PDA

View Full Version : Just a thought about the 109E radiator damage



Kling
Mar-18-2013, 22:04
First of all thank you for the greatest patch ever created for this game!!

Now to my question, and please correct me if I am wrong.
I am in th understanding that TF at some point will look at DM for the CLOD aircraft.

As far as I know the 109 had two radiator systems working together. One under the left wing and one under the right wing. I seem to remember that in case of one system being hit, this damaged system could be shut down and the plane could continue flying on the remaining system, although most likely prone to overheat alot easier, but enough to take you home at least.
Now to my thought, and I hope that I am wrong.
Is CLOD currently modelling BOTH these systems on the 109? Because if it is, and we have no way of switching one system off, it means that the 109 will suffer twice as many critical radiator failures compared to lets say the Spitfire since hitting one radiator system on the 109 means that both system will fail, while only ONE wing on the spit has a water radiator.

To make it clear:
1. Hitting either wing on a 109 = Critical total radiator failure (incorrect if modeled this way, since failure of one system currently means failure of the other system)
2. Hitting only the wing with the radiator on the spit = Critical radiator failure (correct)

This kind of would confirm what we see in game as well, when flying the spit I get water radiator damage ALOT more seldom compared to the 109. As a matter of fact, in the 109, I crash land almost 99% due to radiator failure, which leads to engine failure ALWAYS after 2min and 10 secs. I can take hits in the left wing and lose all my radiator fluid, also from the system that should be on the right wing system

As I said, correct me if Im wrong, which I hope I am. But could it really be that, the 109 has the double amount of radiator failure due to this reason?

I hope you understand what Im trying to point out here... haha

Best regards

LizLemon
Mar-18-2013, 22:14
I believe this radiator system was only on the F series and beyond. I'll have to check though.

Kling
Mar-18-2013, 22:19
I believe this radiator system was only on the F series and beyond. I'll have to check though.

Ok!:thumbsup:

sg1_mino
Mar-19-2013, 06:50
I believe this radiator system was only on the F series and beyond. I'll have to check though.
i think that emil have 2 radiator too.

VO101_Kurfurst
Mar-19-2013, 14:12
Shut off valves (Kühlerabschaltung) was not present on the 109E series. The 109F series introduced it as a retrofit. For 109G and K, it was standard fitting.

Kling
Mar-19-2013, 16:30
Shut off valves (Kühlerabschaltung) was not present on the 109E series. The 109F series introduced it as a retrofit. For 109G and K, it was standard fitting.

Ok that answers it then. Will not argue against your 109 knowledge Kurfurst... ;) You are deeply respected in flightsim forums.
On a different not though Kurfurst, do you have any data on how long one could be expected to be able to have the engine running once you recieved a water radiator leakage? The current 2min and 10secs(no exceptions) seems a bit short. With a leak I would maybe expect it would take a few mins for the fluid to be pumped out into the sky and then maybe a few mins for the engine temp to rise till it completely seizes.

Same with the oil leak.

You have any reports or anything to confirm this?!

VO101_Kurfurst
Mar-20-2013, 08:56
I have no idea to be honest how long it would take and certainly no such tests of it, so its all just guesswork. Its also a good question wheter is there any return of coolant to the engine in the circuit, or it just all blows out to the outside air under pressure? How big is the hole anyway, and where is it? A leak in one or a couple of the radiators own pipes may very well let some water still through in the rest, but I think that a hit to the main delivery lines would probably cease most cooling circulation and thus cooling whatsoever..

I would expect water to boil quickly and unable to carry away heat though, once i had a water pump failure in my car, and the engine started to ack very funny soon after startup (ie. completely cool) after a few minutes at best. Water temperature rose very quickly, and after a while the RPM started to jump up and down 500 rpm hectically, as if the engine was stalling... luckily I had switched off the engine before the piston got stuck and got away with it by replacing a simple water pump...

Oh and thanks for the kind words! :)

Kling
Mar-20-2013, 09:17
I have no idea to be honest how long it would take and certainly no such tests of it, so its all just guesswork. Its also a good question wheter is there any return of coolant to the engine in the circuit, or it just all blows out to the outside air under pressure? How big is the hole anyway, and where is it? A leak in one or a couple of the radiators own pipes may very well let some water still through in the rest, but I think that a hit to the main delivery lines would probably cease most cooling circulation and thus cooling whatsoever..

I would expect water to boil quickly and unable to carry away heat though, once i had a water pump failure in my car, and the engine started to ack very funny soon after startup (ie. completely cool) after a few minutes at best. Water temperature rose very quickly, and after a while the RPM started to jump up and down 500 rpm hectically, as if the engine was stalling... luckily I had switched off the engine before the piston got stuck and got away with it by replacing a simple water pump...

Oh and thanks for the kind words! :)

So what we have in CLOD is currently "The major type of leak" where no fluid is reaching the engine at all once the radiator is hit. Maybe that can be looked at kn the future, who knows. Im sure Team Fusion knows what its doing! ;)

Gromit
Mar-21-2013, 17:25
I believe the cooling system on both the DB engines and Merlins were pressurised, the higher pressure raising the boiling point, once ruptured the coolant will be lost at an alarming rate, overheat will come quite quickly, which leads me to an important point, Glycol is highly flammable, if you get your coolant tank punctured by incendiary the plane would burn, this also applies to the radiators!
not seen many burning wings on 109's or spits/hurri yet, can anyone comment on this?

LG1.Farber
Mar-21-2013, 17:29
I believe this radiator system was only on the F series and beyond. I'll have to check though.


Shut off valves (Kühlerabschaltung) was not present on the 109E series. The 109F series introduced it as a retrofit. For 109G and K, it was standard fitting.


Correct!


We get hit in the rads allot cos the enemy have wing mounted weapons and our radiators are in our wings...

Gromit
Mar-21-2013, 17:34
8x 1250= 10,000 rounds per minute, this also means a heck of a lot of bullets to find something to puncture too!

Kling
Mar-21-2013, 17:49
8x 1250= 10,000 rounds per minute, this also means a heck of a lot of bullets to find something to puncture too!

Fair, but a constant 2mins and 10secs till failure. Every time?!? Seems a bit short no?!? No variables... Always same..

Gromit
Mar-21-2013, 18:48
I'm guessing this is a happy middle ground, the variations would be horrendous to model, how many hits did how much damage to what parts?
you could nick/puncture/shatter any parts of the cooling system from the glycol tank through the coolant pipes all the way to the rads themselves!

I suppose there has to be a little reason applied or we end up with too much complication?

Kling
Mar-21-2013, 18:58
I'm guessing this is a happy middle ground, the variations would be horrendous to model, how many hits did how much damage to what parts?
you could nick/puncture/shatter any parts of the cooling system from the glycol tank through the coolant pipes all the way to the rads themselves!

I suppose there has to be a little reason applied or we end up with too much complication?

Yes and 2mins and 10secs before total failure is the extreme and worst case scenario.
Middle ground(maybe a leak with SOME coolant still reaching the engine at least) I would guess would be maybe 4-5mins... The difference between 2mins and 4-5mins could be the difference between life and death...

I would like to see this for oil damage as well in a future patch. There are plenty of stories of planes crossing the channel with leaking oil... Pierre Clostemann is in his Spitfire is one that comes to mind. He was damaged over France and managed to fly cross the channel and even land at his homebase with a slowly rising oil temperature. So apparently that was possible too... ;)

AKA_Knutsac
Mar-21-2013, 20:27
Kurfurst,

I think you're spot on re: loss of pressure in the coolant system and near instantaneous boiling of the coolant and inability to transfer heat. I've had similar experiences in cars.

Was reading a bit about the development of the Merlins today. Seems the early models (Spit I and IAs) used straight glycol, which was flammable and didn't transfer heat as well as water/glycol mix). Spit IIA had the Merlin XXV (I think that's the correct number) which used a water/glycol mix which was not particularly flammable and transferred heat much much better, thus permitting higher coolant temps.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

Kling
Mar-21-2013, 20:43
Kurfurst,

I think you're spot on re: loss of pressure in the coolant system and near instantaneous boiling of the coolant and inability to transfer heat. I've had similar experiences in cars.

Was reading a bit about the development of the Merlins today. Seems the early models (Spit I and IAs) used straight glycol, which was flammable and didn't transfer heat as well as water/glycol mix). Spit IIA had the Merlin XXV (I think that's the correct number) which used a water/glycol mix which was not particularly flammable and transferred heat much much better, thus permitting higher coolant temps.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

So what is a reasonable time limit for complete engine failure after one has recieved a radiator damage in a spit or 109? Anyone has any combat reports to share?

Broodwich
Mar-21-2013, 21:13
I would like to see this for oil damage as well in a future patch. There are plenty of stories of planes crossing the channel with leaking oil... Pierre Clostemann is in his Spitfire is one that comes to mind. He was damaged over France and managed to fly cross the channel and even land at his homebase with a slowly rising oil temperature. So apparently that was possible too... ;)
Oil is a good bit different from coolant, but yeah it would be nice to see. Keep in mind home for Clostermann was only 60 miles away too.

Kurfurst,

I think you're spot on re: loss of pressure in the coolant system and near instantaneous boiling of the coolant and inability to transfer heat. I've had similar experiences in cars.

Was reading a bit about the development of the Merlins today. Seems the early models (Spit I and IAs) used straight glycol, which was flammable and didn't transfer heat as well as water/glycol mix). Spit IIA had the Merlin XXV (I think that's the correct number) which used a water/glycol mix which was not particularly flammable and transferred heat much much better, thus permitting higher coolant temps.

~S~

AKA Knutsac
It was still flammable, although to what degree I can't say first hand. It did burn from taking hits too.

Kling
Mar-21-2013, 22:29
Tricky question for a number of reasons - degree of damage sustained being a major one. If there is a lack of LW reports on this particular aspect, there may be a couple of causes:

1) The combat reports were lost/destroyed at war's end, or

2) The loss of coolant due to battle damage was so catastrophic that the 109 pilot was either taken prisoner for the duration of the war, or sadly he was lost to the cold water of the Channel.

Nonetheless, I trust that Team Fusion will address this issue in Patch #2 and arrive at some logical decision within the capabilities of the sim software. Note, too, that many Clod pilots (both sides) continue fighting despite suffering combat damage when their Real Life counterparts would've made every effort to disengage to RTB alive.

Yes these are good points Snapper. However the radiator damage is not limited to the 109... Its the same for all planes. 2mins and 10secs. Its just that the 109 is twice as vunerable since it has a radiator part everywhere there is a wing haha..

The point that people continue fighting when they have recieved critical damage has two reasons i think.

1 . Currently it make no sense to try to make it back to base since the point system rewards you with a kill no matter if you it back or not. Some tweak to prevent people from any points unless you land at a home base probably could sort some of that problem out.

2. As soon as I have radiator damage or oil damage i know that with the current DM it makes no sense to even try to mske it back to home base. I might as well fight it out till the engine fails completely since it will fail anyway before im back to base.

3. How cool would it not be to have patrol boats scattered around the channel and if you bail within say 2km of these it could symbolize being picked up by your own coastguard or something like that... :)

Uwe
Mar-22-2013, 03:59
I believe I have read reports from the eastern front of 109f being able to operate for 5 minutes with inop rads.
Not an Emil, but eh, 5 minutes sounds legit.

VO101_Kurfurst
Mar-22-2013, 05:34
So what is a reasonable time limit for complete engine failure after one has recieved a radiator damage in a spit or 109? Anyone has any combat reports to share?

I have a German front experience report, but its very vague and does not list any time or such... only that an old-hand 109 ace was attacked by several P-47s in a 109, he shot down several (3 IIRC) of them but was eventually forced to land due to radiator damage.

palker
Mar-22-2013, 05:43
Well I do not know about radiator damage but TF patch changed time that you can fly with oil leak. Before the patch oil leak would result in a complete engine failure within minute. After the patch you can fly quite some time before the engine stops and with careful flying you could make it across the channel easily.
The cooling system was by all accounts greatest weakness of all water cooled engines and. Its vulnerability was the main reason why most of the ground attack aircraft had radials (P-47, Fw-190, Hs-129) or heavy armour (Il-2).

Kling
Mar-22-2013, 06:41
I have a German front experience report, but its very vague and does not list any time or such... only that an old-hand 109 ace was attacked by several P-47s in a 109, he shot down several (3 IIRC) of them but was eventually forced to land due to radiator damage.

Maybe he did it in more than 2min and 10 secs ;)

III/JG53_Don
Mar-22-2013, 07:01
or he was the heir of Hans Joachim Marseille :-)

Gromit
Mar-22-2013, 13:39
It is a difficult scenario to model, as there seems to be no real world assesments of how long an engine can run for, at what rpm and what temp, obviously a cooling system damaged at low rpm during cruising etc, is going to overheat a lot slower than an angine running at high rpm in a dogfight!

if you have a pipeline cut its going to dump its coolant very fast and I doubt the engine would last 2 mins without overheat, problem is what is the sequence as the engine overheats, power output will drop off as the temp goes up anyway untill it grinds to a halt, how long that takes is anyones guess!

