Jump to content

How about a post July 1944 version?


Schnelli

Recommended Posts

I know that the Anton we have is right for D-Day and C-3 injection was only fitted on F and G aircrafts. Also i know that asking for balance in a sim like DCS doesnt make any sense. So i wont.

But how about giving us the post July 1944 Anton with "erhöhte Notleistung" (1,58/1,65 ata)?

 

It would fit the scenario, since fighting in the Normandy took place until August 44 and would give us slightly better chances in dogfights against allied fighters.

 

 

 

Would that be a complicated task to do from a technical standpoint? :joystick:


Edited by Schnelli
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that the Anton we have is right for D-Day and C-3 injection was only fitted on F and G aircrafts. Also i know that asking for balance in a sim like DCS doesnt make any sense. So i wont.

But how about giving us the post July 1944 version with "erhöhte Notleistung" (1,58/1,65 ata)?

 

It would fit the scenario, since fighting in the Normandy took place until August 44 and would give us slightly better chances in dogfights against allied fighters.

 

 

 

Would that be a complicated task to do from a technical standpoint? :joystick:

 

 

+1

  • Like 2

Kein Anderer als ein Jäger spürt,

Den Kampf und Sieg so konzentriert.

 

Das macht uns glücklich, stolz und froh,

Der Jägerei ein Horrido!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED already stated in the Newsletter that they are going to introduce F-8 and G-8 variants so I am sure injection will come but only with those models.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

i7 12700KF | MSI Z690 A-PRO | Corsair Vengeance 2x16 gb @ 3200 Mhz | RTX 3070 Ti FE | Acer XB271HU 1440P 144HZ | Virpil T-50 CM throttle | Virpil WarBRD Base + MongoosT-50 CM2 Grip | MFG Crosswind | TrackIR 5 | HP Reverb G2

Bf 109 K-4 | Fw 190 A-8 | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | P-51D | Fw 190 D-9 | P-47D | Mosquito FB VI | F/A 18C | F-14 A/B | F-16C | MiG-15bis | MiG-21bis | M-2000C | A-10C | AJS-37 Viggen | UH-1H | Ka-50 | Mi-24P | C-101 | Flaming Cliffs 3

Persian Gulf | Nevada | Normandy | The Channel | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just hope that we get increased boost in A-8 too. 1.56/1.65 im not sure if i get numbers right.

I hope that ED will add smoke trail to F-8 which is injecting C3. At high power settings those engines were running rich mixture and additional c3 injection will rich it even more engine will smoke like a train :P


Edited by grafspee
  • Like 2

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just hope that we get increased boost in A-8 too. 1.56/1.65 im not sure if i get numbers right.

I hope that ED will add smoke trail to F-8 which is injecting C3. At high power settings those engines were running rich mixture and additional c3 injection will rich it even more engine will smoke like a train :P

 

Maybe injection with the JaBo versions, but what we really want is increased manifold pressure.

 

It basically comes down to increased manifold pressure or riot! :)

  • Like 1

Kein Anderer als ein Jäger spürt,

Den Kampf und Sieg so konzentriert.

 

Das macht uns glücklich, stolz und froh,

Der Jägerei ein Horrido!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have a question on this.

 

Just in case we would get the emergency boost, would the engine break if it would be used for the whole mission? I know that the manual says not more then 10 min. But the question is, wether this is to extend the lifespan of the engine or to avoid engine failure in flight.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

German test report says that oil temperature raises to critical levels during climb, which are only tolerable for 15 minutes, hence the 10 minute limit. Cylinderhead temperatures were ok during all flight regimes. I doubt the engine will survive for long if proper lubrication is no longer guaranteed, but it does not sound like the engine will fail after 11 minutes.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/BMW_VB_126.pdf

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using higher boost for more then 10 minutes, should not cause any fatal damage to the engine.

If pilot manage to keep oil temp not too high, engine should not suffer much.

Question is does this 10 minutes limit is for brand new engine or engine which did 200 hours.

If for example engine with high hours of flight scored was limited to 5 min or less or even forbidden of use this higher power setting.

Or no matter work hours run through the engine 10 minutes limit stayed not changed.

In first case exceeding 10 min limit would cause severe harm to engine but in second case it would not because safety margin is quite big in second case.

  • Like 1

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I'd say we really need it since it was most common after introduction. And since ED is going to give us F and G variants that definately have it, not adding it to the A-8 simply doesn't make sense. Let's have a switch in the ME to have the thing without then - or the other way round to add the boost.

