Author Topic: Idea for better WEP system (Read 428 times)

DingHao2 · « **on:** October 03, 2002, 05:54:24 PM »

WEP in AH models 2 separate things: boost from closing the waste gate and boost from injecting a second (or third) fluid into the engine.

So, why not separate all these functions? The waste gate would be fully proportionally controlled, like the propeller pitch, and any fluids would be injected by pressing P.

When the waste gate is closed over a certain amount, the temperature begins to creep upward faster as the waste gate is closed more. Once it is opened, the temperature would begin to drop slightly, then more rapidly as it is successively opened.

The aircraft equipped with nitrous oxide, water/methanol, or some other boosting fluid would have a tank of it, like a fuel tank, and when it's gone, it's gone. You would have to land to refill it.

What do you think?

john9001 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 03, 2002, 06:23:20 PM »

i think thats a real good idea , i don't like the way WEP is modeled now.

44MAG

SpinDoc1 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 03, 2002, 07:01:37 PM »

Excellent idea. I wouldn't have the first clue about modeling this type of function, but it would be another one of the aspects of realism that AH thrives on!

Jason

Kweassa · « **Reply #3 on:** October 03, 2002, 07:04:19 PM »

I like it.

Though that's probably gonna drop the survival rate of Bf109G-10s and Fw190D-9s to about half

DingHao2 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 03, 2002, 07:10:17 PM »

In case you dont know about the waste gate on a turbocharger, the waste gate just lets out a measured amount of exhaust, which lowers the compressor RPM and therefore lowers the amount of boost air going into the engine. By closing it, the engine gets more air, giving it a boost in power at the price of increased temperature.

Bombjack · « **Reply #5 on:** October 04, 2002, 04:24:24 AM »

No plane I can think of manipulated the turbocharger wastegate to regulate WEP. Very few planes even had turbochargers. You may be thinking of the wastegate mod done on the ground to P47's which enabled them to reach higher manifold pressures (which was then controlled using the throttle in flight).

Nonetheless I agree that WEP modelling could use some tweaking. Here's what I'd do:

1) water/methanol-water injection

Uses current WEP button. Engine temperature rises slowly when in use. No automatic cutout, can be run until additive runs out or engine fails. When engaged, engine produces dark exhaust. If engaged above rated altitude, has no effect. When additive runs out defaults back to WEP operation, if applicable.

2) GM-1/N20 injection

Turned on and off with a different button press. Engine temperature rises at high rate when in use. No automatic cutout, can be run until additive runs out or engine fails. When engaged, engine produces light smoke. If engaged below rated altitude, likely to cause engine failure.

3) WEP

Uses current WEP button. Engine temperature rises at normal rate when in use. No automatic cutout, can be run until engine fails. Overrides automatic supercharger settings for maximum power, where applicable.

Xjazz · « **Reply #6 on:** October 04, 2002, 05:26:46 AM »

Bombjack nail it right!

At least current WEP system should not have automatic WEP cutout. Over run WEP and your engine first lose some power but if you immeadetly come of from WEP and throtle dow , you maybe are lucky enough and engine could cool down & "recover". If you still carelesly over run WEP you will lose sparkplug&cylinder which cause some shaking, snorting&smoke. More WEP and engine break down totally. Gliders High!

Why there are many storys about WW2 pilots who never (they say) hit throtle to firewall? Because they didnt want over stress that one and only engine on nose of their plane.

We have endless amount of virtual lives so big deal if we lose some of those caused by careless engine management.

Jadda jadda its only game jadda jadda

Wilbus · « **Reply #7 on:** October 04, 2002, 07:01:32 AM »

Great Idea!

Kweassa? Why would it do that?

MW50 would mean they can fly for 10 minutes and cool down 5 minutes (instead of 10 minutes coll down 18). They'd have enough MW50 for 30 minutes.

As for GM1, I believe it could be run as long as the MW50 could, meaning 10 minutes (not sure though)
The smoke effect is a MUST though, the MW50 gave out a THICK BIG Blue-black cloud of smoke.