AKA_Knutsac
Mar-22-2013, 17:20
Again, maybe it's not just the size of the leak (loss of liquid), it's the loss of pressure (from even a tiny hole) that allows the liquid to immediately boil and no longer tranfer heat effectively. I don't know how long until engine failure, maybe an experiment is in order. Someone take their car and drive it at very high rpms for 30 minutes (preferably up a mountain). Pull over and quickly poke a hole in the radiator hose (stand back!!!). Set a timer and continue driving until engine dies. Report back to the group. I suspect you won't get 2 minutes before engine starts shuddering and losing power, maybe seizing completely.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

Kling
Mar-22-2013, 17:38
It definitely sounds that way!

It's since occurred to me that the end-of-mission reports we used to get (thanks to Colander's scripting genius! :thumbsup:) before the TF patch would show a detailed description of the damage we wreaked upon the enemy aircraft we had engaged. In many (most) instances, there would be multiple 'minor coolant leaks' and occasionally 'major coolant leaks'. I'm not a programmer, but it stands to reason that the Clod software recognizes varying degrees of damage to specific systems. It's not too much of a stretch, then, to believe that this aspect can be directly translated into how much time is left before engine failure; perhaps even to the rate of coolant temperature rise.

This is a little arbitrary, but here's the idea:

1) One (1) 'minor' leak will cause the coolant temp to rise at such a rate (say 5 C/min) that critical temp will be reached in intense combat action within 5 minutes......but 15 minutes if rpms and boost are immediately reduced to easy cruise. (A lot depends on the temperature of the coolant the moment the leak occurred).

2) Two (2) 'minor' leaks will cause the coolant temp to rise at, say 7.5 C/min, with engine failure occurring sooner, obviously.

3) A 'major' leak means you're bailing out or dead sticking into a handy field.

It'd be interesting if that kind of graded damage effect could be implemented based on coolant temp rise to some pre-determined catastrophic value. I realize that a leak causes the max temp value to fall due to the unpressurized condition resulting from the leak(s), but perhaps there are other workable parameters within the software that could be implemented to give that kind of graded damage result. Especially if an immediate response by the pilot (reducing revs & boost) can extend the time aloft.

The above would benefit greatly from a "landed kills" scoring system that you described earlier, in which every pilot desperately wants to land (or safely ditch) his aircraft to get his kills recorded for posterity and glory! :D

These are intresting facts about the DM codes you mention.
Didnt know this. I thought there were only two options, either radiator working or radiator completely broken because in game no matter what damage you have(tine leak or major leak) the results is the same, 2mins and 10 secs. One could even argue that I should be able to switch the engine off when temp rises and switch it on and run it till temp rises and then switch it off again etc etc... This was done IRL but in game it doesnt work since 2mins and 10secs is a set value. After that time the oil gasket will blow which is funny because the engine isnt even running then.

One could even argue that the engine SHOULD be able to run for a few mins once it hits the max temp of the radiator gauge... Once the needle has been up there for a few mins it would make sense for the engine to blow... maybe even catch fire as this was also a risk once the coolant was gone..

Anyway I think this is a great thread with great inputs from all sides!:thumbsup:
AND its kept civil!! Love it!

Broodwich
Mar-23-2013, 05:43
Again, maybe it's not just the size of the leak (loss of liquid), it's the loss of pressure (from even a tiny hole) that allows the liquid to immediately boil and no longer tranfer heat effectively. I don't know how long until engine failure, maybe an experiment is in order. Someone take their car and drive it at very high rpms for 30 minutes (preferably up a mountain). Pull over and quickly poke a hole in the radiator hose (stand back!!!). Set a timer and continue driving until engine dies. Report back to the group. I suspect you won't get 2 minutes before engine starts shuddering and losing power, maybe seizing completely.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

bah! i just got rid of my old car. Bugger

robtek
Mar-23-2013, 08:53
Afaik the cooling systems for the german planes then weren't pressurized, therefore the need to stay below 100° C at all times.
The english cooling systems were allowed to rise beyond 100°C, so they had to be pressurized.

Kling
Mar-23-2013, 09:20
Afaik the cooling systems for the german planes then weren't pressurized, therefore the need to stay below 100° C at all times.
The english cooling systems were allowed to rise beyond 100°C, so they had to be pressurized.

Wait, wouldnt that mean that the boiling point would sink dramtically if the systems are not pressurized? Whats the boiling point of the coolant at the air pressure at 7000m for example..

ATAG_Lolsav
Mar-23-2013, 09:25
@Kling

Taking in account the higher you climb the more cold it is, i take it the boiling point would be the same, but harder to achieve.

Kling
Mar-23-2013, 09:36
@Kling

Taking in account the higher you climb the more cold it is, i take it the boiling point would be the same, but harder to achieve.

Sure but the boiling point of water is 77°C at 7000m so how can the water radiator water temperature be 90° C?

Need Kurfurst to come and enlighten me!

LG1.Farber
Mar-23-2013, 09:44
Bug in the game, water boils at 100 at all altitudes. Its listed in the wiki.

Kling
Mar-23-2013, 10:10
Bug in the game, water boils at 100 at all altitudes. Its listed in the wiki.

Yes but wait now.. If the 109 water radiator system is NOT pressurized then the boiling point should get lower and lower as atmospheric pressure decreases...
Fair But now bavk to the initial question of this thread then, that if the system is also unpressurized, we should not lose the coolant so fast when we have a radiator leak since the liquid is not pumped out due to the pressurized system as some people have said...:P

Kurfuuurst!?!?

E-69 Siegfried
Mar-23-2013, 11:01
There's various marks for water temps for different altitudes in the cockpit indicator for bf110

robtek
Mar-23-2013, 14:41
Excerpt from the BF109E with DB601A Ruest- und Betriebsanleitung:


Kuehlwassertemperatur : in Bodennaehe mindestens 60° C Hoechsttemperatur für Hoehe:




Hoehe in km 0 2 4 6 8 10
° C 100 95 91 87 82 78


f. Kuehlerklappenverstellung

Bei gewoehnlicher Aussentemperatur Wasserkuehlerklappen halb geschlossen. Bei Abnahme der
vorgeschriebenen Temperaturen sind die Klappen entsprechend zu schließen.
Nach Kuehlerklappenverstellung ist Nachtrimmen des Flugzeuges erforderlich. Anmerkung: Die
Flugzeuggeschwindigkeit ist von der Kuehlerklappenstellung abhaengig. Zum Erreichen der
Hoechstgeschwindigkeit Klappen nur so weit oeffnen,
dass die hoechstzulaessigen Temperaturen nicht ueberschritten werden.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-23-2013, 15:28
Excerpt from the BF109E with DB601A Ruest- und Betriebsanleitung:


Kuehlwassertemperatur : in Bodennaehe mindestens 60° C Hoechsttemperatur für Hoehe:




Hoehe in km 0 2 4 6 8 10
° C 100 95 91 87 82 78


f. Kuehlerklappenverstellung

Bei gewoehnlicher Aussentemperatur Wasserkuehlerklappen halb geschlossen. Bei Abnahme der
vorgeschriebenen Temperaturen sind die Klappen entsprechend zu schließen.
Nach Kuehlerklappenverstellung ist Nachtrimmen des Flugzeuges erforderlich. Anmerkung: Die
Flugzeuggeschwindigkeit ist von der Kuehlerklappenstellung abhaengig. Zum Erreichen der
Hoechstgeschwindigkeit Klappen nur so weit oeffnen,
dass die hoechstzulaessigen Temperaturen nicht ueberschritten werden.

The game engine is not capable of modelling unpressurized radiator systems correctly.

For that reason, all unpressurized systems, (like the 109's) are modelled using their sea level temperatures as a Maximum.

I would also like to comment on requests such as have been posted in this thread to redo all the modelling of the rate of leakage, time to engine overheat and destruction, etc. as a result of radiator damage.

Right now the systems do work, maybe they are not modelled as variably as some may like. However...

The amount of work required to redo the current modelling would be considerable, and we as a group are not focused on repairing things which are not functionally broken.

To do these changes, would require the following:

1) Searching the code for the likely location of the lines relevant to radiator damage (many many hours)
2) Decrypting the lines (many many hours)
3) Writing new lines
4) Rewriting the damage values for every single radiator in the game
5) Redoing the 3D graphics for damage for every radiator. (visual damage, vapor, smoke, etc.)

Now repeat this for the code sections relating to engine damage as a result of the above, repeat it for the damage values, etc.

Now do the testing required to make sure the various changes you have put in are working correctly. This can take an enormous amount of time. For example, in our remodelling of aircraft overheat to compensate for the bugs in the code re. altitude atmospheric density and overheat, the testing on average took 20 hours PER individual aircraft type to get to the current state, and that is not perfect by any means, we would like to improve on it.

All of this type of work takes a very very long time.

We have to ask ourselves, what is more important? To put in all the time required to allow an aircraft which has been hit in the radiator to have a variable time to overheat and destruction, or to leave the present workable system as it is?

Considering we could be devoting our time to fixing things like popup buildings, popup clouds, building an extractor/convertor to create new maps, building new 3D ships, buildings, objects or aircraft, retexturing existing maps, fixing existing bugs, or any number of other improvements to the game, the answer from our perspective is a no-brainer.

We are not going to sweat the small stuff when much more important advances can be made.

Would you prefer we spend all our time to do a perfect radiator system, or would you prefer we put that time towards building a 109F which already has the valves to allow you to shut down a damaged side? (and no, the 109F won't be out in the next patch, it's AT LEAST 6 months away)

People on this forum need to understand the reality of how much work is involved when they start asking for improvements to very minor issues.

ATAG_Snapper
Mar-23-2013, 15:42
People on this forum need to understand the reality of how much work is involved when they start asking for improvements to very minor issues.

Or put it on the wishlist, so folks can still think and express themselves freely without involving Team Fusion.

Kling
Mar-23-2013, 16:22
The game engine is not capable of modelling unpressurized radiator systems correctly.

For that reason, all unpressurized systems, (like the 109's) are modelled using their sea level temperatures as a Maximum.

I would also like to comment on requests such as have been posted in this thread to redo all the modelling of the rate of leakage, time to engine overheat and destruction, etc. as a result of radiator damage.

Right now the systems do work, maybe they are not modelled as variably as some may like. However...

The amount of work required to redo the current modelling would be considerable, and we as a group are not focused on repairing things which are not functionally broken.

To do these changes, would require the following:

1) Searching the code for the likely location of the lines relevant to radiator damage (many many hours)
2) Decrypting the lines (many many hours)
3) Writing new lines
4) Rewriting the damage values for every single radiator in the game
5) Redoing the 3D graphics for damage for every radiator. (visual damage, vapor, smoke, etc.)

Now repeat this for the code sections relating to engine damage as a result of the above, repeat it for the damage values, etc.

Now do the testing required to make sure the various changes you have put in are working correctly. This can take an enormous amount of time. For example, in our remodelling of aircraft overheat to compensate for the bugs in the code re. altitude atmospheric density and overheat, the testing on average took 20 hours PER individual aircraft type to get to the current state, and that is not perfect by any means, we would like to improve on it.

All of this type of work takes a very very long time.

We have to ask ourselves, what is more important? To put in all the time required to allow an aircraft which has been hit in the radiator to have a variable time to overheat and destruction, or to leave the present workable system as it is?

Considering we could be devoting our time to fixing things like popup buildings, popup clouds, building an extractor/convertor to create new maps, building new 3D ships, buildings, objects or aircraft, retexturing existing maps, fixing existing bugs, or any number of other improvements to the game, the answer from our perspective is a no-brainer.

We are not going to sweat the small stuff when much more important advances can be made.

Would you prefer we spend all our time to do a perfect radiator system, or would you prefer we put that time towards building a 109F which already has the valves to allow you to shut down a damaged side? (and no, the 109F won't be out in the next patch, it's AT LEAST 6 months away)

People on this forum need to understand the reality of how much work is involved when they start asking for improvements to very minor issues.


No one is asking for a perfect radiator system Buzzaw. Two official patches ago they reduced the time from water radiator leak to complete engine failure from some rediculous 15+min to 2min and secs. I just think it was going from one extreme end to another.
Anyway, I do realise that finding the code it tricky and I have absolutely no know how when it comes to this.
I certainly would not call it a minior issue however since its something that everyone is suffering from. If the a fuel tank of 100L would be drained in 2min due to a 0.303 bullet would you call also that a minor issue??

Never the less, I appreciate your input Buzzaw and thx for the info about the game not coding unpressurized radiator systems. I/we know that you guys are busy and we all appreciate your work!:thumbsup:

ATAG_Lolsav
Mar-23-2013, 19:02
(...) and no, the 109F won't be out in the next patch, it's AT LEAST 6 months away (...)

New 109 its coming, new 109 its coming, new 109 its coming, new 109 its coming, dadadadadadadaADADADaddadada


:go:

III./ZG76_Keller
Mar-23-2013, 19:07
Wait, wouldnt that mean that the boiling point would sink dramtically if the systems are not pressurized? Whats the boiling point of the coolant at the air pressure at 7000m for example..


This is true in real life. To my understanding this is one of the few things that they didn't code into the game though.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-23-2013, 20:22
New 109 its coming, new 109 its coming, new 109 its coming, new 109 its coming, dadadadadadadaADADADaddadada


:go:

Will be an E-7 sooner than the F...

ATAG_Lolsav
Mar-23-2013, 20:36
Will be an E-7 sooner than the F...

There will be a E7 sooner, There will be a E7 sooner, dadaddaDADADAdaada

:go::go::go::go:

Kling
Mar-24-2013, 00:41
:thumbsup:
Will be an E-7 sooner than the F...

Uwe
Mar-24-2013, 06:55
Let's let these guys take a break to play the game rather than burn them out with minutia.

AKA_Knutsac
Mar-24-2013, 09:05
Let's let these guys take a break to play the game rather than burn them out with minutia.

I concur. TF guys have done us all a great service, they should take a break and enjoy the product of their work (without nit-picking from the masses).

~S~

AKA Knutsac

VO101_Kurfurst
Mar-25-2013, 08:54
Will be an E-7 sooner than the F...

Just make sure it has DB 601Aa or (later ones, mostly from 1941), 601N. 601A was apparantly not fitted to E-7.

VO101_Kurfurst
Mar-25-2013, 08:58
Sure but the boiling point of water is 77°C at 7000m so how can the water radiator water temperature be 90° C?

Need Kurfurst to come and enlighten me!

a) the system is pressurized - increased boiling limits
b) its not really water but a mix of glycol (high boiling temp, low heat capacity) and water. So the boiling point is higher (iirc it was 30-70 mix of water/glycol)

Now the temp limit did decrease with altitude but not by much, just a couple of degrees iirc.

Also there were two kind of temp limits imposed on the DB 60x series, usually a 100ish which was allowed as continous max, and a 110-115 Celsius-ish which was a short term (10 minute) max.

Kling
Mar-25-2013, 12:20
a)

Also there were two kind of temp limits imposed on the DB 60x series, usually a 100ish which was allowed as continous max, and a 110-115 Celsius-ish which was a short term (10 minute) max.

This last sentence changes everything Kurfurst!
Currently the water radiator is perforated immediately as soon as you reach 100 degrees C.
10mins above 100 degrees as an absolute limit would change everything and also give you maybe 2mins extra until the engine seizes completely one the radiatior is hit..

Maybe a powerloss between 110-115 degrees would be possible to add at some stage to prevent people from running the engine at this temp and be able to get a faster plane (closed radiator)..

Thx for the info Kurfurst!

VO101_Kurfurst
Mar-25-2013, 17:33
The real problem is that overpressure valves in the coolingsystem are not modelled. In the real plane when the glykol would start to boil and increase pressure, it would simply open a valve which would let off the steam from the system, literally. This was located at the upper cowl of the aircraft (at least on the 109) so it would be quite noticable by the pilot.

We dont have that so as I understand the cooling system just goes bang like a steam boiler pressed too hard...

Gromit
Mar-26-2013, 16:35
The real problem is that overpressure valves in the coolingsystem are not modelled. In the real plane when the glykol would start to boil and increase pressure, it would simply open a valve which would let off the steam from the system, literally. This was located at the upper cowl of the aircraft (at least on the 109) so it would be quite noticable by the pilot.

We dont have that so as I understand the cooling system just goes bang like a steam boiler pressed too hard...

Thats just a relief valve though, all pressurised cooling systems have that, the simplest ones are on the header tank cap!

if your cooling system has been ruptured pressure has allready gone, if your at altitude your coolant will boil very quickly, your engine will overheat and can catch fire, we dont see that either, but I'm with the other guys on this,best just leave it as it is, it's just opening a can of worms!