PDA

View Full Version : radiator perforations - this is not just a hit box issue



2./JG54 Chumleigh
Feb-16-2014, 17:29
At this point, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is more to this radiator leak than the number of bullets wielded by RAF fighters versus the fact that the 109 has twice as many radiators to hit. Today, my radiator was perforated in two out of four sorties right in the middle of the Channel with no flak or fighters in sight and this has happened all too often. We always chalk it up to maybe it was flak maybe this or maybe that - well maybe nothing - there's something wrong! I don't know how many planes I've had to turn around and RTB when there's not a single bullet hole or scratch on them anywhere and in fact I never heard anything hit them at all but the radiator nevertheless is perforated.

The other day on the airfield I was next to another 109 with our engines running when another aircraft was hit by a bomb. The debris landed nowhere near us and nothing hit our planes - no visible damage at all but both the water radiators were leaking in our 109s. Besides debris falling from explosions would at least hit the top of the aircraft before it was able to puncture something underneath - I would think.

I also have to wonder why it always seems to be the water radiator rather than the oil radiator. Obviously, the laws of probability would not support the disproportionate number of times the water radiator is hit as compared the number of times the oil radiator is hit. This alone ought to serve as proof.

I really hope this issue has been looked into thoroughly for this next patch.

It is the number one frustration for me and you can bet it is for all 109 pilots. It has been for quite some time. I know there's something wrong and nobody's going to convince me otherwise...

vranac
Feb-16-2014, 18:37
Chumleigh you are wrong.

Look at this , respectable pilot was on me in a spit , lot of shots but rads are still ok ;)

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/3A/Ce/2AFd5Omu/109-wing-damage-rad-ok.jpg

Look at that one whole where rad should be , but I was still flying without rad damaged.

9./JG52 Hans Gruber
Feb-16-2014, 18:41
More than likely you burst your radiator through overheat. Once your radiator bursts the water temp drops at least 5 degrees instantly, so by the time you see the message "water radiator perforated" and look at the gauge the temp will look normal. My only advice is to place the mouse cursor on the water gauge so you can quickly get an exact reading and get in the routine of checking often. Also, be very careful between 4 & 5 km. That is the most dangerous altitude range for overheating where even full open radiator will not help if you are slow and at high power. I have seen my water rad burst at 97 degrees so don't think that 100 degrees is the magic number either. On the other hand I've seen temps go over 110 and nothing happen but that is rare.

In general I agree with you that the radiators are too fragile. It's ridiculous that your coolant system fails when you go over temp by 1 degree and then the engine dies 2 minute later. If TF would make overheat damage less drastic so you might have at least a chance of nursing the a/c back home I think everybody would be happy.

Wulf
Feb-16-2014, 18:42
At this point, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is more to this radiator leak than the number of bullets wielded by RAF fighters versus the fact that the 109 has twice as many radiators to hit. Today, my radiator was perforated in two out of four sorties right in the middle of the Channel with no flak or fighters in sight and this has happened all too often. We always chalk it up to maybe it was flak maybe this or maybe that - well maybe nothing - there's something wrong! I don't know how many planes I've had to turn around and RTB when there's not a single bullet hole or scratch on them anywhere and in fact I never heard anything hit them at all but the radiator nevertheless is perforated.

The other day on the airfield I was next to another 109 with our engines running when another aircraft was hit by a bomb. The debris landed nowhere near us and nothing hit our planes - no visible damage at all but both the water radiators were leaking in our 109s. Besides debris falling from explosions would at least hit the top of the aircraft before it was able to puncture something underneath - I would think.

I also have to wonder why it always seems to be the water radiator rather than the oil radiator. Obviously, the laws of probability would not support the disproportionate number of times the water radiator is hit as compared the number of times the oil radiator is hit. This alone ought to serve as proof.

I really hope this issue has been looked into thoroughly for this next patch.

It is the number one frustration for me and you can bet it is for all 109 pilots. It has been for quite some time. I know there's something wrong and nobody's going to convince me otherwise...




So, if I've understood you correctly, you're flying along minding your own business and "gizzongaa', you've developed a radiator leak without having been hit.

This typically happens when you exceed your maximum ata or RPM limits. If for example, your revs exceed 3000 for just a second or so, your cooling system will fail. If you exceed 2500 rpm for a sustained period, your cooling system will fail. Ata is a bit more forgiving but try and keep it below 1.3.

