War Emergency Power

[Tilt]

Presently we press a button and get WEP. Its functionality is really something left over from AW's model.

Infact (we all know) WEP was derived from several different sources

1) permitable over rev
2) injection of various additives.

Both of the above were subject to limitations of engine temperature after sustained use

The latter above was subject to limitations of how much additive the AC carried.

We have an auto wep management system on board now that switches it off when the above is incurred (at least with respect to temp)

I would propose the following.

Remove the WEP indicator light for those AC that did not have a WEP indicator. (We can hear when WEP is on)

Remove the button function for those AC that had no additive injection system.......

Add the over rev capability to the rpm control for those AC where WEP was a function of rpm control.

Addan additive  guage for those AC that had them (additive guages.....volume or pressure)

Force rpm down (or switch off additive........or both) automatically to non WEP when engine begins to over heat.

Whilst some players would like to go further into engine management I would proffer that the above moves toward a more realistic WEP management whilst retaining the same emphasis of auto engine management we have now.(ie It will not let you break your engine)



Having said that an arena toggle to enable/disable auto engine temp management added to an engine failure at a set temperature (top of the red band) might be popular in some circles. (Although I am sure HTC will then face years of debate re where the failure point should be! ) Of course this would still be semi automatic unless a plethera of other controls (cooling chutes/guides etc) were added too. This I am not advocating

[Kweassa]

I second that!

 Let's see those Water-injected P-47s, MW50s and GM-1s!!

[Naso]

I agree too!!!

Give us more realistic engine management!!

Tilt's proposal is a good step for more realistic planes/engines.

[Lazerus]

Great idea Tilt, I like it.

[Karnak]

We have a WEP indicater light?

Silly me, all these years I've been relying on the sound and my manifold preasure/boost guage to tell if I was using WEP.


That said, I like the suggestions.

[hazed-]

Id have to agree here. Id like to see the water methanol or nitrous systems that carried a set amount of fluid on some aircraft modeled in a more accurate way, they should get a gauge and a tank of fuel that we can monitor and use. Those without the systems can use higher RPM's to get more power (at the risk of overheating) still of course.
 Theres one other thing that would have been very important in warfare but hardly figure in AH at the moment and that is the fact that some of the additives actually helped the engines stay safe whilst they were used.There was an anti-knock property to the MW50 fluid which actually meant the engine was not worn out as fast using the methanol as it would be if the engine was run at the same speed without it.I'd hope this aspect was factored in.

Some of the later P47s had methanol injection but ive never seen much written about it myself but im sure it must have similar properties.

One thing that will suddenly be noticed by all the pilots  who use them is how poor the engines were in Russian planes concerning overrun engines.Ive seen a document about the engine in the LA7 and it could not be run at maximum for longer than a few minutes (2 if i remember right!), They didnt carry water methanol or nitrous and were in essance powerfull but simple engines.The old russian attitude of make them in huge numbers and keep things simple applied very much to these planes.But just think what a difference this would make in AH.

Id love to see what a fight between a fw190d9 with 115litres of MW50 and an LA7 with a maximum of 2 minutes of running his engine at full would be like.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by hazed-
LA7 with a maximum of 2 minutes of running his engine at full would be like.

La 7 pilots notes indicated a max continous period of running at 2500 rpm of 10 minutes on the Ash 82 FNV. It could be run at 2600 for 30 sec's from idle on take off.

presently WEP gives 2500 rpm.

I have anecdotal stories written by Czech pilots on La5FN's that WEP would be limited to "bursts" of 2 minutes. The cooling on the La 5 was not as efficient as the La 7.

However I agree careless use of WEP via the rpm button would (in the case above) limit the performance of the La7 (La5, Spit9 etc) when you really need it.


It sems to me that HTC do not wish MA engine management to be such that careless ness actually kills an engine......... I could be wrong tho............ often am.

[joeblogs]

Fact is that either engine would have to be rebuilt once the plane was on the ground.  At the very least new spark plugs would be required, but probably more than that.

It's a little more likely the Jumo wouldn't quit in the air than the ASHFn82, but the Jumo was a more mature engine and more conservatvely rated.  The Russian engine was not quite into mass production until late 1944...

-Blogs

Originally posted by hazed-
Id have to agree here. Id like to see the water methanol or nitrous systems that carried a set amount of fluid on some aircraft modeled in a more accurate way, they should get a gauge and a tank of fuel that we can monitor and use. Those without the systems can use higher RPM's to get more power (at the risk of overheating) still of course.
 Theres one other thing that would have been very important in warfare but hardly figure in AH at the moment and that is the fact that some of the additives actually helped the engines stay safe whilst they were used.There was an anti-knock property to the MW50 fluid which actually meant the engine was not worn out as fast using the methanol as it would be if the engine was run at the same speed without it.I'd hope this aspect was factored in.

Some of the later P47s had methanol injection but ive never seen much written about it myself but im sure it must have similar properties.

One thing that will suddenly be noticed by all the pilots  who use them is how poor the engines were in Russian planes concerning overrun engines.Ive seen a document about the engine in the LA7 and it could not be run at maximum for longer than a few minutes (2 if i remember right!), They didnt carry water methanol or nitrous and were in essance powerfull but simple engines.The old russian attitude of make them in huge numbers and keep things simple applied very much to these planes.But just think what a difference this would make in AH.

Id love to see what a fight between a fw190d9 with 115litres of MW50 and an LA7 with a maximum of 2 minutes of running his engine at full would be like.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Karnak
We have a WEP indicater light?

No we dont....... my bad ...........   (AW 'itus)  the manifold pressure jumps up here when WEP is applied.

Actually the engine rpm is poorly linked (if at all) to the manifold pressure in AH........ so this proposal may mean more work for HTC than I originally thought.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by joeblogs
The Russian engine was not quite into mass production until late 1944...

-Blogs

My understanding is that there were always more Ash82's available than there were airframes............

However the point about it being an unsophisticated engine is well established.............. it was very easy to maintain.

Indeed at low revs oil could gather in the lower cylinders and foul them........ at higher revs the upper cylider heads (between the cannon barrels and out of line of the cooling gills) were known to over heat before the others........

How ever such things are not modelled in any AH AC