Intake burnt, oil gasket leak.
 

So, as I try out a mission, with complex engine management and all, flying in a spitfire, my engine gets messed up as soon as I take over the controls from the AI.

Says:
Engine 1: Intake burnt!
Engine 1: Oil gasket leak!
Engine 1: water radiator perforated!

I'm most likely doing something wrong, just curious as to what.

Not reading about Complex Engine Management in the manual? :-P

From what I read, it is a step up from IL 2 in realism. They advise turning OFF engine overheating in the realism options to start out with, and do not use Neg G's in Spits or Hurris, roll inverted if you must do those kinds of things. :)

Im guessing thats due to the fact that the Fuel System is Gravity fed?

Interesting, I thought it was just like in IL-2..

I set my radiator to 50% and it seemed to be working..

The engine goes nuts a bit each time I push the stick forward slightly..
What a pain :P

Yup, they have modeled the Carburettors how they really were apparently...another reason to fly 109s. :grin:

I just try never to fly nose down :p il take a Black out over a Red out any day...i like my eyes too much :D

However, did you know that if the 109 had the same fuel system as the Hurricane and Spitfire...it would of had greater engine power? The Merlin puts it fuel through the supercharger thus cooling the air and providing greater horsepower. The 109 with it's direct fuel injection didn't and thus loses out on the extra power. 1 less reason to fly 109s :grin:

This is explained by Sir Stanley Hooker in the excellent BBC documentary Spitfire! Two seconds to kill. If you're in the UK, you can view it here (watch from about 26:00 in);

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/battleo...in/11405.shtml

And yet the light DB engine had better power-to-weight ratio. ;)

ill take fuel injection over carburator any time... in the end i think the extra HP you got, you will loose due to constant engine management

Oh puh-lease Moggy :rolleyes:

You really expected to hear Sir Stanley Hooker saying "actually...erm... our engines were a bit like cottage farm compared to the German ones, but hey, we had a little gizmo that they didn't have!" ;)

Allowing to fly a plane with an engine that didn't permit negative G manouvres was simply criminal, but that's all they had, so let's not get carried away with your love for the Spit and Hurri, you can't change the fact that the DB601 was a superior engine,period.

I reckon that the struts for the tail horizontal surfaces on the Me109 as opposed to the clean Spit and Hurri tail section makes more of an interesting story, there's actually an espionage tale about it too, with a German agent was trying to steal the secret of the tail structure in the UK. I remember overhearing the conversation some years ago, but cant remember the details.

Yeah, it won bob and whole war for germs... oh sorry, it didn't...



The complex engine management looks promising, but I'm afraid it could discourage many less patient ppl from going full real. Looks good anyway.

..apparently it was enough to roll into Poland in a few weeks though :rolleyes:

I bet you're from germany.

No I'm not, I just stated a fact, whilst you made a statement that had nothing to do with the quality of the engines.. :rolleyes:

It was... stating lightly, in an indirect way, that the quality of an engine, while extremly important for tech geeks, does not guarantee victory in an air battle ;-)
You apparently can't stand when someone does not admire the oh how very awesome engineering achievements of the III reich, so you hit the nationalism string, hoping to embarass me?
Have more> ;-)

Now let's go back on topic.

I tried to google it, but I didn't find anything relevant.. :(
Sounds really interesting!

Just because it was more complicated doesn't mean it was superior. Any engine configuration with inverted cylinders tends to trap oil and other fluids in the inverted cylinder heads, leading to hydraulic lock on ignition and other fun things. There are reasons why there is only one surviving DB60X engine.

erm, no, we were not talking about victory in air battles here, we were talking about the quality of engines, sorry dear..
I have an engineering background and a degree in history, and if there's something I can't stand is when people make stupid comments like yours. My stupid answer about your country being invaded in a few weeks was just to keep on the same tone of your stupid statement about "oh it was worse but hey it won the war".. uh and just for the sake of numbers, if you do some maths you will see how the Luftwaffe was proportionally more effective than most of the other air forces involved in WW2, just for the sake of argument..

I'm not a nazi, I just hate lack of objectiveness because of cheap "hey we won!" propaganda..

yeah it was overheard in a museum, I doubt you'd find any info on the net :(

well actually the DB engines weren't more complex. The inverted cylinders solution had its valid reasons:

1) improved fwd visibility: your nose section is tapered upwards and your exhausts are not bang in your face like on the Merlin.

2) better protection of injection system: Hurris and Spits caught fire like torches because of the inlet pipes being on top of the engines, in a very vulnerable position. In the DB engines they were under the engine, in a more protected area.

3) Room for cannon: the space below the engine meant you could actually fit a big ass cannon on the plane axis, which was accurate being in the roll axis and wouldn't affect manouverability like cannons on wings. The narrow section on the top meant easy installation of machineguns very close to the roll axis as well.

