Time limit for MW50 usage > 109

[MiloMorai]

Before you get your knickers bunched in a knot you know where Barbi, I ask because I am trying to defend your uber 109.

Early 109s, afaik, were limited to 2 minutes and then later to 10 minutes. What is being said that 2 minutes was always. It is also being said that it was restricted to climb only. No level speed usage.

So 109 expert Barbi, give me some ammo to debunk and put the record straight.

[Kurfürst]

It`s 10 minutes continous use time at one time, then ca. 5 min to be allowed for cooldown. All MW50 models.

The DB 605A`s max coolant temperature of 115 celsius was also allowed for 10 minutes at a time, 105 celsius was allowed continous. I guess the 605D`s limit was 120, as the cocpit`s temp gauge was marked at that regime.

From the Bf 109 K-4 Handbuch :

   "Der mitgeführte MW-Stoff (75 Ltr.) reicht für 26 Flugmin.-Sondernotleistung aus. Es kann also 2 x 10 min Sondernotleistung entommen werden, oder eine andere Zeitaufteilung; auf keinen Fall mit Sondernotleistung über 10 min fliegen. Weiteres über Bedienung siehe L. Dv. T. 2109 K-4/Fl.

    Zwischen zwei Sondernotleistungen muss eine Betriebszeit mit geringer Motorleistung von mindestens 5 min liegen."

Which translates to :

 
    "The amount of MW booster fuel being carried (75 liters) is sufficient for 26 minutes of flight while using the Sondernotleistung. Therefore  Sondernotleistung can be used for two 10 minute periods, or in any other subdivision; in no case should one fly with Sondernotleistung for over 10 minutes. For further servicing instructions, see  L. Dv. T. 2109 K-4/Fl.

    Between two uses of the Sondernotleistung the engine must be run at a lower power output for ca. 5 minutes."


As for not allowed to be used in level speeds, well that`s strange, why there are countless german max speed curves with MW50, GLC charts ? And no instruction not to use it under specific conditions?

The only kind of restriction that woud appear in use during max level speed flight is the opening of radiators when heat increased, unless they were overidden manually. This would allow for much greater cooling capacity, but the drag penalty is great. True for all kind of WEPs and liquid engined fighters, though.

[hogenbor]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
From the Bf 109 K-4 Handbuch :

   "Der mitgeführte MW-Stoff (75 Ltr.) reicht für 26 Flugmin.-Sondernotleistung aus. Es kann also 2 x 10 min Sondernotleistung entommen werden, oder eine andere Zeitaufteilung; auf keinen Fall mit Sondernotleistung über 10 min fliegen. Weiteres über Bedienung siehe L. Dv. T. 2109 K-4/Fl.

    Zwischen zwei Sondernotleistungen muss eine Betriebszeit mit geringer Motorleistung von mindestens 5 min liegen."

How is 'geringer motorleistung' specified in terms of revs/boost levels/coolant temperture etc. ? Max continuous cruise? Just curious you understand. Could it indeed be influenced by opening radiator flaps allowing more cooling (and more drag?)

How is this implemented for 'our' Bf-109G6 and G-10? Is WEP implemented as being MW-50? I've seen a ton of threads discussing this but frankly I don't know. I am aware of the zillions of mods available for the 109, but I do not know how the AH version is modelled in this regard.

I never even used all the WEP time when flying a 109 in AH in one go, so I never checked cooling time either. I would expect it to be 20min in AH, not 5 (2min cooling for 1 min WEP). AFAIK only the Ki-84 has this reversed (1min WEP, 30s cooling). Correct me if I'm wrong.

Another thought: 10min WEP, 20 min 100%, 10 min WEP, wouldn't even be possible I guess with the 109's fuel load in AH.

And another issue: How do the climb rates of the AH2 F4U's and the 109-G6 compare at let's say 15k? I would expect the 109 to leave any F4U far behind, save for the F4U-4. I had trouble shaking one by outclimbing the other day. Could have been an F4U-4 though but my ISP discoed me before he came close enough to see it

[Wotan]

The G-6 didn't have MW-50 (rl or in AH).

I don't think Kurfürst or MiloMorai play AH.

As for 'WEP' in AH its not based on reality for any plane. The way it works in AH is the plane runs at 'WEP', engine temperature goes up limiting the time of 'WEP' (it is different for the various planes) then automatically shuts off. Then after a given 'cool down' period (again varies with the plane) 'WEP' can be used again. You can repeat this indefinitely.

In real life the G-10 would be limited to around 26 min of MW-50 at a max of 10 min with a 5 min cool down.

In AH the time limit for 'WEP' and the cool down period vary with the aircraft.

'WEP' is also a rather generic term as used in AH.

[hogenbor]

Originally posted by Wotan
The G-6 didn't have MW-50 (rl or in AH).

I don't think Kurfürst or MiloMorai play AH.

As for 'WEP' in AH its not based on reality for any plane. The way it works in AH is the plane runs at 'WEP', engine temperature goes up limiting the time of 'WEP' (it is different for the various planes) then automatically shuts off. Then after a given 'cool down' period (again varies with the plane) 'WEP' can be used again. You can repeat this indefinitely.

In real life the G-10 would be limited to around 26 min of MW-50 at a max of 10 min with a 5 min cool down.

In AH the time limit for 'WEP' and the cool down period vary with the aircraft.

'WEP' is also a rather generic term as used in AH.

Thanks for the answer Wotan. The use irl for the G-10 was clear from Kurfürst's info, but I didn't know that the G-6 never had MW-50. After all, WEP times for the G-6 and G-10 in AH are the same so I expected similar systems.

I always thought that 'WEP' in AH2 was in some ways related to how it worked irl, like water injection for P&W's, MW-50 etc. for LW birds. Especially the arrival of the Ki-84, with it's odd WEP function made me think this.

People discuss fuels and engine settings here all the time (think about the +12lbs issue on the Spit I, or the settings for the D-9).

Makes me wonder why the old AW system (not that I ever played it) of reduced fuel quality = reduced performance was never implemented to some degree here. Knock out a few refineries and influence plane performance, disabling WEP or breaking the engine when you run it at WEP settings.

[Wotan]

Fyi,

generally G-6 + MW-50 = G-14

HTC tried to implement some level of engine management with the increased fuel burn multiplier and re-did most of the planes with the correct power settings and fuel consumption.

However, this only really effects those planes with small fuel capacity to begin with. Ami planes still run at 100% power all the time and take less then 100% fuel. They have done nothing to address the unlimited 'WEP' or  the 'run at full throttle all the the time' beyond that.

To be fair though most engine / power limitations that were set by the various countries were not set so much because engine will 'blow up' or fail but to keep aircraft in service. When engines are run at max power for pro-longed periods this will increase the time between overhauls / maintenance.

I am not so sure about 'reduced fuel quality' because it would be too subjective. It would just be another 'made up' fix.

In AH there's no real concern about 'service life' of the engines, we just get a brand new plane each re-spawn. The question becomes what should be done (if anything) to create a more real flight profile (cruise, climb & combat etc).

In some games like FB/AEP/PF the artificial solution is to have engines overheat so that you are forced at times to run at less then 100 / 110% power.

However, for AH planes that use water (ADI / MW-50 etc...) to increase boost certainly should have a limit. Like fuel there wasn't an endless supply of water, it ran out.

[Kurfürst]

As a general rule G-5s and G-6s did not have MW 50. Otoh, many were converted to use it in early 1944. This was possible as there were quite a few GM-1 using G-6s produced (G-6/U2), and these already had the neccesary installations requiring only minimal changes.

Butch mentied some time ago that in May 1944 250 G-6/U2 were converted into MW50 using G-6s, and there are anecdotal evidence from Heinz Knoke using the stuff in April 1944.

However in July the G-14 production started, and it was basically a standardized G-6 with MW50 installed as standard in the factory.

For all practical purposes, an in-game G-14 should represent G-14s and all G-6s with MW, while the in-game G-6s those aircraft that were around in 1943 w/o the booster.

[hogenbor]

What would the performance gain of MW-50 be for our G-6? Near G-10 standards? Seems likely as it shouldn't be that hard to include a G-14 for HTC.

I know this has been discussed before (at length ) but I don't want to dig up old posts.

[Wotan]

The G-14 basically has the same engine as the G-6 (DB 605A) except with the addition of MW-50. (G-14 = DB 605AM). MW-50 would provide a performance boost above the current G-6 but only below FTH. Which considering the low alt combat of most of the furballs in AH the G-14 would fit right in.

The G-6 that is in AH is a later G-6 with the improved canopy and larger tail.

The G-10 has a DB 605D with a larger supercharger (from DB 603). The Large supercharger allows better performance at higher altitudes (higher FTh then the DB 605A).

Pyro has said that the G-10 in AH is really a K-4 but with the option of 2cm instead of just the 3cm. AH doesn't really have a G-10.

A G6/AS (DB 605AS) has a DB 603 supercharger as well.

A G-14/AS (DB 605ASM) would include MW-50.

Performance wise the addition of a G-14 into AH would give better speed then the current G-6 at emergency power below FTH.

It would not have the performance of the AH G-10 and performance would be about the same as the current G-6 above 5700m (? IIRC).

Personally I like to see HT do a real G-10  and K-4 (split the hybrid they have now) and add a G-14.

The AS (either G-6/AS or preferrably the G-14/AS) would be nice but that's probrably asking to much (well asking for G-14 is probrably in vain as well but WTH).

One would think with ToD OTW that HTC woul dbe somewhat focussed on filling the gaps in the planse set. With the release of the newer aircraft this doesn't seem to be the case.

However if I were GOD/DOG I would do as follows:

add a 109E-7

Keep the current G-6

Add the G-14

Real G-10 (maybe small perk)

K-4 perked

This would give AH

109E-4
109E-7
109G-2
109G-6(late)
109G-14
109G-10
109K-4

ToD could make do from there for the time being.

[Angus]

Nice Wotan, was about to ask what the optimal 109 lineup would look like.
Oh, hijack warning:
109E-4    counter with Spit Ia, cs 100 oct
109E-7   Spit II
109G-2  Spit IX LF
109G-6(late)  Spit VIII
109G-14 Spit IX merlin 66/70 clipped
109G-10 Spit XIV
109K-4 ,,,,emmm still thinking.

Well, sorry, just couldn't resist.

Anyway, a G-14 in Hartmann's colours would be utterly cool for AH!

[Orka]

The G-14 basically has the same engine...

A G14 is basically the G series w DB605A engine upgraded to a standar. Officialy laters G6 w MW50 where renamed to G14 ( w some additions), the problem is that you can found a lot of mix of set up.
Btw, and regarding MW boost time:

It`s 10 minutes continous use time at one time, then ca. 5 min to be allowed for cooldown. All MW50 models

What about MW30?, i know it was used too. Lack of enough boost liquid.
This bring me a question, the cooling effect seem less to me as im gessing. This will bring differents heating times? i mean, less cooling effect, less time on "WEP".

regards

[hogenbor]

Good info, but you forget the nicest 109, the F series

[agent 009]

Mw 50 better than GM 1? Galland said the GM 1 stuff would evaporate in summer.

[Wotan]

Mw 50 better than GM 1?

GM-1 and MW-50 aren't the same thing.

GM-1 could only be used above 7500m (? IIRC).

MW-50 only provided increase boost below FTH.

Above FTH the SC is already losing power .
    
hogenbor,

Yup I forgot the F-4

Orka,

Hello Orka!!!!

Its been a while. How are you?

[agent 009]

I know they aren't the same thing. that's why I asked which is better.

MW 50 cools engine, & perhaps weighs less?

Which provides more power & is less problematic?