trick to warming up spit?

[hnbdgr]

Hi All,

I tried the spit tonight and I grew quickly tired of waiting for the engine to warm up, it seems to take ages, is there a trick to it? Also why can the 109 fly off straight after spawn and doesn't have to warm up..?

thanks for answers

badger

[92 Cdt. Kiwikillemoff (QJ-Z)]

Hey mate, you don't actually have to warm her up.

At around 26% throttle you get some engine shakes, just ignore them and push the throttle through.

Don't forget to open your radiator

Kiwi

[ATAG_Lewis]

I have heard that if you don't warm her up to 40 degrees then you will get the shakes on startup and then your engine will be under par for the rest of your sortie...although I haven't noticed any difference

Waiting for Buzz to come in on this and put us right...

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

You should warm your engine to 40 C and your Rad to 60 C.

[92 Cdt. Kiwikillemoff (QJ-Z)]

You should warm your engine to 40 C and your Rad to 60 C.

You should? or you have too?

Kiwi

[Roblex]

Put in your chocks
Engage BCO
Go full throttle
(watch temp)
disengage BCO and cut throttle
Open Radiator.
Remove chocks
Taxi away.

Total time around 15-20 secs

[hnbdgr]

Put in your chocks
Engage BCO
Go full throttle
(watch temp)
disengage BCO and cut throttle
Open Radiator.
Remove chocks
Taxi away.

Total time around 15-20 secs

will that not kill the engine or give me a right rumble? I'll give it a try. 20 seconds is better then a minute :D

thanks for all input guys.

[Vlerkies]

Also why can the 109 fly off straight after spawn and doesn't have to warm up..?

thanks for answers

badger

The joys of fuel injection and superior engineering. :getaway:

[3./JG51_Heiden]

The joys of fuel injection and superior engineering. :getaway:

Right. Don't forget that the DB-601 engine is an inverted V-12, so there is superior oil lubrication from the get-go right where it's needed most, near the pistons and their connections. No need to wait as long for warm oil if it's already been sitting at the bottom of the engine... or top of it, but upside down. ;-)

[hnbdgr]

Hmm... a bit OT, but how come the DB601 series produce comparatively little thrust to the merlin series when they are larger volume engines...? Also how come the german engines were so lightly boosted (like +1 or +2 compared to spits +6)?

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

The joys of fuel injection and superior engineering. :getaway:

Fuel injection had its advantages... but whether or not the Daimler Benz's were better engines than the Rolls Royces... Lots of people would disagree. Both had their advantages.

Daimler Benz used larger displacement, lower supercharger boost engines, (although their initial compression ratio of 7-1 generated by piston squish was higher) because they were not as far advanced or as capable of producing large amounts of high octane fuel. Most of that technology came from US based refineries. The DB's revved to the lower rpms of 2500.

Rolls Royce used lower initial compression from piston squish, (6-1) but much higher supercharger boost because they had high octane fuel which was readily available which could tolerate the boost without detonation occurring. Merlins, partially because of their lower displacement, could safely rev to higher rpms, hence the 3000 rpm max.

The British engines generated more horsepower per cubic inch than the German types... the Merlins were approx. 27 liters, the DB601 was approx. 34 liters, the later DB605 was 35.7 liters. However, some of the German engines earlier in the war developed more horsepower per weight unit.

The Germans did use their C-3 fuel, (rated approx. 93 octane) for a period of time in the DB601N engine, along with higher, (2600 rpm normal) rev limits, but it was not a reliable package, and they went back to 87 octane in the DB601E used in the 109F4. That engine developed more horsepower than the DB601N, but achieved that by the use of large valves, long duration camshaft timing and a higher normal rpm. (2700)

The Daimlers became progressively less reliable as the war went on and as more boost was used... their maintenance schedules called for overhauls at shorter time periods than those of the Merlins.

The Germans followed a pattern with most of their engines... more displacement was the path.

The British on the other hand developed some radical engine types, like the H block, 24 cylinder Napier Sabre engine, which displaced 35 liters, but with the smaller pistons, was able to safely rev to 4000 rpm in the case of the later Sabre V's. These engines put out over 3000 horsepower, compared to the best the similar displacement DB605D could achieve, that being 2000 hp.

