MW50 -Secondary effects were cooling of the engine .

[Shardur]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

That and a total confusion between cooling the charge/manifold temperatures allowing more boost (and potentially cooling the heads very very slightly) versus cooling the entire engine.

The combustion chambers in an engine are the main source of heat, so cooling them will in turn actually cool the entire engine.

There was a question raised somewhere earlier if the MW50 actually raises engine power:
as per http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB6...sheets_DB.html

On the DB-605DB
At 0km altitude usable power is 1430hp without and 1850hp with MW50 (+-2,5%).
At 6km altitude usable power is 1285hp without and 1600hp with MW50 (+-2,5%).
(1800hp at 0km or 1550hp at 6km can also be gained by using better C-3 fuel and no MW50 instead of the lower grade B-4 fuel + MW50)

The DB-605DC engine that is optimized for C-3 fuel generates 2000hp at 0km with the MW50 active and 1800hp at 4.9km. (+-2,5%)

As an engineering student I can also say that systems that worked in the 40s work the same way today and are usually just optimized. We can't change the physical or chemical bases the systems work on, we can only fine tune the systems to take more effect.

Looking at the 109 and its role as a short range interceptor that tried to save wight wherever it could it is highly unlikely that someone would put a 23min tank on it, if it was not possible to use it.

[Whacker]

Originally Posted by Shardur

The combustion chambers in an engine are the main source of heat, so cooling them will in turn actually cool the entire engine.

There was a question raised somewhere earlier if the MW50 actually raises engine power:
as per http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB6...sheets_DB.html

On the DB-605DB
At 0km altitude usable power is 1430hp without and 1850hp with MW50 (+-2,5%).
At 6km altitude usable power is 1285hp without and 1600hp with MW50 (+-2,5%).
(1800hp at 0km or 1550hp at 6km can also be gained by using better C-3 fuel and no MW50 instead of the lower grade B-4 fuel + MW50)

The DB-605DC engine that is optimized for C-3 fuel generates 2000hp at 0km with the MW50 active and 1800hp at 4.9km. (+-2,5%)

As an engineering student I can also say that systems that worked in the 40s work the same way today and are usually just optimized. We can't change the physical or chemical bases the systems work on, we can only fine tune the systems to take more effect.

Looking at the 109 and its role as a short range interceptor that tried to save wight wherever it could it is highly unlikely that someone would put a 23min tank on it, if it was not possible to use it.

You need to stop this, because you're doing it wrong! You're actually... *GASP* ... PROVIDING sources!

My german vocab has always been miserable, so I clicked a few links from that page you showed and found this: http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclea...arance198.html Scroll down to see the english text where it talks about a P/W source stating the MW50 injection on the G-14 variants was good for 30 min, in 3 10 minute stretches with 3 min in between. If each of the 3 full 10 minute sessions was used in flight, it reduced the engine lifetime by half.

If you can find anything else very specific to Db605 MW50 operation then be sure to post it here with a translation, but the data seems to be pretty clear it's limited to 10 minute sessions with cool down periods.



So to Mustang's original point, "engine on fire after 13 minutes".

He presumes that the reason his engine is on fire is due to heat. One of the most well known side effects of water injection is increasing the overall pressures inside the engine block due to the additional charge increase from the water and additional fuel. While the engine itself may or may not overheat, it does put tons of wear and tear on other parts that aren't as robust, like piston rings, head gaskets, valve seats, etc. Ironically he talked about his "friend" who used NO2 in his car, which is just peachy. I also work on cars and have participated in engine rebuilds and modifications. One of the biggest dangers from NO2 use is blowing out the engine gaskets due to the increased compression and pressures seen as a result. Two can play this "USE THE BRAIN", provide xxxxxxxx examples to prove a point game.

So, as Badaim suggested... we can go back and forth about this as armchair experts, but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is what the manufacturer, pilot, and mechanic wrote down as operational characteristics.