4) oil recovery on the DB engine is quite clever and efficient.


the fact that there aren't many DB engines in working order surviving today is for two simple reasons: spare parts availability and airframes to be fitted to. Merlin and P&W engines were produced and maintained well after WW2 and there are still factories and maintenance shops that keep or produce spare parts stock. The engineering of the components is quite a sophisticated thing to do (see if you can find the assembly diagram of a DB crankshaft to have an idea of what I'm talking about), and if there's not a market request for it then there's no market, simple..

Plus the fact that most of the "Nazi war machine" was stripped and scrapped after the war was over. The allies simply had no use for anything that was surrendered to them, so it was all dismantled melted down and made into something else.

Are you sure about that?

Edit: according to this list there are at least 4 airworthy 109's on the planet, excluding Buchons of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...chmitt_Bf_109s

A whole lot more in storage or undergoing restoration.

So, you didn't watch the video at all then! :rolleyes:

Oh and the only...let me say this again...the only advantage the DB had over the Merlin was the fact it was much easier to work on.

I watched it on VHS years ago. It was much easier to work on because (again) of the inverted V solution. You see, the point is that the RR Merlin was developed with an automotive background in mind, whilst the Daimler-Benz was designed with an aeronautical mindset.

If you don't want to admit that the early Merlins were inferior to the DB mainly because of the fuel injection system then you're just lying to yourself..

Had the Merlin been fuel injected like the DB's then they wouldn't of had the performance boost that they enjoyed. The Spitfire would of probably been slower than the 109.
It's as simple as that, though I have the feeling you're going to pointlessly argue this now. :rolleyes:
At the end of the day, the RAF won the Battle of Britain with Merlin engine aircraft and the Germans lost. Wasn't a score draw and the Germans certainly wanted to win.
I don't believe either of the aircraft were the best fighter (nor the P-51 for that matter!) in the ETO.
Oh and you could of at least had the dignity to of watched the video before commenting about it! Do yourself a favour and watch it through the link I provided or fire up the VHS.

yeah, if we start to play the "IF" game god knows where we would get..

IF the Germans didn't have lunatic clowns for Air Marshalls and Fuhrer we'd all be hailing to the swastika now probably..

The RAF didn't win the Battle of Britain because of the Merlin engine nor because of the air force itself (all brave young fighters, but not enough to counteract the German attack), that's propaganda for little people. The Battle of Britain was won by the RAF because of the continuous strategic mistakes made by Hitler, Goering and his entourage..

Any serious historian will confirm what I say and so did my critic of history books..

Wow! That's truly an eye opener for me, the British didn't need to fight at all because the Germans lost the battle because of Goering and Hitler. I'm going to let you in on a little secret as to how the British won the Battle of Britain. It's really quite simple but complex at the same time. Britain had the 1st integrated air defence network in the World. From radar to the Oberserver Corps, the RAF pilots, the anti aircraft gunners, the plotters, even the Post Office telephone engineers and many more I've forgotten to mention. They all had a part to play in the defeat of Germany during the Battle of Britain.

*yawn* they still bombed a good part of London and other cities flat.. if they concentrated all that power on airfields and factories things would have been pretty different.. and as much as it might hit your little heart, it comes from a RAF historian that I met and talked to on several occasions..

..now go back to your Sir Stanley Hooker video and leave actual history to adults.. I'm SO tired of all this "history for Dummies" experts..

They what? They bombed cities flat? What concentrated power, do you mean from tactical bombers which had a very poor loadout? Sorry to break it to you but the Germans lost the battle before the blitz and in fact turning to London made no difference. The losses they were suffering could simply not be sustained.
Your schoolboy\it's all about Hitler\Goering theory holds no water and frankly your theory is insulting to those who fought and died on both sides, you should be ashamed of yourself!
Nice to see you've talk to a RAF historian, it's a shame you haven't taught any military history\doctrine\values...unlike some of us.
Go back to your school books, I'm done here.

I do remember reading multiple times that when the Luftwaffe changed tactics from attacking airfields and aircraft industry to bombing cities, they lost the BoB. Because they stopped when RAF resources were almost depleted.

But, other historians dispute that and say the Luftwaffe could never have destroyed the RAF.

One thing is for sure: looking at which plane was the better is pointless, since there are so many factors that were unfavorable for the germans. The RAF had the higher morale, the Polish RAF squadron was one of the best and most motivated due to their anger and superb pre-war training. Defending territory means no capture when having to bail out. Ditching in the channel was another unpopular risk for german pilots, including the lack of drop tanks until late in the Blitz, prior to that having the need to keep one eye on the fuel gauge and the other on the sky. The abundance of B4 fuel when everyone wanted C3.