The British path is what Formula 1 engines use... lower displacement, higher rpms, higher compression and high boost relying on super high octane fuel to prevent detonation.

But of course, all reciprocating engine types were obsolete when Jets arrived... ;)

[310_cibule]

I have heard that if you don't warm her up to 40 degrees then you will get the shakes on startup and then your engine will be under par for the rest of your sortie...although I haven't noticed any difference.

So did I. Actually it was being discussed at SoW forum widely a year ago or so but I cannot find the thread now.

According to some people from TF this procedure causes some very minor damage to the engine that is basically not of that kind one would even register it. On the other hand a very tiny drop of output/speed may cause the huge difference between loss and victory.

[hnbdgr]

Fuel injection had its advantages... but whether or not the Daimler Benz's were better engines than the Rolls Royces... Lots of people would disagree. Both had their advantages.

Daimler Benz used larger displacement, lower supercharger boost engines, (although their initial compression ratio of 7-1 generated by piston squish was higher) because they were not as far advanced or as capable of producing large amounts of high octane fuel. Most of that technology came from US based refineries. The DB's revved to the lower rpms of 2500.

Rolls Royce used lower initial compression from piston squish, (6-1) but much higher supercharger boost because they had high octane fuel which was readily available which could tolerate the boost without detonation occurring. Merlins, partially because of their lower displacement, could safely rev to higher rpms, hence the 3000 rpm max.

The British engines generated more horsepower per cubic inch than the German types... the Merlins were approx. 27 liters, the DB601 was approx. 34 liters, the later DB605 was 35.7 liters. However, some of the German engines earlier in the war developed more horsepower per weight unit.

The Germans did use their C-3 fuel, (rated approx. 93 octane) for a period of time in the DB601N engine, along with higher, (2600 rpm normal) rev limits, but it was not a reliable package, and they went back to 87 octane in the DB601E used in the 109F4. That engine developed more horsepower than the DB601N, but achieved that by the use of large valves, long duration camshaft timing and a higher normal rpm. (2700)

The Daimlers became progressively less reliable as the war went on and as more boost was used... their maintenance schedules called for overhauls at shorter time periods than those of the Merlins.

The Germans followed a pattern with most of their engines... more displacement was the path.

The British on the other hand developed some radical engine types, like the H block, 24 cylinder Napier Sabre engine, which displaced 35 liters, but with the smaller pistons, was able to safely rev to 4000 rpm in the case of the later Sabre V's. These engines put out over 3000 horsepower, compared to the best the similar displacement DB605D could achieve, that being 2000 hp.

The British path is what Formula 1 engines use... lower displacement, higher rpms, higher compression and high boost relying on super high octane fuel to prevent detonation.

But of course, all reciprocating engine types were obsolete when Jets arrived... ;)

Thank you buzzsaw, that explanation is very much appreciated. Out of interest, were the jumo engines used in FW series comparatively better then the DB?

[Steerpots]

S! All
What I do to warm up spit:
engage chocks
close radiator
turn on boost cut out
start engine
set throttle to 22%

When oil temp at 20 degrees, release chocks and start taxiing to take off position.
When water temp reaches 60 degrees, fully open the radiator.

Then roll on down the runway and off into the wild blue yonder to meet with friends flying aircraft with little black crosses and yellows noses...
and shoot them in the skull!

56RAF_Steerpots (US-T)

[hnbdgr]

S! All
What I do to warm up spit:
engage chocks
close radiator
turn on boost cut out
start engine
set throttle to 22%

When oil temp at 20 degrees, release chocks and start taxiing to take off position.
When water temp reaches 60 degrees, fully open the radiator.

Then roll on down the runway and off into the wild blue yonder to meet with friends flying aircraft with little black crosses and yellows noses...
and shoot them in the skull!