  • Like 2

dcsdashie-hb-ed.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say we really need it since it was most common after introduction. And since ED is going to give us F and G variants that definately have it, not adding it to the A-8 simply doesn't make sense. Let's have a switch in the ME to have the thing without then - or the other way round to add the boost.

+1

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discussed this shortly after release here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=242847

9./JG27

 

"If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS

 

"In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
3 hours ago, Ramires said:

Any news for the introduction of the "Erhöhte Notleistung"?

 

+1 for MW50 (as option in Mission Editor 🙂 ).

  • Like 1

Webmaster of http://www.yoyosims.pl

Yoyosimsbanner.gif

Win 10 64, i9-13900 KF, RTX  4090 24Gb OC, RAM 64Gb Corsair Vengeance LED OC@3600MHz,, 3xSSD+3xSSD M.2 NVMe, Predator XB271HU res.2560x1440 27'' G-sync, Sound Blaster Z + 5.1, TiR5, [MSFS, P3Dv5, DCS, RoF, Condor2, IL-2 CoD/BoX] VR fly only: Meta Quest Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2021 at 6:11 PM, Ramires said:

Increased boost to 1,58 or 1,65. The intention to install MW-50 was abandoned after BMW found a solution to increase the engine performance that way.

A bit more complicated ...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_801#801D-2_and_801G-2

 

"... The D-2 models were tested with a system for injecting a 50–50 water-methanol mixture known as MW50 into the supercharger primarily for its anti-detonation effect, allowing the use of increased boost pressures. Secondary effects were cooling of the engine and charge cooling. Some performance was gained, but at the cost of engine service life. This was replaced by a system that injected fuel instead of MW50, known as C3-injection, and this was used until 1944. The serious fuel shortage in 1944 forced installation of MW50 instead of C3-injection. With MW50 boosting turned on, takeoff power increased to 2,000 PS (1,470 kW), the C3-injection was initially only permitted for low altitude use and increased take-off power to 1870 PS. Later C3-injection systems were permitted for low-to-medium altitude use and raised take-off power to more than 1900 PS. ..."

this description differs from the Wikipedia-article in German:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_801#Kurzfristige_Leistungssteigerung
 

In short and English: in 1943 the 190-F/G-fighter-bomber models got a first extra-fuel-injection useable up to 1000 m. Replaced in the A-8 from mid 44 by a modified extra-fuel-injection working for both loader stages up to critical height. Due to the grave fuel-shortage this second type of extra-fuel-injection system during end 44/ early 45 was replaced by the MW50-injection.

According to my sources (I'm not that much into engines) the sequence presented in the German Wikipedia article seems to be correct.


Edited by Retnek
typo
  • Like 2

"Those who admire me for my 275 kills know nothing about war" Günther Rall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Retnek said:

A bit more complicated ...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_801#801D-2_and_801G-2

 

"... The D-2 models were tested with a system for injecting a 50–50 water-methanol mixture known as MW50 into the supercharger primarily for its anti-detonation effect, allowing the use of increased boost pressures. Secondary effects were cooling of the engine and charge cooling. Some performance was gained, but at the cost of engine service life. This was replaced by a system that injected fuel instead of MW50, known as C3-injection, and this was used until 1944. The serious fuel shortage in 1944 forced installation of MW50 instead of C3-injection. With MW50 boosting turned on, takeoff power increased to 2,000 PS (1,470 kW), the C3-injection was initially only permitted for low altitude use and increased take-off power to 1870 PS. Later C3-injection systems were permitted for low-to-medium altitude use and raised take-off power to more than 1900 PS. ..."

this description differs from the Wikipedia-article in German:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_801#Kurzfristige_Leistungssteigerung
 

In shot and English: in 1943 the 190-F/G-fighter-bomber models got a first extra-fuel-injection useable up to 1000 m. Replaced in the A-8 from mid 44 by a modified extra-fuel-injection working for both loader stages up to critical height. Due to the grave fuel-shortage this second type of extra-fuel-injection system during end 44/ early 45 was replaced by the MW50-injection.

According to my sources (I'm not that much into engines) the sequence presented in the German Wikipedia article seems to be correct.

