PDA

View Full Version : Wide Open Throttle and WEP/boost in WWII aircraft



PFflyer
03-16-2007, 11:28 AM
Running the engine in a WWII aircraft at 100% throttle, or using some sort of WEP or boost was something that not done very often and then only under special circumstances for short periods of time.

Full throttle would be used during take-off with full-loads or on short strips. After that the only time 100% throttle might be used is for very short bursts in a combat situation.

WEP, was an absolute last resort, something to use when it was the only option to save your life.

100% throttle, and WEP were used so little in WWII aircraft because very simply if they were used any more than very little they would ruin the engine!

Ask any flight engineer, or mechanic from WWII about this and he will back it up 100%, I did.

This is just another aspect of this sim that is not realistic at all. Many aircraft in this sim can run at 100% throttle, and then even with some sort of WEP or boost on top of that, for very long periods of time, or even indefinitely.

Any engine in WWII that returned to base and was reported to have been run under WEP or 100% throttle for an extended time was considered all finished, and was swapped out for a fresh engine.

If an engine lasted any extended period of time under WEP it was considered a miracle and a fluke.

If complex engine management in this sim meant you had to know as much about engines as WWII pilots did, and made you take care of your engine the way they had to in WWII, most of those flying this sim would never enable it.

msalama
03-16-2007, 11:34 AM
was considered all finished, and was swapped out for a fresh engine

Eh... not always. Memory a bit hasty on this, but I seem to remember that at least the RAF advised the ground crews to thorougly _check_ the the engine(s) after someone had run them at max+, i.e. no automatic engine swaps were done because of that...

Alas, no recollection of the AC types in question or anything. Anyone w/ more knowledge on this?

pacettid
03-16-2007, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by PFflyer: If complex engine management in this sim meant you had to know as much about engines as WWII pilots did, and made you take care of your engine the way they had to in WWII, most of those flying this sim would never enable it.

Are you serious? If I had to know all that before I could use complex engine management in a game, I would have been an engine mechanic instead.

Xiolablu3
03-16-2007, 01:32 PM
The whole thing about this is that its a game. YOu get a fresh plane when you land, so what does it matter if your engine is only good for 1 hours flight?

I agree that some of hte WEP models seem a bit odd, but I cannot say for sure whther they are wrong or not.

We dont have the concerns of keeping the aircraft engine in good condition. - it doesnt matter, so we can run it as if we get a new plane every time we land.

Hoatee
03-16-2007, 02:03 PM
Nonetheless it is an omission once a comparison is made to, for example, Lomac. In that game a number of system failures can be set to on/off.

berg417448
03-16-2007, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">was considered all finished, and was swapped out for a fresh engine

Eh... not always. Memory a bit hasty on this, but I seem to remember that at least the RAF advised the ground crews to thorougly _check_ the the engine(s) after someone had run them at max+, i.e. no automatic engine swaps were done because of that...

Alas, no recollection of the AC types in question or anything. Anyone w/ more knowledge on this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct that the engines were not automatically swapped out but they were very carefuly checked for damage:

Bob Gobel (WWII Ace). He had this to say about WEP in the P-47:

""On one occasion over Vienna I got into a fight, shot down one Me-109 and was turning with another when I was jumped by two FW-190's. I let the nose fall through the horizon and went into a vertical dive but spiraling so as not to give them a shot as I accelerated.
I was in War Emergency Power (throttle through the gate - 67 in. of Hg) when I hit the deck and had opened the distance slightly so that the 190's were out of range. The race seemed to last a very long time before they gave up the chase but was actually closer to 10-12 minutes. The book limited the operation at that setting to 5 minutes but of course I wasn't about to pull the throttle back, even if the engine blew. When I got back to base and landed, I discovered that I had burned or blown off several exhaust stacks but the engine ran fine. I think all engineering did was compression check the engine, check the screens for metal particles and mark the aircraft back in commission."

and this comment I found once from a P-38 pilot about WEP:

"When I was overseas in 44 and 45, flying the J winter thru summer,
the policy was to drop tanks and push up MP to 45 inches when German fighters were spotted in a position where an engagement was likely. When you actually went for them, throttle up to WEP, 60 inches or so, rpm all the way up too, up past 3000 rpm. And there it would stay until the engagement was over and you remembered to throttle back. You could easily be at WEP for 20 minutes or more."

triggerhappyfin
03-16-2007, 11:31 PM
Actually we are restricted in use of full throttle and WEP....the engine overheats.

The ac's dont need full throttle while cruising if you bother trimming them up. When trimmed well they are able to achieve quite remarkable good speeds without slamming the throttle. A trimmed out aircraft i easier to control as well and only in combat situations I tend to slam the throttle. It might be handy to have that margin to use wep in pullout situation on an engine that hasnt overheated from beginning of the fight.