56RAF_Steerpots (US-T)

Thanks Steerpots, especially the bit about the skulls...:)

[9./JG52 Ziegler]

The Daimlers became progressively less reliable as the war went on and as more boost was used... their maintenance schedules called for overhauls at shorter time periods than those of the Merlins.

The Germans followed a pattern with most of their engines... more displacement was the path.

The British on the other hand developed some radical engine types, like the H block, 24 cylinder Napier Sabre engine, which displaced 35 liters, but with the smaller pistons, was able to safely rev to 4000 rpm in the case of the later Sabre V's. These engines put out over 3000 horsepower, compared to the best the similar displacement DB605D could achieve, that being 2000 hp.

The British path is what Formula 1 engines use... lower displacement, higher rpms, higher compression and high boost relying on super high octane fuel to prevent detonation.

But of course, all reciprocating engine types were obsolete when Jets arrived... ;)

All true and there is merit to both scenerios although at the end of the day, for use in modern piston aircraft, the "no replacement for displacement" pattern that the Germans used became the gold standard for reliability.

[jmack]

There are two types of pilots...(1) pilot who forgot to open the radiator and the engine overheated
(2) pilot who is GETTING READY to forget to open the radiator and let the engine overheat

[ATAG_Snapper]

I'm hoping that Team Fusion will be able to provide mission designers the option of having front line fighters (RAF and LW) with warmed-up engines per the Real Life Battle of Britain. This option is already available in Single Player, but strangely not in Multi Player.

Yes, I know you can exploit the system by immediately going to full Boost Cut Out Over Ride and usually get in the air after a bit of shuttering and banging. I've done it when the field is being strafed and gotten away with it. Once I ended up with a windshield full of oil. Other times I strangely careened in a wide circle on the runway for going full throttle at zero airspeed. Other times I couldn't catch up to egressing 109's on the deck because my abused engine couldn't pick up enough steam. My detractors will argue otherwise and have undermined this request in other threads. However, do they really think that any self respecting base commander (let alone crew chief) would allow frontline operational fighter aircraft to greet the dawn with COLD, untested engines? Really? To believe this defies logic.

Others have agreed, but chose not to vote for it for reasons known only to them. For those who do feel that scrambles should be authentic for both Red and Blue fighter aircraft, please vote here:


http://tfbt.nuvturais.de/issues/581

[hnbdgr]

Having prewarmed engines at front line airfields seems like a good idea imho:thumbsup:

[Basha]

I give about 22/23% throttle just enough before the rumbles then she starts rolling and i chug off to the takeoff strip into the wind by the time i am there its ready to go at correct temps, usually do it this way but not always.

I have noticed its easier in a Spit II to get going from cold you can throttle through the rumbles very easily and get off the ground in no time, do try it somebody just to back up what i have said.

:salute:

[ATAG_Snapper]

But what's your point, Basha?

If this is a simulation then why are you advocating something that is not authentic? In a scramble the RAF pilots ran to fighters that were ready-to-go. They did not have to contend with "avoiding rumbles" while 109's are ripping up the tarmac beside them and bombs blowing up the hangars behind them. Try the Single Player Cross Country Quick Mission take off in a Spitfire that is idling, fully warmed up, and ready to roll. Compare that to what you're describing and see if you don't notice a big difference.

I don't understand this resistance by veteran players (who surely have above-average knowledge of the actual Battle of Britain wartime operational conditions) to my request for authenticity. Why do you insist on maintaining non-operational status for frontline fighters by pushing unauthentic gamey work arounds?

EDIT: as of this writing 68 forum members have read this thread but only one (thanks Septic) apparently agrees enough to have actually voted in the Team Fusion Bug Tracker link. Perhaps it's a non-issue for most, but it was important enough for the OP to create this thread in the first place. But please think of this thread the next time you're chugging to the wind sock at just-below-23% throttle as a vulching 109 is turning to line you up on his next pass!

[hnbdgr]

But what's your point, Basha?

If this is a simulation then why are you advocating something that is not authentic? In a scramble the RAF pilots ran to fighters that were ready-to-go. They did not have to contend with "avoiding rumbles" while 109's are ripping up the tarmac beside them and bombs blowing up the hangars behind them. Try the Single Player Cross Country Quick Mission take off in a Spitfire that is idling, fully warmed up, and ready to roll. Compare that to what you're describing and see if you don't notice a big difference.