[Shardur]

Originally Posted by Whacker

... this: http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclea...arance198.html Scroll down to see the english text where it talks about a P/W source stating the MW50 injection on the G-14 variants was good for 30 min, in 3 10 minute stretches with 3 min in between. If each of the 3 full 10 minute sessions was used in flight, it reduced the engine lifetime by half...

Thanks, I actually overlooked that part. However you misunderstand a small part of it: It does not reduce engine lifetime but flight endurance, which means that the flight range and time of flight is lower due to the increased fuel consumption at hight power settings. (Of cause none of the military engines of WW2 where created with very long lifetimes in mind anyway so, even if not further lowered, engine lifetime wasn't stellar)
Fuel consumption numbers are actually provided on the page and are for instance for the DB-605DB on maximum power settings 610 l/h plus 180 l/h of MW50 fuel (so a total of 790 l/h). High (climb) power for instance, which is the power setting below the boost setting, only uses 470 l/h.

[Mustang]

So to Mustang's original point, "engine on fire after 13 minutes".

Later..
I found new information about the MW50, and their effects.
The physics in 2012 are the same as in 1942.



Many are worried about the Engine Life time of BF 109??

The 156th Fighter Air Corps of the 4th Air Army was the next unit to receive the La-7 in October 1944. At one point during the month, they had fourteen aircraft simultaneously unserviceable with engine failures.
By 1 January 1945 there were 398 La-7s in front-line service of which 107 were unserviceable with engine failures

For MW50 ( CH3OH )


Actual Data

3) Can you run just water injection without methanol?
Yes, but you will not be able to take advantage of the octane-boosting properties of methanol, thus you will get cooling from the water, but no increase in octane.
Without methanol, you may not make as much power.

, it can only do good things. Since the water and methanol will help dissolve carbon buildup, it can keep your spark plugs, valves, and combustion chambers very clean, too.

Remember:

and as the mixture absorbs heat and vaporizes, temperatures inside the cylinder are reduced

The combustion chambers in an engine are the main source of heat, so cooling them will in turn actually cool the entire engine.

I like to see in this forum..the futile attempts of

No No No and NOT

[Mustang]

A different system boost known as MW 50 was also used, although GM-1 and MW 50 .....
However, MW-50 was not a nitrous-oxide system, ...
but a Methanol-water injection system, which injected a mixture of methanol and water into the cylinders to cool the mix. Cooling causes the air to become denser, therefore allowing more into each cylinder for a given volume. This is the same principle that intercoolers work on.

I encounter new data in everywhere.
So easy..
All aim to the same point.

.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Please add the source when you quote something. This also applied when you quote from Wikipedia.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Mustang

I encounter new data in everywhere.
So easy..
All aim to the same point.

.

And do you encounter any data about being polite?

Some irony may be ok, but you really are damaging more your cause than supporting it, with your childish behavior.

At this point, putting you on a ban, will be the sensitive thing to do. Not because of your claims, but on your behaviour.

[Shardur]

Originally Posted by RPS69

And do you encounter any data about being polite?

Some irony may be ok, but you really are damaging more your cause than supporting it, with your childish behavior.

At this point, putting you on a ban, will be the sensitive thing to do. Not because of your claims, but on your behaviour.

I have to agree. Always ask yourself if what you are about to post is really necessary and provide sources to any claim you are posting, no matter how trivial. Nobody will take your word for any claim, nor should they.

Any post claiming something without sources is a post best not made and will not further any cause.

Any post responding to a claim made without evidence in form of credible sources is a post that just feeds the troll and also does not help the discussion.

I see IL-2 as a real simulator for historical planes and want to see it as accurate as possible. Getting all the data is however a gigantic job and not easily done by the programming team alone. If we all try to act like historians, have a polite discussion and provide sources for historical data, we can help DT to get as much data as possible and to make the game better for everyone.

If however posts look like quotes form a conversation of a few local know-it-alls from the corner pub that argue over a pint or three who is the smartest this discussions won't lead anywhere and DTs time will be better spend not reading in this forum.