FW190 FM Change

[JtD]

The D-9 with MW50 has been labelled 1945 since ages, and as it is a plane representative for D-9's in 45 there's little reason to change it. The MW50 kit was a rare item at best by late 1944.

If you have a problem with overheating, I suggest you try not to use WEP all the time, or fly the plane at higher altitudes where the lower outside temperatures help it to cool the engine. Diving at full throttle is a bad thing too, it was outright forbidden in the pilot manual. You're over-revving the engine. 3300 was the absolute limit, check how your rpm's are in the dive.

How much data do you have on the D-9 with MW50?

[Z1024]

Originally Posted by JtD

The D-9 with MW50 has been labelled 1945 since ages, and as it is a plane representative for D-9's in 45 there's little reason to change it. The MW50 kit was a rare item at best by late 1944.

Sorry but that's doesn't mean it can't be corrected. Many server owners use these dates/years to compile planesets.

Originally Posted by JtD

If you have a problem with overheating, I suggest you try not to use WEP all the time, or fly the plane at higher altitudes where the lower outside temperatures help it to cool the engine. Diving at full throttle is a bad thing too, it was outright forbidden in the pilot manual. You're over-revving the engine. 3300 was the absolute limit, check how your rpm's are in the dive.

The problem is that not only it overheats quickly, but that it just dies after about 10 min of flying (radiator always fully opened) in a usual busy open pit server mode.
As an experiment I flew a mission mostly @ 80% using full throttle only in climbs, Didn't engage MW50 whatsoever and yet after ~10 min I got an overheat warning (while going full throttle) an in a matter of seconds (maybe 10) the engine started squeaking. If at this stage you don't drop below 70% or something - the engine will die completely within maybe another 30sec.
If you reduce to 50-70% you can still make it to the field if its not too far and you don't get shot down by some uber la7.

No other plane behaves like that. Usually you don't have to act immediately to prevent engine failure. It shouldn't be hard to replicate, I get this every time I use Dora, especially the MW50 version (and survive 10-15 min, which is most of the time). So this makes d9 barely flyable. And that was one of the most popular 1944+ planes.

Originally Posted by JtD

How much data do you have on the D-9 with MW50?

Only what's in Wikipedia, but most websites mentioning Dora list the same specs and data.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by Z1024

Sorry but that's doesn't mean it can't be corrected. Many server owners use these dates/years to compile planesets.

Exactly, and that's why 1945 is the better choice.

I just flew a fuel tank empty with the D-9 1945. No troubles. Keeping radiator open and air speed up, I only once overheated at around 4000m when climbing from sea level to 8000m at 110% power throughout. So I'm still guessing you're over-revving the engine. If you can provide a track, it would help.

Wikipedia figures aren't always the most reliable. For instance, 710 km/h at 11000m is not a figure any D-9 ever attained.

[K_Freddie]

I think there's a lot of pilot error (lack of education) involved here.

a) I fly the anton 9s vs spitIX+25lbs (all '44) with reasonable difficulty and almost at full power = 50/50 outcome
b) Then again with the dora9 vs spitIX+25lbs (all '44) with little or no difficulty mostly at full power = 25/75 in my favour.

All scenarios < 1000m, never had and overheat... I mean not one ??
All Difficulty = Full Real

[Z1024]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

I think there's a lot of pilot error (lack of education) involved here.

a) I fly the anton 9s vs spitIX+25lbs (all '44) with reasonable difficulty and almost at full power = 50/50 outcome
b) Then again with the dora9 vs spitIX+25lbs (all '44) with little or no difficulty mostly at full power = 25/75 in my favour.

All scenarios < 1000m, never had and overheat... I mean not one ??
All Difficulty = Full Real

Vanilla I2 upped to patch 4.11.* - the latest?
Full power + MW50? Like I said - I create a quick mission, fly straight MW50+max power with open radiator and get an overheat under 2min. Full real as well (well, at least engine wise). What am I possibly doing wrong here?
I'd love to see a track of you managing to maintain 110%+MW50 at sea level for more than say 5min and not get an overheat with some notes on how you achieve that?

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Z1024

Vanilla I2 upped to patch 4.11.* - the latest?
Full power + MW50? Like I said - I create a quick mission, fly straight MW50+max power with open radiator and get an overheat under 2min. Full real as well (well, at least engine wise). What am I possibly doing wrong here?
I'd love to see a track of you managing to maintain 110%+MW50 at sea level for more than say 5min and not get an overheat with some notes on how you achieve that?

To measure the time to overheat, you should really start from take-off when the "virtual" engine of the D-9 is cold with rad open, then see how long it takes. Not when the engine is already warm. Also keep in mind each map is modeled different temperature, effects of cooling from airspeed.

Think about it. 3250 is very high rpms even today for piston engine. This isn't even water cooled! High rpms creates more heat and that will break down the oil/lubricant chemical bonds and then the engine damage. Learn to use force of gravity in combination with your engine, this will get you your speed in any plane. Use the high rpms to get torque at your low speeds for acceleration, then lower the rpms and atas to keep it cool when your moving fast.

[Z1024]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

To measure the time to overheat, you should really start from take-off when the "virtual" engine of the D-9 is cold with rad open, then see how long it takes. Not when the engine is already warm. Also keep in mind each map is modeled different temperature, effects of cooling from airspeed.

There is no ground take off in QMB. It always starts mid-air. Are you sure quick missions start with the warm engine?
Either way, in my tests(on the Crimea map, 100m alt) D9 MW50 overheats in 1:05m, La7 in 1:30 and Spit 25lbs in 1:55m. (all closed/auto radiator)

So 4.11 Dora is seriously crippled not only top speed wise, but also engine endurance wise as well.

Another interesting observation - the spit flew full 19 mins @110% before the engine died and it didn't show any signs of damage until maybe 12min into flight. D9 died in ~3:30 and La7 in 4:30. I understand that the time to failure is not fixed in this new patch, but still, these are the figures I got.

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

Think about it. 3250 is very high rpms even today for piston engine. This isn't even water cooled! High rpms creates more heat and that will break down the oil/lubricant chemical bonds and then the engine damage.

Sorry but Jumo213A IS liquid cooled and it was rated for 30 min at that rpm.
Now that might look high, but Junkers engineers allowed that, so they probably knew their engine better and knew what they were doing.

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

Learn to use force of gravity in combination with your engine, this will get you your speed in any plane. Use the high rpms to get torque at your low speeds for acceleration, then lower the rpms and atas to keep it cool when your moving fast.

I just leave pitch at auto and control in with the throttle.
My problem is not that it overheats, but that water cooled Dora overheats faster than air cooled La7 and much faster than water cooled Spitfire 25lbs.
This is not correct, besides, MW50 should actually cool the engine, and increase its efficiency.

[Z1024]

Originally Posted by JtD

Exactly, and that's why 1945 is the better choice.

Sorry, I'm not following you here? How is it a better choice to put a 1944 German plane in 1945 if the war ended for them after only 4 months of 1945?

And then this late 1944 is pitted against mid/late 1945 planes?

For instance according to this Russian resource:
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/la7.html

Лишь в июне - июле 1944 года в НИИ ВВС удалось провести первые испытания трех синхронных мушек Б-20. Они выявили, что при выбросе гильз в воздух из зализов крыла случались повреждения консолей крыла и хвостового оперения. Машину доработали, сделав выброс гильз под фюзеляж, и в сентябре вновь испытали в НИИ ВВС. В серийное производство трехпушечный вариант пошел летом 1945 г.

The 3 cannon version of La-7 went into production in summer of 1945, but in the game it is available in 1944!
By the way the the max speed for La-7 according to Il2 Compare is 682km/h - that is the result achieved by the prototype "Эталон" plane (actually 680), and I doubt that average new plane coming off the factory lines would show the same performance. Wikipedia article for La-7 lists a more realistic figure of 661km/h @6000m for the 1945 production model.

So given all that I can't help but notice the performance specs look somewhat biased towards soviet planes...

Originally Posted by JtD

I just flew a fuel tank empty with the D-9 1945. No troubles. Keeping radiator open and air speed up, I only once overheated at around 4000m when climbing from sea level to 8000m at 110% power throughout. So I'm still guessing you're over-revving the engine. If you can provide a track, it would help.

Try Crimea, between 100 to 300m , just fly straight, MW50 + 110% radiator fully open. I get the "overheat" message in ~1:50min.