I don't understand this resistance by veteran players (who surely have above-average knowledge of the actual Battle of Britain wartime operational conditions) to my request for authenticity. Why do you insist on maintaining non-operational status for frontline fighters by pushing unauthentic gamey work arounds?

EDIT: as of this writing 68 forum members have read this thread but only one (thanks Septic) apparently agrees enough to have actually voted in the Team Fusion Bug Tracker link. Perhaps it's a non-issue for most, but it was important enough for the OP to create this thread in the first place. But please think of this thread the next time you're chugging to the wind sock at just-below-23% throttle as a vulching 109 is turning to line you up on his next pass!

I think Basha just answered my original question, I don't think he was reacting to your later comment snapper. I shall vote, need to register on bugtracker first.

[ATAG_Snapper]

I think Basha just answered my original question, I don't think he was reacting to your later comment snapper. I shall vote, need to register on bugtracker first.


OK, fair enough. My apologies to Basha. :salute:

Thanks for the perspective; it's my frustrations with a long running sim inaccuracy getting "cold-engined vulched" coming through.

[busdriver]

Put in your chocks
Engage BCO
Go full throttle
(watch temp)
disengage BCO and cut throttle
Open Radiator.
Remove chocks
Taxi away.

Total time around 15-20 secs

Techniques like this make me cringe. Actually I mutter words that would get me banned. I understand it works in a game, but with 42+ years of flying real airplanes, I simply can't use abusive techniques like this.

[Screamadelica]

Techniques like this make me cringe. Actually I mutter words that would get me banned. I understand it works in a game, but with 42+ years of flying real airplanes, I simply can't use abusive techniques like this.

After flying the DCS P51 I just can't bring myself to use these sort of tricks that would damage the engine in real life, as well as getting a right earful from the mechanics!
Totally agree with Snapper on this. We definitely need pre warmed engines for those missions that require a fast take off to avoid incoming attacks.

[Steve D]

You should warm your engine to 40 C and your Rad to 60 C.

The TWC guys last night warmed their engines up in this way as opposed to the previously used 'just push through the shakes and go with full emergency boost from cold, etc,' method ie, historically, how to destroy an engine.

Boost Override switched off, Rad off, throttle 10% or less. Warm oil up to 40c coolant to 60c then REMEMBER to open rad, and go. They reported better performance from the IIa particularly in level speeds and sustained turn.

[hnbdgr]

The TWC guys last night warmed their engines up in this way as opposed to the previously used 'just push through the shakes and go with full emergency boost from cold, etc,' method ie, historically, how to destroy an engine.

Boost Override switched off, Rad off, throttle 10% or less. Warm oil up to 40c coolant to 60c then REMEMBER to open rad, and go. They reported better performance from the IIa particularly in level speeds and sustained turn.

When I'm in the 109 I'd really prefer you to start up with the boost cut out method though ... :P

[Steve D]

When I'm in the 109 I'd really prefer you to start up with the boost cut out method though ... :P

I'm sure you would old boy, I'm sure you would. And we'd prefer it if you ran your engines at 3000rpm at all times please. ;)

[ChiefRedCloud]

S! All
What I do to warm up spit:
engage chocks
close radiator
turn on boost cut out
start engine
set throttle to 22%

When oil temp at 20 degrees, release chocks and start taxiing to take off position.
When water temp reaches 60 degrees, fully open the radiator.

Then roll on down the runway and off into the wild blue yonder to meet with friends flying aircraft with little black crosses and yellows noses...
and shoot them in the skull!

56RAF_Steerpots (US-T)

This is more or less what I do also ....

Chief

[busdriver]

This is more or less what I do also ....

Chief

Would you do that to your Ford F-150, your Harley, or your John Deere riding mower...Bubba?:D

[ChiefRedCloud]

Would you do that to your Ford Fc150, your Harley, or your John Deere riding mower...Bubba?:D

Good point ..... what I will do now is warm engine properly before take off.



