reported BF-109 Engine ratings is wrong, ATA too high

[Mokkeri]

Manual on page 44 gives ATA RPM ratings

 

Economy RPM 2000 ATA 1.05   my engine runs RPM 2000 ATA 1.2

Cruise  RPM 2400 ATA 1.25 my engine runs RPM 2400 ATA  1.35

Combat RPM 2600 ATA 1.35 my engine runs RPM 2600 ATA 1.44

WEB RPM 2800 ATA 1.75 my engine runs RPM 2800 ATA 1.78

 

Looks like engine runs on too high manifold pressure.

[saburo_cz]

Engine is correct, manual is not.

 

[grafspee]

Wow 160 US gal/h at 1850hp compare to 198 gal/h at 1720hp for V-1650-7. Wow that is economic engine there.

[JG13Wulf]

21 hours ago, Mokkeri said:

Manual on page 44 gives ATA RPM ratings

 

Economy RPM 2000 ATA 1.05   my engine runs RPM 2000 ATA 1.2

Cruise  RPM 2400 ATA 1.25 my engine runs RPM 2400 ATA  1.35

Combat RPM 2600 ATA 1.35 my engine runs RPM 2600 ATA 1.44

WEB RPM 2800 ATA 1.75 my engine runs RPM 2800 ATA 1.78

 

Looks like engine runs on too high manifold pressure.

 

Manual give correct value to use with manual prop control not automatic.
When using manual propeler, you can easily reach those value.

[saburo_cz]

Values in DCS manual are not correct for auto or manual engine setting.

(of course, you can set manually nearly what you want, but you will not follow prescribed settings for this particular engine, DB 605D)

 

Values in DCS manual seems to be for DB 605ASM and not for D (DB/DC).

Edited March 11, 2021 by saburo_cz

[grafspee]

On 3/11/2021 at 11:46 PM, saburo_cz said:

Values in DCS manual are not correct for auto or manual engine setting.

(of course, you can set manually nearly what you want, but you will not follow prescribed settings for this particular engine, DB 605D)

 

Values in DCS manual seems to be for DB 605ASM and not for D (DB/DC).

 

Same case in DCS's P-51 manual, power table and fuel consumption tables are for V-1750-3, but DCS P-51 has -7 variant.

Edited March 15, 2021 by grafspee

[Hummingbird]

On 3/11/2021 at 9:20 AM, grafspee said:

Wow 160 US gal/h at 1850hp compare to 198 gal/h at 1720hp for V-1650-7. Wow that is economic engine there.

 

Forgot to add in the MW50

 

So it's actually 208 gal/h for 1823 hp (1850 PS), which is quite comparable to 198 gal/h for 1720 hp.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Hummingbird

[grafspee]

1 hour ago, Hummingbird said:

 

Forgot to add in the MW50

 

So it's actually 208 gal/h for 1823 hp (1850 PS), which is quite comparable to 198 gal/h for 1720 hp.

 

Yeap ,still half of MW50 is just water.

Edited March 15, 2021 by grafspee

[M1Combat]

On 3/15/2021 at 1:38 PM, grafspee said:

Yeap ,still half of MW50 is just water.

 

But you still need to carry it

[some1]

And the rest of it could be water. The methanol in the mix was just an antifreeze and maybe helped with corrosion a bit.

 

Water injection actually reduces fuel consumption a bit, and having direct fuel injection can significantly help with fuel economy. 

 

But yes, the numbers in the manual do not match what's in the game.

[grafspee]

7 hours ago, some1 said:

And the rest of it could be water. The methanol in the mix was just an antifreeze and maybe helped with corrosion a bit.

 

Water injection actually reduces fuel consumption a bit, and having direct fuel injection can significantly help with fuel economy. 

 

But yes, the numbers in the manual do not match what's in the game.

Methanol does more the antifreeze job. 

You mean DCS manual??

It is normal for ED same with P-51 where power ratings are provided for V-1650-3 but DCS P-51 has V-1650-7 probably same case in BF-109 manual