That's not 100% correct. The fighter bombers were equipped with the C3-Fuel injection system increasing the performance. Due to the  cooling properties of the additional fuel injected Fw 190F/G were able to use the emergency power for a 15min period. The A-8 was equipped with a similar but easier system - the "Erhöhte Notleistung" which was developed in the first half of 1944. BMW engineers increased the manifold pressure to 1,58ata (1st stage) and 1,65ata resp. (2nd stage). Actually there was no limitation in altitude (Graphic1 (spruemaster.com) but could only be used for a 10min period. 

According to the sources there was no other modification required and the temperatures were raised by just a few degrees.

Actually I've still no explaination for the 3min limit using the 1,42ata power setting.


I'm not an engineer but the altitude limitation of the C3 injection system may be a result of a too rich fuel mixture which couldn't be used in high altitudes.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been discussed in some more detail here:

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/207807-mw-50-or-gm-1/?do=findComment&comment=3919117

 

So for me there are three modifications for the 190s:
- "Erhöhte Notleistung" via extra C3-fuel-injection into the air-intake, in 1943 for the F/G-models up to 1000 m
- in mid-44 a new form of "Erhöhte Notleistung" (Enhanced emergency power) by a special configuration of the engine-regulator. Resulting in a higher boost and much higher fuel consumption, too. From A-8 on for both compressor stages up to critical height. In late 44 more and more with extra-(fuel-)tank build-in behind pilots seat.
- end 44 to early 45 MW-50-injection for models A-8 and A-9. MW-50 came from an extra-tank behind pilots seat.

Afaik there's no "Erhöhte Notleistung" for the A-8 in DCS now. The mission editor offers an option to fill the additional tank in the rear with C3-fuel. No MW-50 like the D-9.

Back on topic: so it would be nice to have both types of engine enhancements. Looking at the sources it might be more easy to find data for the enhanced-boost-option than for the later and maybe more rare MW-50-option.


Edited by Retnek
  • Like 3

"Those who admire me for my 275 kills know nothing about war" Günther Rall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont know why some of you so keen of flying around with additional MW50 Tank that probably add again 200 kg on the Netto Weight of the 190 even make the Handling worse, so why you need this?

 

190 was allready running on high Octane C3 Fuel compare to the B4 from the 109

 

There is not the tienest bit of Information out there the 190 was ever flying with MW-50. (exept Wikipedia not a source)

 

When exactly they use C3 Fuel injection or not is little bit obscure

 

More the Controversy all written towards the end of the War: MW50 dont needed C3 was enough

 

BMW 801-1.jpg

 

Fw-190A9 Engine with 1,82 ATA again running without MW50

 

BMW 801-2.jpg

 

  • Like 3

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

 The A-8 definitely needs the Erhöhte Notleistung and the Rüstsätze.

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
9 hours ago, felixx75 said:

Everyone always wants what they don't have.
Why can't we be satisfied with what we have? Why does it always have to be "more"?

(I'm not talking about bugs)

I think the problem is that we paid for an aircraft, the A-8, and it's not just 4 x 20mm 2x13mm and some bombs. It's a plane with quite a lot of option like R2, R8, removal of wing gun, bubble canopy (if we go far) for exemple and but it seems to be problem with all warbids, I don't know the details, but 150 octane for the mustang, fixed gunsight. Fixed gunsight, "normal canopy" for the D9, and those aircraft are easier to make than the jet we have in the game, and we don't have those "little" option wich I think are very cool for ALL aircraft. It's like if they make a 109 G6 and we don't get the gunpods. If they will never put these options, well they can but they should tell us, because we will hope for something special and afther that we are disappointed

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, felixx75 said:

Everyone always wants what they don't have.
Why can't we be satisfied with what we have? Why does it always have to be "more"?

(I'm not talking about bugs)

I can't say that you're wrong, and since I own both the Dora and the Anton I can have the higher power when I want it. But for someboday who owns only the Anton, especially if they play in SP against hyper-performing AI warbirds, the Anton is extremely limited in air-to-air combat. I love to fly the Anton, its handling and the fire power; but if I had known how limited it is as a fighter I don't think I would have bought it.

  • Like 4

LeCuvier

Windows 10 Pro 64Bit | i7-4790 CPU |16 GB RAM|SSD System Disk|SSD Gaming Disk| MSI GTX-1080 Gaming 8 GB| Acer XB270HU | TM Warthog HOTAS | VKB Gladiator Pro | MongoosT-50 | MFG Crosswind Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...