Chief

[busdriver]

Good point ..... what I will do now is warm engine properly before take off.



Chief

I'm just yankin' your chain, play the game the way you want to.:salute:

[9./JG52 Mindle]

I must be a little old fashioned..

Chocks in
canopy open
Fuel cock open
Ignition
Throttle 10% or so... set gunsights, check control surfaces and trims, set map, look for windsock/runway, check wind direction..etc..
Check temps
Rads open
Check temps again
Chocks out
Taxi
Take off 40 deg+

[Steve D]

I must be a little old fashioned..

Chocks in
canopy open
Fuel cock open
Ignition
Throttle 10% or so... set gunsights, check control surfaces and trims, set map, look for windsock/runway, check wind direction..etc..
Check temps
Rads open
Check temps again
Chocks out
Taxi
Take off 40 deg+

Excellent! Check coolant temp at 60c+ before taking off and you're guaranteed not to hurt anything. :)

[trademe900]

Fuel injection had its advantages... but whether or not the Daimler Benz's were better engines than the Rolls Royces... Lots of people would disagree. Both had their advantages.

Daimler Benz used larger displacement, lower supercharger boost engines, (although their initial compression ratio of 7-1 generated by piston squish was higher) because they were not as far advanced or as capable of producing large amounts of high octane fuel. Most of that technology came from US based refineries. The DB's revved to the lower rpms of 2500.

Rolls Royce used lower initial compression from piston squish, (6-1) but much higher supercharger boost because they had high octane fuel which was readily available which could tolerate the boost without detonation occurring. Merlins, partially because of their lower displacement, could safely rev to higher rpms, hence the 3000 rpm max.

The British engines generated more horsepower per cubic inch than the German types... the Merlins were approx. 27 liters, the DB601 was approx. 34 liters, the later DB605 was 35.7 liters. However, some of the German engines earlier in the war developed more horsepower per weight unit.

The Germans did use their C-3 fuel, (rated approx. 93 octane) for a period of time in the DB601N engine, along with higher, (2600 rpm normal) rev limits, but it was not a reliable package, and they went back to 87 octane in the DB601E used in the 109F4. That engine developed more horsepower than the DB601N, but achieved that by the use of large valves, long duration camshaft timing and a higher normal rpm. (2700)

The Daimlers became progressively less reliable as the war went on and as more boost was used... their maintenance schedules called for overhauls at shorter time periods than those of the Merlins.

The Germans followed a pattern with most of their engines... more displacement was the path.

The British on the other hand developed some radical engine types, like the H block, 24 cylinder Napier Sabre engine, which displaced 35 liters, but with the smaller pistons, was able to safely rev to 4000 rpm in the case of the later Sabre V's. These engines put out over 3000 horsepower, compared to the best the similar displacement DB605D could achieve, that being 2000 hp.

The British path is what Formula 1 engines use... lower displacement, higher rpms, higher compression and high boost relying on super high octane fuel to prevent detonation.

But of course, all reciprocating engine types were obsolete when Jets arrived... ;)

Wow, what a pleasure to read. Just love reading all of these technical explanations from you Buzzsaw. Privileged to have you at the helm of our sim here.

[farley]

There are two types of pilots...(1) pilot who forgot to open the radiator and the engine overheated
(2) pilot who is GETTING READY to forget to open the radiator and let the engine overheat


LOL. Ya, I'm both of those, depending on the day.....
If anyone sees a Spit taking off, then returning to the airfield a minute later, probably smoking, odds are it's me....
returning to get a new plane, and trying to think of an excuse or way to blame the ground crew....
Sigh... Thick as a brick..... (one of my favorite albums tho!)

[busdriver]

LOL. Ya, I'm both of those, depending on the day.....
If anyone sees a Spit taking off, then returning to the airfield a minute later, probably smoking, odds are it's me....
Oh I've done that plenty of times in a Mk I Spitfire.


Sigh... Thick as a brick..... (one of my favorite albums tho!)
My words but a whisper, your deafness a shout.:thumbsup: