapse rate for 16000 ft (2C/1000ft), we get an estimated 4.75C on the ground.  Not the coldest day in Russia!  Kinda makes me want to learn enough of the editor to peer inside the game's fidelity, but my guess is: pretty great. 

 

Now I just need to find a resource for topographic maps or something I can use to gauge AGL.  I wonder why TAW doesn't list it with their airfield recon photos.  <_<

 

Lets back up a minute before your head explodes with too much information. I'm not an expert at bombing but I think you are over thinking it. When on the field I switch my altimeter to nearest friendly airfield (I think that is what its called.) I pick an IP that I can spot easily at altitude. At the IP you should be level and bomb doors open. Wait a bit for the plane to stabilize with the doors open.  I read the pilots instruments and the pilots instruments only for altitude and air speed. I use those numbers for bomb-sight input. Ignore the bombardiers readings and the techno chat.

 

Yes, there is a difference between AGL and MSL.  I really haven't had an issue with using the pilots info on the Moscow and Stalingrad maps. Not sure about the Kuban map there are some elevation changes there.  The techno chat doesn't give altimeter on servers so you may want to get used to bombing with it off once you get comfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, I am definitely overthinking it, I like to.   And yes, the whole point of me spending time learning intricacies so that I can feel confident I know what I am doing without Technochat. 

 

Any time I've looked, it seems like IAS in the cockpit and from the Bombardier are identical.  The other aspect is that one way I learn to do things is to do the extremes.  Like, learning how to goose an He-111 off a wet field in summer, as loaded as can be.  Not easy, not even ever necessary (6 hour endurance full fuel...yeah), but it was a challenge and forced me to absolutely nail the roll out and draw my flaps in very slowly and methodically. 

 

I know that the Nearest Field thing gives *almost* AGL because these maps are mostly so flat, and there isn't really much in the Kuban hills to attack.  Within normal operating procedures, that's a good bet, but it also should be somewhat near to the Bombardier's value anyway, since the maps are so flat and low anyway (Moscow is at 250m MSL IRL).  However, as your get higher in altitude, it seems to matter more. 

 

So from my above example, flying at 5000m over Stalingrad in winter, the Nearest Field value gave me 300m of elevation higher than the corrected MSL value from the Bombardier.  However, since Stalingrad is at ~50m MSL, the Bombardiers value is closer to AGL.  By observing the Technochat AGL, I was able to determine that this is important at 5000m!  So right now, TAW is playing a map with 8 degrees celsius and I would be paying attention to the difference between the Cockpit/Bomb values and deciding which I think is closer to AGL.  If the map were at 13-17C, then yes, I would say use the Nearest Airfield all the time.  

 

The other aspect of this is that I believe that the Winds Aloft (like a lot of aviation info) is given in MSL.  So the Winds Aloft correspond directly to the Bombardier reading, and I've been practicing in strong winds. 

 

I'll admit, I don't know how much an altitude setting difference of 300m would matter with a big bomb if I got the Speed/Wind correct, but I am trying to learn precision with the smaller ones. 

 

BTW: I found this compendium of Airfields with their Altitudes listed, but only for the original BoS map.  If you know the altitude of your target, then the Bombardier Alt - Target Alt = AGL every time as far as I can tell. 

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3emIgfIMJ_mY2E5WkZrNmhjemc/view

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...