One of the few things that can make a diving Wurger more frightening!

Kweassa · « **Reply #8 on:** October 04, 2002, 07:33:29 AM »

Because it would also mean sucky guys like me would have the MW50 fluid used up and dry, and can't run anymore!

Wilbus · « **Reply #9 on:** October 04, 2002, 08:55:05 AM »

ROFLMAO!!!

Glasses · « **Reply #10 on:** October 04, 2002, 09:29:19 AM »

Gm1 did nothing more than put more oxygen in the cylinders so I think it could have been run indefenitly until you went below the rated altitude for use of it.

Bombjack · « **Reply #11 on:** October 04, 2002, 10:04:15 AM »

You may well be right there Glasses. In any case since GM-1/N2O is exclusively used at high altitudes, cooling should be less of an issue up there. On the other hand there may have been other factors that necessitated limiting its use. No doubt someone has a pilot's manual with the official guidelines on how long such a system could be used continuously for. Temperature is serving as an abstraction for engine wear in this scenario.

As an addendum to my other post, if we were aiming for completeness in modelling boost mechanisms, I should have added a fourth option:

4) Where a plane was rated for 150-octane fuel that should be selectable, for a cost in perk points.

whels · « **Reply #12 on:** October 04, 2002, 10:45:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wilbus
Great Idea!

Kweassa? Why would it do that?

MW50 would mean they can fly for 10 minutes and cool down 5 minutes (instead of 10 minutes coll down 18). They'd have enough MW50 for 30 minutes.

As for GM1, I believe it could be run as long as the MW50 could, meaning 10 minutes (not sure though)
The smoke effect is a MUST though, the MW50 gave out a THICK BIG Blue-black cloud of smoke.

One of the few things that can make a diving Wurger more frightening!

Wilbuz

since GM1 and MW50 supply was injected with fuel, i think
it would have to tied to fuel multipler and fuel % carried.

example. u chose 25% fuel, u get 25% gm1/mw50.........ect
and GM1/MW50 would be used up supply wise @ 2.5 MA fuel multiplier. u could still run it for the 10 mins but the amount in the
little tank runs out @ 2.5 normal rate like fuel does.

WHELS

Naudet · « **Reply #13 on:** October 04, 2002, 12:24:03 PM »

Whels, actually i see no reason to link MW50/GM1 endurance/loadout to fuelmultiplier or fuel%.

Cause the general fuel multiplier is a "penalty" for all planes, that HTC indroduced due to the reduced world size there is in the arenas.

But if you link the multiplier to the GM1/MW50 loadout, you only penalize planes that carry such an extra liquid, so you unbalance the arena in favour of the "standard WEP" birds.

Also it would make no sense to link fuelpercentage carried to the MW50/GM1 loadout, cause who would volunteerly reduce his "life ensurance"?

Fuelmultiplier and Fuelpercentage have effects on a planes range.

MW50/GM1 have effects on the planes engine power.

They should not be modified in the same way cause of the simple fact that they are both "liquids filled into a tank".

@Wilbuz: They carried enough MW50 for 40 mins on the Dora. GM1 on the other hand could be usually used in a 2-step-way, meaning that you could choose between to injection rates.
The higher one would give more power but would burn GM1 a lot faster.
In Griehl/Dressel there is a comment about a german comparison of GM1 or MW50 usage on the D9.
105 kg GM1 would have been carried, and at an injection rate of 100g/s would have given an endurance of 15-17mins for the GM1 boost.
The MW50 installation contain 130 liters and would have been enough for 40-50 Minutes.
FW decided to use MW50 on the D9 cause the increased overall special emergency boost time was considered more advantageous.

DingHao2 · « **Reply #14 on:** October 04, 2002, 05:26:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bombjack
No plane I can think of manipulated the turbocharger wastegate to regulate WEP. Very few planes even had turbochargers.

I like your ideas on improving WEP with regards to the extra fluids added.

The T on BMW 801T stands for turbocharged, i believe. If there is a turbocharger on a plane, there must be a wastegate.