In my experience the 109 tuned for low level operations (the B, I think??) is particularly prone to this type of failure.

2./JG54 Chumleigh
Feb-16-2014, 19:40
High manifold pressure should cause gaskets to blow - not radiators. My rpms had not exceeded 2500 when the incidents occurred. ATA had varied between 1.1 and 1.3 but wasn't over 1.2 for more than 30 seconds at a time.

I haven't blown a gasket in months except after however long it takes to do so after the radiator is perforated.

Secondly, none of this explains how two aircraft sitting on the airfield sustained raidiator leaks during the incident I described in my prior post.

Finally, I can't recall when the only damage I've sustained in combat happened to be to the oil radiator however i.e. if one or two bullets hit my aircraft and cause damage it is virtually always to the water radiator. How is this possible? Why isn't oil radiator punctured on at least 1 out of 5 occasions since they're comparable in size?

Furthermore the wings are far bigger than the radiators yet my radiator is hit more often than the wings. What are the chances of hitting the radiator only rather than the wings when one or two bullets hit? It happens more often than not.

By the way, half the time I don't hear anything hit the plane when the cause can only have been attributable to flak. In those cases as well, there is no damage to the aircraft anywhere else - visible or otherwise. That simple doesn't make sense. I very seldom receive flak damage to any other part of the plane.

Six months ago I'd have chalked it up to poor engine management. I've been flying the 109 long enough now to know the difference and the disproportionate numbers of incidents defy explanation both for myself and others who have been flying a lot longer.

Unless all of these scenarios are explainable then to offer a possible explanation for one or two of them such as engine management doesn't hold water. Tell me how the 2 109s on the airfield both suffered radiator damage and no other damage from the debris from an explosion - none of which landed near either one of them from what I saw - and you'll be getting somewhere. How did those bomb fragments and debris fail to puncture my wings but somehow damaged a radiator underneath - and needless to say - not the oil radiator - on 2 109s 50 to 100 meters apart?

Wulf
Feb-16-2014, 21:10
High manifold pressure should cause gaskets to blow - not radiators. My rpms had not exceeded 2500 when the incidents occurred. ATA had varied between 1.1 and 1.3 but wasn't over 1.2 for more than 30 seconds at a time.

I haven't blown a gasket in months except after however long it takes to do so after the radiator is perforated.

Secondly, none of this explains how two aircraft sitting on the airfield sustained raidiator leaks during the incident I described in my prior post.

Finally, I can't recall when the only damage I've sustained in combat happened to be to the oil radiator however i.e. if one or two bullets hit my aircraft and cause damage it is virtually always to the water radiator. How is this possible? Why isn't oil radiator punctured on at least 1 out of 5 occasions since they're comparable in size?

Furthermore the wings are far bigger than the radiators yet my radiator is hit more often than the wings. What are the chances of hitting the radiator only rather than the wings when one or two bullets hit? It happens more often than not.

By the way, half the time I don't hear anything hit the plane when the cause can only have been attributable to flak. In those cases as well, there is no damage to the aircraft anywhere else - visible or otherwise. That simple doesn't make sense. I very seldom receive flak damage to any other part of the plane.

Six months ago I'd have chalked it up to poor engine management. I've been flying the 109 long enough now to know the difference and the disproportionate numbers of incidents defy explanation both for myself and others who have been flying a lot longer.

Unless all of these scenarios are explainable then to offer a possible explanation for one or two of them such as engine management doesn't hold water. Tell me how the 2 109s on the airfield both suffered radiator damage and no other damage from the debris from an explosion - none of which landed near either one of them from what I saw - and you'll be getting somewhere. How did those bomb fragments and debris fail to puncture my wings but somehow damaged a radiator underneath - and needless to say - not the oil radiator - on 2 109s 50 to 100 meters apart?

If you're suggesting that the game has been hacked and people are flying invisible aircraft - well, you may be right, I don't know. I can tell you though if it has happened, I've yet to experience it.

There seem to be two different scenarios here. 1) strange radiator leaks that don't result from battle damage, which we've discussed and 2) bullets that always seem to find your radiators.

In respect to the second issue, I'd have a hard look at your flying style if I were you. I know that when I started flying the 109 I did a lot of low/medium level flying and I was always getting holes in my rads. Whether realistic or not, it seems that when you expose your undersides and low 6 position radiator damage occurs frequently. I noticed that when I started engaging the enemy from altitude the number of times I was hit in the rads dropped dramatically, even though I was still getting hit. Don't know if this is relevant to you but is has absolutely been my experience.