Waldo.Pepper
03-17-2007, 04:05 AM
berg417448

Really really good quotes!

Ugly_Kid
03-17-2007, 04:14 AM
Well the definition "maximum continuous power" is completely absent in game. Also as fra as I know about engines running on a higher boost for a lengthened period does not need to produce an "overheat" message and after a period of cutting the throttle to some 99% and opening rads a bit the problem is over and the engine is again as good as new - no, the cylinders may loose compression and you may permanently loose the power, you can wear out the engine quite fast. So on top of the overheating I think a permanent engine wear would be somewhat cool. Also the maximum continuous power - now, everybody flies a cruise in a mission with 100% or more...

JG53Frankyboy
03-17-2007, 04:26 AM
the "proplem" for me is that things like "103% power" are possible , and even 103% with wep or wep with lesser powersetting than 100% !

in my point of view there should be a stop at 100% for all planes that you could select with the throttle lever of your joystick.

than you should have to hit a "WEP" button to get 110% - should only work if your throttle is already at 100% !

planes like the late 109s should have another button that would enable/disable their boost system or , much better propably, should have their boost automaticly engaged by hitting this "WEP" button. if their boost "fluid" is empty, "WEP" would still be possible, but would damage your engine !
the additional fuel injectet boost systems (ZEros, Fw190s) should be automaticly engaged at "WEP" - so no benefit by flying only at 100% or lower.

sure, this system would propably also have some flaws. but i think it would be better than the actual one.

lets wait till SoW:BoB - where the Spitfire Mk.I's Merlin IIIs should most propably have their 12lb/sq.in. boost with 100octane fuel

M_Gunz
03-17-2007, 05:32 AM
There should be a SAVVY GAMER button that has all the engines of all the planes work the
same way with same limits (5 mins, next second is damage). Then a TOTAL GAMER button that
has all engines work the same and no time limits, just throttle all the way up until time
to land for the rare times that happens.

In no case should any plane be modeled based on individual specs as that would violate
blanket statements about WWII fighter capabilities and make someone unhappy.

OTOH you *could* say that what is unreal is the players, but even that is not strictly
true. US Ace McGuire had been noted to bring P-38's back in warped condition with skin
wrinkled and rivets popped often. He wasn't grounded because he racked up kills. He
also died under unknown conditions, there was serious speculation that he put his plane
through one too many hard moves trying to get his 39th confirmed kill.

Anyone doing rivet counts yet?

Ugly_Kid
03-17-2007, 05:43 AM
Well I think the idea of having the 110% on throttle and having MW-50 or something on "W" isn't that bad - it corresponds somewhat to the real controls. However, the abuse is way too easy, you can run the engine with quite high power all you might get is "overheat" - cool down and everything is back to normal again - engine factory new.

Another thing is the implementation of the boost control. In fact it is quite inaccurate. Overboosting is not possible whereas in most aircraft the danger was quite present. Also the lack of need for boost control reflects also in wrong performance. Take for example P-39, it reaches more or less - or at least in game engine it is intended - to reach the specified military power performance with 100% throttle on Crimea. Real military power is a boost setting - it would require advancement of throttle during the climb to maintain that boost. In a sense there is no 110% left anymore at the critical altitude. Therefore, many aircraft, like P-39 reach has way too much power reserves towards critical altitude. At critical altitude for military power there should be no more extra boost available because the supercharger is not able to maintain the military power boost anymore - we on the other hand still enjoy military power performance at 100% and can still advance to 110% and get additional boost.

In this sense the CEM does not do that good in modeling the true differences between different boost systems or chargers. Russian aircraft which had no automation requires almost no more control than fully automatic BMW on Fw-190. Haphazard mixture and supercharger - that's it. No way of manhandling, no way of burning the engine with wrong mixture, overboost or overrev.

Brain32
03-17-2007, 05:55 AM
PFflyer you are completely wrong, Allied planes could always run at maximum power with rads closed all the way, especially Merlin(but only if it stays in a Spitfire!) and P&W R2800, planes powered with the Merlin(actually Spitfire only as Merlins didn't like P51's) and R2800 only had rads so other planes wouldn't make inferiority complex, be sure. Also the R2800 powered planes were indestructable as much as the engine itself.
Once they put R2800 on ground zero of a 50 megaton nuclear bomb, not only it was completely undamaged but it later cured common cold, cancer and aids if you touched it, it also gave no-intrest loans and sold inssurance at very popular prices...

M_Gunz
03-17-2007, 07:12 PM
Only engine I can think of that damages from pilot control other than overheat is 109 on
manual pitch and that is from overrev. Well, P-40 in dives was able to as well and still
might. I would like to see more modes of engine failure and probably we will with SOW.

You guys can turn CEM off if the differences bug yas that much.