If the situation were reversed, i.e. Germany on the island and Britain in continental Europe, attacking Germany, the outcome would've probably been the same, victory for the people on the island. Because in the early stages of the war the hardware wasn't that different.

The discussion which engine was better is IMHO a matter of personal taste. I like fuel injection, I adore the brilliant and elegant variable hydrodynamic clutch driving the supercharger on the DB series, but those designs didn't provide the edge over the Merlin. Critical altitude for the DB601 was 5,5 km, why so low puzzles me at this time. If I'm not mistaken the Merlin had better high-alt performance.

Well the thing you have to remember is...we still have fuel injection today so it was far from a bad engine. I also like the whine it makes from it's supercharger...for me it harks back to the late twenties and the races between the Mercedes and Bentleys. I just believe the Merlin was a better engine, it's problems were identified and fixed...partly by Miss Shilling and later by the diaphragm carburetor. As Bader and Stanford-Tuck say in the video, they could catch the 109 after it had dived because they believed word had got round the Luftwaffe that an ace pilot had ripped the wings off a 109 in a dive and pilots would pull out of dive early. Wasn't the 109 tested pre-war with an earlier Rolls Royce engine, the Kestrel?
Also, 1 last thing to consider...the Spitfire and Hurricane were never really designed to go up against 109s. They were at heart bomber interceptors kind of like 109s later in the war.

I understand what you're saying, and that's my point as well, the engines were tailored for their intended use. Yes, the prototype 109 used a Kestrel. Production 109's used the Jumo 210 until Emil showed up, that was the first production type with the DB601. But ... comparing the Merlin with the structural deficiencies in the airframe of the 109 misses the point ;-)
And sure, the problems with the Merlin were solved, and both engine types evolved dramatically during the war. Both engine types were examples of excellent engineering, like most engines in successful aircraft.

Moggy,every inch of you is RAF pride,and u have any right to do it,but u need to be objective: Coventry was flattened and a good part of London was devastated.. had they kept on hammering airfields you would have had no chance to defend yourself. I'm not offending anybody's memory,I respect fighters on both fronts,but you need to get yourself a better source of info,not just watching documentaries.. You show poor understanding of aviation (your conclusions about engines is pretty senseless),I'm only trying to explain things in an objective way,and I know that sometimes I come out a bit blunt,but you can decide for a life in denial or listening to people that actually spent hours on books and met many historians.. Ask in person to Prof Holland what he REALLY thinks of the BoB..he's quite a renown English historian..

*yawn* bombed flat... you are exaggerating a bit.
Berlin was bombed flat, Warsaw was bombed flat in 1944... but London or any other British city in 1940? No.

Stop proving that germs lost the war because hitler was an idiot.
They lost because of too low manufacturing output and shortage of manpower resources.

There are many reasons which contribute to the German defeat during the battle. 1 contribution was in fact German radar which was far in advance of the British chain home system. This led in part to the Germans simply believing the British system was ineffective. Another factor which is often overlooked was the British control of German intelligence gathering, All of the German spies operating in Britain had been captured by or during 1940 and some were double agents. 1 particular spy (Garbo?) fed false information about British aircraft production, telling the German high command that Britain was producing 200 fighters a month...the same as Germany. The figure of course was much higher (about 450 fighters a month give or take), so the Germans naturally thought to win all they had to do was keep pace with the ficticious production figures.
It's perfectly understandable to see why Goering thought (quite wrongly) the RAF was on it's knees.
There's no simple reason why the Germans lost the battle, it really is a huge combination of facts, circumstances, opinions, personnel, innovation and even double bluffs.

So far from original topic...

Yes back on topic, I found out myself in the quick flights you start in the air with closed radiators. First thing to do is open those puppies up and then look at the engine mixture, prop pitch and throttle.

Once you have them sorted, then you can get your cruise speed sorted and set about triming the plane.

Pretty crappy though when you are in the quick flight combat missions whereby you have f-all time to deal with these issues before having to deal with enemy aircraft. I would much prefer a few minutes flight time before interception.

Might have to look at mission building and set up various intercept missions starting from the ground.

So much to sort in this sim. Least I have my X45 sorted now, boy that one was getting me flustered and also Gun Sight View - who would have thought "loosen straps" LOL.

As for Germans and war, great machine, bone head leadership with squandered resources and over confidence. That should sum it up.

Had my first flights tonight without burning through my engines in the first 2 minutes. Even got a Spit down in a field in one piece (free flight with idea as to map reading and no vectoring from comms on airfields). I was happy.

Yeah back on track, 1 quick tip I can think of is not to lean the Merlin engine too much when you're using a lot of throttle and prop pitch. Unless you need to conserve fuel or climb, keep your mixture fairly rich.