Originally Posted by JtD

Wikipedia figures aren't always the most reliable. For instance, 710 km/h at 11000m is not a figure any D-9 ever attained.

Well okay, The top speed figure for D9 is varies between 680 and 705 km/h @~6000m depending on the source. So that's close to 710 albeit not at 11k, and I agree that figure did look a bit strange - could be some experimental model with GM-1 boost?

Speaking of speeds and reliable sources, according to Il2 compare the top speed for D9 is pretty close in the game(~692km/h @ 5500m), however sea level figures look a bit low:

This article has some authentically looking reports and figures:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...190d9test.html

So if you have a loot at this figure from that article:

You can see that its sea level speed should be around 610km/h and in I2 Compare it is ~610km/h.
By the way, during my tests I could't make it go faster than 575km/h (normally like 560) without making a very shallow dive, but in a La-7 I managed to reach ~600 (605 in IL2 Compare)...
Anyway. back to the graph, between 0 and 1500m IL2Compare figures are 10-20km/h lower than on this graph. Furthermore, between 1500 and 2300m in Il2Copmare the speed drops, while on the report diagram it stays between 645 and 655km/h. At 3000m the difference between the report and il2 compare is 20-25km/h (640 vs ~660-665)
These graphs are given for 3250rpm - and this was allowed for 30 min.
Measured results of these captured planes show for example that D9 should be able to go at least 665km/h @6150m for at least 30min. I'm pretty sure you can't do that in the game without blowing the engine.I'm saying at least, because they were not in the perfect shape, not just off the production line with the brand new engine. And if you are using "Эталон" figures for La-7, Why not use the FockeWulf figures on that graph with the engine gap sealed, no ETC504 rack? I'm not even suggesting using the one with C3 fuel BTW that C3 one - that's with the ETC 504 thingy. Drop it and you probably can expect 710km/h @ 6k...

[JtD]

Regarding the speed figures from ww2aircraftperformance. You'll see the effect of the engine gap. This was not sealed in real life. In performance calculations it was assumed sealed, because the model wasn't exact enough. So tests with gap sealed as well as Fw performance calculation show higher speeds than were attainable with the real D-9. So for reasonable real life performance, take the green line (Fw Flugmechanik, 15.12.44), and subtract 10-15 km/h for the effect of the engine gap.

3250 rpm were allowed for 30 mins max., unless the engine exceeded temperature limits.

[Z1024]

Originally Posted by JtD

Regarding the speed figures from ww2aircraftperformance. You'll see the effect of the engine gap. This was not sealed in real life. In performance calculations it was assumed sealed, because the model wasn't exact enough. So tests with gap sealed as well as Fw performance calculation show higher speeds than were attainable with the real D-9. So for reasonable real life performance, take the green line (Fw Flugmechanik, 15.12.44), and subtract 10-15 km/h for the effect of the engine gap.

If you are basing your La7 FM on the "эталон"(prototype) La7, why not use the FW's figures with the sealed engine gap?
The real life La7s that saw combat would surely be noticeably slower than the prototype?

So if you choose top stats for FMs that green line would be a good model for the 44 Dora, and the C3 line would be a good model for D9 45.

In reality, the Il2 compare figure @2000m is 625km/h and FW data shows at least 650km/h. Even the captured D9 (sealed gap) shows 645km/h.
And finally, even the captured 190 with the gap not sealed shows 630km/h.

So across the board FW190D9 MW50 figures are (often way)lower than it was in reality, while La7s(for example) is represented by the prototype model (so it was in the perfect shape for those trials when they got 680km/h) or even slightly better (Il2 Compare shows 682km/h). Many Russian sources(not just Wikipedia) state La7s top speed was 661km/h. So why 682km/h? That's even more than the prototype's figure!

Is it just me of this does indeed look biased?

Originally Posted by JtD

3250 rpm were allowed for 30 mins max., unless the engine exceeded temperature limits.

If 3250 was allowed for 30 min max that kinda gives a ballpark estimate of the engine endurance, doesn't it? Why would they allow it for 30 min if engine overheated in under 2min and died in 5 even with the open radiator while going ~600 km/h? That doesn't make any sense.

And what about the 1944 vs 1945 issue - why the 1944 D9MW50 is in 1945 plane set but 1945 La7(3 cannon version) is in 1944?