Headshot
Feb-16-2014, 22:45
I feel your pain Chumleigh. Radiator failure is the number one killer for the 109's I fly. I often wonder how a low pressure system can fail so quickly (2 minute self destruct count down) after any hit. I understand a system under pressure would push the coolant out but the 109 had a low pressure system. It may be modeled correctly but man it is the most frustrating thing when flying the 109.

III./ZG76_Keller
Feb-16-2014, 23:23
Radiator perforated without being shot at or hit by flak is certainly an overheat problem, can't blame the damage model for that.

ATAG_Bliss
Feb-16-2014, 23:51
I've been building race cars a large majority of my life. I've experienced just about every fathomable engine failure possibility there is. The V8's I run can range from 800bhp to 2500+bhp.


A few things about real life cooling systems to consider: Horsepower is heat. Maintaining a correct cylinder temperature is CRITICAL in an engine's survival. As an example of devastation from heat: As a drag racer, I typically tow the car through the staging lanes and only start it once I'm just about to stage (aka 30 seconds before I race). I use an electric magnetic heater to warm up the engine oil and a block heater + an electric water pump for coolant temperature. The point is, the coolant and oil are up to operating temperature before I fire the car up. Anyhow, a typical race lasts less than 30 seconds of engine on time. 10 seconds worth of burnout and coming up to stage, another 10 to get everyone staged, and 7+10 seconds of WOT (wide open throttle). One particular pass I made, my electric water pump failed. I had no idea it happened. So I made the pass and before I could shut it down I noticed sparks coming from the rear view mirror. Essentially it was pieces of aluminum that had melted clean off the cylinder head and shot it self out the exhaust. The heads were obviously in terrible shape. The cylinders were out of round etc. Essentially the engine had to be completely gone through again from a single water pump failure in 30 seconds of run time.

I know most people will base their engine experience on what they drive, their car for example. But there's a huge difference in a 4 banger that makes 120hp compared to a much larger engine producing 1000+HP and the combustion and cylinder heat it produces. You can run a modern engine, especially one that lacks power, aka, heat, for minutes and minutes with the temp gauge buried with, quite honestly, a very savable state. You do that with something that makes 1000HP, it doesn't last very long at all. It's kinda like trying to heat up a piece of thick steel with a simple cigar lighter compared to doing being able to cut it in 1/2 with an oxy/acetylene cutting torch. Of course, one could make the argument that a smaller producing engine also has thinner cylinder walls etc, as it doesn't need as much cooling absorption. (which is true) But it is by no means is comparable to the heat output from high horsepower producing power plants.

So without your cylinder head, cylinder block, and water jackets of the block being surrounded by coolant at all times, any one of those areas will be just like putting a cutting torch up to them. That metal will get ridiculously hot, which causes heat soak, which causes the remaining coolant to boil, which causes less physical coolant surrounding and absorbing heat around it's metal parts, which causes more heat soak etc. etc.etc.. This poses another problem. Gasoline of any type is designed to fire at a certain cylinder temperature. This is also why a cold engine requires much greater amounts of fuel to keep it running. The sweet spot of combustion engines (180-200F depending on the engine) is all designed around the philosophy of that engine design in the 1st place. Hardly anyone makes an engine designed to under deliver in HP. So essentially at 190F you have an ignition timing that is slightly advanced based upon load/rpm (all they had back then) and fuel timing that really wasn't that advanced, essentially fuel waiting on the camshaft timing etc. The point is, you increase heat (excessive cylinder temp) into this engine, fuel starts detonating and preigniting, this causes a very uneven burn, a burn so far out of it's intended timing that it can actually melt the face of parts of the cylinder head or pistons at the same time.

For example here's a simple picture of detonation on a piston. What you see in this picture could happen in less than 10 seconds of detonation (fuel exploding at the wrong time because of heat).

http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/images/LET/melted_piston.jpg

Something else to consider in the real life world. Boost/manifold pressure can most definitely puncture a radiator long before it completely destroys a head gasket or even has the systems of a blown head gasket. There are more cases than I could possibly count of oil cooler contamination (by antifreeze) and vice versa in boosted applications that I've seen. In other words, combustion is leaking into the cooling system without coolant actually leaking into the combustion chamber. And because of this excessive boost, the oil cooler (which is cooled by antifreeze) can blow out, and has blown out on many modern engines. The point is, you can actually have combustion in the coolant system without coolant in the combustion chamber (a leaky head gasket).

