View Full Version : emergency war power?

06-21-2004, 09:04 PM
what is it? i heard one time it was some type of NOS injection but i dont really remember.the corsair and hellcat had it right?

06-21-2004, 09:04 PM
what is it? i heard one time it was some type of NOS injection but i dont really remember.the corsair and hellcat had it right?

06-21-2004, 09:11 PM
War Emergency Power (WEP):

When power output of the engine is momentarily increased to beyond the tolerances of the engine for more power. That would be 110% power in FB.


06-21-2004, 09:22 PM
o so like what the p51 and such has in f.b already ok gotcha.

06-22-2004, 12:58 AM
Everything I've seen describing WEP is that it is water injection.
You get 10 minutes of it in CFS2, and it comes in very handy when you have to get outta Dodge in a hurry.


06-22-2004, 07:57 AM
"War Emergency Power" was a term primarily used to describe throttle position in US planes, as Korolov mentioned. It doesn't specifically mean Methanol injection, or Nitrous Oxide injection, or water injection, it is simply going to the highest power setting on the throttle, and could ne very bad for the engine, hence it's name; it wasn't to be used except in an emergency during wartime, or at least that was the intent. For example, the P-47 with water injection has a WEP setting, and the P-51 does, too- but it doesn't have the same system for water injection. Luftwaffe planes, for instance, didn't have "War Emergency Power", simply because it was a US term. They did have what could be siad is the equivelant of WEP, and in FB, it may confuse folks that the terminology is the same. But War Emergency Power doesn't mean "water injection" only http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As an interesting note, some US planes would have a safety wire across the throttle quadrant that would have to be physically broken by shoving the throttle full forward, to prevent accidental use of WEP.

The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

06-22-2004, 09:03 AM
Just a little added info....On planes equiped with the water injection system ,the WEP was to only be used if it was absolutly necessary.
The injection of water into a hot cylinder would cause a increase in power,but the cool water mist hitting the cylinder walls would cause them to crystalize...meaning if you did make it home the motor had to be compleatly rebuilt...and your crew cheif woud burn your *** if you put him to that much work unnecessarly

06-23-2004, 03:03 AM
Many friends with extensive R2800 experience in the DC6 (still flying) tell me that water methanol injection can and is used for takoff power when needed. As mantainance and engine longevity are issues to commercial operators, I presume it isn't that harmful when used under controlled conditions.

R2800 installations varied acording to type of aircraft and turbo/supercharger type, but water methanol was the type of "boost" used in this engine. It functioned by increasing the mass flow through the cylinder, improving the cooling of the intake gases, dampening a tendency for the mixture to detonate at high pressures and carrying more heat out through the outgoing combusted gasses. Heat was the main enemy in the radial type engines.

The Germans experimented with and used various types of Nitros Oxide, and oxygen systems. There is a good discusion of all of this in the "1944 Joint Fighter Conf.", a very interesting book!

06-23-2004, 02:13 PM
Fliger, what was the operational life of an engine in a Wildcat or Hellcat? I think either in the documentation in CFS2 or somewhere else I read it was about 70 hours. This sound about right? If so, the ground crew would be pretty damn busy rebuilding engines or installing new ones.


06-23-2004, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As an interesting note, some US planes would have a safety wire across the throttle quadrant that would have to be physically broken by shoving the throttle full forward, to prevent accidental use of WEP. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but also, and primarily, to leave positive proof for the groundcrew that WEP had been used. Then they would carry out whatever checks and service actions the books called for, like checking the oil filter for chunks, plug change etc.

06-24-2004, 10:50 PM
I don't know what the operational life of the F6f R2800 installation, but I presume it was more than that! I know that some of the Brit inlines like the Napier Saber (24 cyl "H" engine) was about 150 hrs under combat conditions. The style of flying in the Pacific generally was a LOT of low power long range cruise, and very occasional bits of "excitement". The Commercial operators who still run R 2800's get around 2000 hrs, with experienced pilots and flight engineers. I do know that the availbility percentage for the F6f was vey high, posibly 90% or so, which implies that little time was spent in the "engine shop". A good crew could change out one of these quite quickly, which helped.

A reliable powerplant (only one) tended to get good care from it's pilots with all of the blue below!

06-26-2004, 11:09 PM
From wha I've read, the R2800 in the F4U, which is essentially the same engine, recieved anywhere from about 300 to 2,000 hours before needing to be overhauled, though I'm unsure of this number. The following was quoted by Ronnie Hay who who flew Corsair MkIIs aboard HMS Victorious.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We flew the aircraft very hard and just to illustrate the point, a little after the Sumatra Show we ventured northword to Okinawa for Iceberg, where I came across an airfield full of the latest spec F4U-4s in glossy sea blue at Manus, in the Admiralty Islands, awaiting shipment back to the US. I found the US Navy Officer in charge of this operation and asked him what was occuring. He told me that they were being returned to the States for overhaul and repair, prior to be sent to the frontline again. I enquired as to their individual service use per airframe and he replied that htye had seen 500 hours of flying each. I was astonished, and replied that our Corsair IIs had accured nearly 2,000 hours each, and were no nearer an overhaul or deep service than the day they were built! I ventured a swap whereby I took one of his non-serviced machines in place of my old crate, and he replied, "Sure bud, you can have any one you like. Any guy going up to the "sharp end" can take anything he wants!" Sadly, I deared me admiral would have noticed the F4U-4s glossy blue scheme sat amongst the ranks of our sea grey Corsair IIs on Victorious!" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

06-27-2004, 05:57 AM
Perhaps that was more of a reflection of two different cultures. I suspect the British, having endured blockades and being dependant on ships bringing in raw materials as well as finished armaments were of a mind set that you use what you have until it is totally useless.

The U.S., on the other hand, had uninterrupted sources of raw materials and an astonishing output rate for finished armaments. So the mindset may have been more of "we made these, we can make more and we can make them as fast as the military can take them." So perhaps sending weapons back for overhaul long before they truely needed it was a reflection of the seemingly never ending supply of new weapons. At least that was the way it appeared near the end of the war.

06-27-2004, 06:34 AM
Sometimes the parts flow didn't keep up with the aircraft production. The navy actually had to call a halt to Grumman production of new aircraft to get them to make enough spares available. Spares and the logistics pipeline actually kept the Corsair off of the carrier decks till the kamakaze threat came along and a faster interceptor was needed. Just too much hassle to have too many aircraft types at sea.

Hard to say why the aircraft were being returned, except many funtions can be preformed much better at a good depot rather than in the field, and new planes were probably available in good numbers. When cost is no object the military has and continues to do some "strange" things by civi stanards. Sometimes "cost" isn't the point.

06-27-2004, 10:05 AM
Here are some flying and overhaul times on the major US fighter engines:

1945 1st quarter

flying hours: 302
labor hours: 251

flying hours: 362
labor hours: 134

flying hours: 580
labor hours: 147

1945 2nd quarter

flying hours: 200
labor hours: 259

flying hours: 387
labor hours: 153

flying hours: 500
labor hours: 241


06-27-2004, 06:46 PM
Those seem to be reasonable figures given the use that the engines were put to! High power reciprocating aircraft engines need carefull care and feeding fom experienced pilots for a long life. In VF type aircraft often operational requirements coupled by relatively in-experienced hands at the throttle added to the general wear and tear.

The R2800 comes out well!