4.11 and Engine Overheat

[greybeard1]

Originally Posted by Treetop64

...new overheat model are sired from honest ignorance on how piston aircraft engines actually overheat.

REALLY?

Pre 4.11 engine temps were effected more by manifold pressure than by engine RPMs or mixture settings, which simply is not realistic at all. The pre 4.11 engine temp model was a joke, and I, for one, am glad it's been fixed.

REALLY? What about the top realism fame of this game during last ten years? And who grants that's not still so... a joke, I mean?

Actually, heat to waste in internal combustion engine is about three times power developed and this latter is directly proportional to MAP, not to RPM, which is a consequence (that's to say an output, not an input) and, secondarily, by mixture, that contributes to take away some warm before the cooling system does.

There are official values for max time allowed for each power setting in standard atmosphere on aircraft flight manuals: if matched in game they're correctly modeled, otherwise NOT (no matter how many testimonies and fancy theories we can take out).

Regards,
GB

[JtD]

In tests, the Hurricane exceeded allowed water and oil temperatures when flown according to the flight manual, guess it was incorrectly modelled.

[Arrow]

Originally Posted by greybeard1

REALLY?



REALLY? What about the top realism fame of this game during last ten years? And who grants that's not still so... a joke, I mean?

Actually, heat to waste in internal combustion engine is about three times power developed and this latter is directly proportional to MAP, not to RPM, which is a consequence (that's to say an output, not an input) and, secondarily, by mixture, that contributes to take away some warm before the cooling system does.

There are official values for max time allowed for each power setting in standard atmosphere on aircraft flight manuals: if matched in game they're correctly modeled, otherwise NOT (no matter how many testimonies and fancy theories we can take out).

Regards,
GB

I don't agree that it is proportional to MAP. Take the prop away from an engine and run it even on low MAP, you will see that it will overheat and explode just in seconds.

[greybeard1]

Originally Posted by Arrow

I don't agree that it is proportional to MAP.

You're free to agree or not, but that's so.

Take the prop away from an engine and run it even on low MAP, you will see that it will overheat and explode just in seconds.

You're confusing mechanical energy with thermal one: overheating is due to this latter.

GB

[Arrow]

Originally Posted by greybeard1

You're free to agree or not, but that's so.



You're confusing mechanical energy with thermal one: overheating is due to this latter.

GB

I forgot that mechanical energy doesn't produce any heat ... so now we can delete oil coolers and rev engines to indefinite RPMs. You are oversimplifying things ... Just to say that only MAP is responsible for overheating is ridiculous and certainly you cannot by any means model an engine with some simplified formula. Water and oil temps are measured for a reason...try to figure why.

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by greybeard1

REALLY?



REALLY? What about the top realism fame of this game during last ten years? And who grants that's not still so... a joke, I mean?

Actually, heat to waste in internal combustion engine is about three times power developed and this latter is directly proportional to MAP, not to RPM, which is a consequence (that's to say an output, not an input) and, secondarily, by mixture, that contributes to take away some warm before the cooling system does.

There are official values for max time allowed for each power setting in standard atmosphere on aircraft flight manuals: if matched in game they're correctly modeled, otherwise NOT (no matter how many testimonies and fancy theories we can take out).

Regards,
GB

For one, starting the first quote from where you did takes what was said out of context and completely changes the meaning. Really.

Secondly, the "top realisim fame" you mention, though warranted when making a general comparison to other WWII flight games, was never by any means a trait homogeneous within the sim. There were numerous unrealistic aspects, including how the engine temp/condition model was implemented. When set up and flown properly, oil and water/cylinder head temps of a given aircraft shouldn't tease the upper limits of the maximum temperature range while configured and established for economy cruise, and quickly go beyond pegging the indicators when adding more mercury and adjusting the RPM accordingly when you needed to do something urgently, which is exactly what happened in pre-4.11 aircraft. The indications in v4.11 show much more plausible indications and now can be read with much more confidence than in the past, which is the reason I suggested turning off the HUD messages. The simulation of the current model my not be Transas-level realistic, but is sure is a hell of a lot better than what it was before. If you're inclined to believe that the current model is a joke, as you eluded to, then by all means you are certainly welcome to do so. Really.

What you talk about in the relation of MP, mixture, and RPM makes some sense in simplistic terms, but I get the impression that, for the sake of validating your argument, you minimized the importance and utility of RPMs. When you're talking about complex, military grade, turbo, super, or turbo-supercharged WWII era aircraft piston engines and their propeller systems, discussing such operating principles to any appreciable understanding can become lengthy. There are plenty of sources online and at bookstores and libraries that can explain this subject in great detail.

[greybeard1]

Originally Posted by Treetop64

The indications in v4.11 show much more plausible indications and now can be read with much more confidence than in the past, which is the reason I suggested turning off the HUD messages.

Quote from 4.11 User's Guide (page 7, third line from top):
"please don't go by cockpit gauges, they aren't always accurate"

... discussing such operating principles to any appreciable understanding can become lengthy. There are plenty of sources online and at bookstores and libraries that can explain this subject in great detail.

Thanks, I did that many years ago, when I graduated mechanical engineer (included a fair amount of practice, like to test a real engine by dynamometer). I think also complex matters can be easily explained, if one has a deep knowledge and some talent to teach; if Einstein embodied entire universe phenomena into E=mc2, probably a piston engine doesn't require much more...

GB

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by greybeard1

...when I graduated mechanical engineer (included a fair amount of practice, like to test a real engine by dynamometer).

Sure. That's very convincing.

[WTE_Galway]

meh ... its a game

... and after 10 years of playing its all become a bit of a doddle, the flying part is not that challenging anymore (my shooting on the other hand sux), so anything that makes the flying harder and more challenging is in my mind a good thing

if the changes also make it more realistic than that's just a great bonus

[Kittle]

I enjoy the game more with the new engine model. Just flying around requires more attention then before, so obviously combat has become much more complicated. I actually use all 8 axis between the two controllers, on every flight unless the aircraft has auto prop pitch or radiator. The game has far more value to me now then before, and that is nothing but pure GOODNESS in my eyes!