This tool, for example, is a quick test just for that example, that almost any mechanic that knows anything, has used before:

http://images.nationaltoolwarehouse.com/images/Product_Images/LIS/LIS-75500.jpg
Description
• Quickly pinpoints and checks for combustion leaks.
• Fluid changes from blue to yellow when exposed to gases in the radiator. Weight: 1.880 lbs.

See here: http://www.nationaltoolwarehouse.com/Combustion-Leak-Detector-P20940.aspx?utm_term=LIS75500&gclid=CICqlp-r0rwCFckWMgodx38AKQ

So in saying all of this, I'm not necessarily saying that the 109 cooling isn't right in Clod, but I see many arguments saying it's incorrect based of falsehoods. If you want a combustion engine to have a long life, it's not a matter of keeping the coolant on the verge of overheating, it's a matter of keeping the coolant smack dab in the middle of the normal operating temperature of the engine. Excessive heat WILL cause detonation and preignition, especially when under high rpms, high engine load, and boost. You mix that together, and you have a recipe for a very quick failure with a 1000+HP engine.

The other thing is that once a cooling system runs low, you are screwed in the same situation. There is no, "my engine should be able to run for 10 minutes well the coolant has leaked down to the water jackets or below". If that's happened, by way of leak of any sort, it's going to fail pretty quick (remember, mine failed in less than 30 seconds and I HAD full coolant in the engine). Of course, in today's world, everything is electronically controlled and computed. If your engine gets hot, the timing is vastly retarded, the fuel is quickly turned down, and in many cases, the engine will stop firing certain cylinders all together in the hopes that it can prevent self destruction. But in the 40's, not so much.

And if anyone doesn't think a single .303 or, hell, a pellet gun wouldn't make a devastating hole to a radiator that would cause the water pump to drain all the coolant out of that hole in short order (aka making everything else I said above happen also in short order), then you need to put a hole in the radiator of your car, drive it at whatever it's redline is on the rpms and see how many minutes you get out of it. Then imagine your car had 1000HP with the same issue, you'll be lucky to get around the block.

AKA_Knutsac
Feb-17-2014, 00:28
+1 Bliss....thanks for posting. Back in the day (maybe still?) the number one cause of auto breakdowns was cooling system failure (ie. burst hose, stuck thermostat, even a slipping fan clutch). Shocking how fast temps can rise with even a pinhole leak in a hose.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

ATAG_Bliss
Feb-17-2014, 01:12
+1 Bliss....thanks for posting. Back in the day (maybe still?) the number one cause of auto breakdowns was cooling system failure (ie. burst hose, stuck thermostat, even a slipping fan clutch). Shocking how fast temps can rise with even a pinhole leak in a hose.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

Yep - It still is. You lose a single aspect of the cooling system, especially coolant, you will be stranded in short order. Luckily most automobiles are pretty low on the performance side of things so they can get away with much more. But getting into the powerful engine stuff, they will be trash in no time at all.

I don't know the exact hours, but for example, the Merlin in the spitfire, I believe had something like 8-10 hours combat engine life before needing a complete overhaul. Civilian versions are around 500 I think? (As they aren't pushed hard and use much more modern technology). But think about that. 10 hours and rebuild the thing (when you're flying it on kill / aka going for the gusto in combat). I don't know the exact hour interval for the combat hours for the 109, but I imagine it wasn't that much different. You put those beasts (engines) on kill, they simply will not last. Nature of the beast. And we virtually floor them most of the time. We are probably lucky more damage isn't modeled.

That's not to say having a ghost overheating problem isn't there.

Don't know how accurate this is, but it's interesting reading this sort of thing:


Members,

Kind of off topic but since we've had a long thread going on engine rebuilds, and between UK and USA I thought I'd share this; those of you interested in the general concept of engine rebuilding might be interested in the following.

The P51 Mustang fighter of WW-II was equipped with several variants of the Packard-Merlin V12 piston engine. This was a much improved version of the Rolls Royce Merlin and was built under license. Sorry friends across the pond. The rebuilders tell me that the Packard was so much better than the Rolls.

Average life in civil, not military use of this engine was 600 hours before a total rebuild. (in automotive terms, that's after about 36,000 miles at 60mph cruise); more often work was needed in half that time. Can you imagine having to do a valve job every 18,000 miles on your car?

Average life expectancy of a Merlin engine in combat was 7 hours. Yes, 7. Engines and parts were part of the supply chain pipeline--a big part.

After the war, many of these engines were relegated to hydroplane use which made airplane use look tame. They were trashed quickly and often; and many ended up in the Detroit River and on Lake Washington in Seattle (site of hydroplane races); many were left submerged until parts became scarce and they started fishing them up! You couldn't afford that engine in civil air use; they consumed about 65 GPH and were "high-performance". The P51 could fly for about 2.2 hours per fill; so that 7 hour life was nearly 3 missions.

Automotively speaking, if you need any specific part for an engine, you can ($$$ not withstanding) simply have it made if you can't find it. Think custom cams, etc. Aeronautically speaking, you can ONLY use parts in a rebuild that are OEM and have been certified by the FAA. So, if you are trying to rebuild a Merlin engine and you can't find the part, no matter how easy it may be to fabricate out of billet stock or what have you, it can't be done if one expects to remain with an airworthiness certification. That's a big problem for the growing hobby among the super-rich of collecting air-worthy P51's.

Because of the above, the supply of Merlin parts was becoming pretty thin; and cylinder heads (aluminum) were getting trashed reqularly and becoming door stops; at least those that didn't make it into the scrap heap. Like we have for Mercedes engines, there are a small handful of engine rebuilders who specialize in Merlins. They are generally wild and eccentric people who have a lot of experience. You just can't go down to your local Packard dealer and buy a new cylinder head!

Enter Jack Roush, he of Roush Racing. He happens to be fabulously wealthy and a devotee of P51's.

That's a photo of me, and my wife, in front of one of Jack Roush's P51's this past August. Yes, he has more than one. This photo was taken shortly before dusk at Oakland Airport in Pontiac, Michigan. Jack was just about ready to get in and leave to take the plane back home to Willow Run--a short 15 minute flight. But he doesn't care to fly this old war bird in the dark so he had to high-tail it home. He's 65 years old.

He developed a means to "rebuild" trashed cylinder heads and by this method, which he had certified by the FAA (a feat more expensive and time consuming than the fix itself) Roush Aviation has been able to make Merlin cylinder heads that have been door stops for decades into airworthy engines again. The concept is much like dental work. Grind out the bad metal, fill in with good aluminum on a proprietary ultrasonic table, and then re-machine back to specs before proceeding with the rebuild:
Here you can see the metal "fill" prior to re-machining.

Jack didn't stop there. He also improved the engine by taking something simple--the wiper cam lifter--and designing a roller cam lifter in its place. Again, it doesn't sound that complex, but the shop foreman told me that the papers for certification were three feet high! Can you imagine the expense?

Here you can see the original wiper-style cam lifter on the left, and the new improved roller style (with Roush logo) on the right.

But, Mr. Roush didn't stop there. Why not improve the piston design from the 1930's? How about ceramic-coated pistons? Yes, remember, you have to develop the improvement, test it, and THEN go through the complexities of FAA certification which requires deep pockets:

On the left is the new, smaller, lighter forged piston with ceramic coating versus the older original piston on the right. The ceramic coating makes them withstand heat better, and the light weight improves things too.

In addition to work on the improved Packard version, they also will do rebuilds on the Rolls-Royce version which of course, powered the Supermarine Spitfire, the stuff of legends in the Battle of Britain.

Every one of those nuts you see is castellated, and there is one continuous wire threaded through the nut and bolt; kind of an early lock-nut as it were. Yes it is as complex as it looks. This engine is complete and was ready to ship back to the customer when I took this photo at Roush in March of 2006. The large black assembly in the front of the engine is the supercharger.

In their own small way, every yahoo who goes to a Nascar race helps fund Roush Racing which of course, helps fund Roush which provided the funds to do this work. Yes, Billy Bob from North Carolina in his own way, is partially responsible for keeping P51's flying. It's a beautiful thing, amazing and true. The pictures tell the story. I should note that my wife is one of those yahoos, attending the 2005 UAW-Ford 400 at Talladega.[:0]

Roush Aviation grew out of Roush Racing. Roush Racing moved from Michigan to North Carolina a few years back to be where all the OTHER teams were. Many people chose not to leave Michigan, so Jack put them to work with his other hobby, P51's. The result was just presented to you.

Engine rebuilds on the Merlin begin at $150,000. The line forms on the left. ;)

From here: http://www.sl113.org/forums/index.php?topic=8028.0;wap2 (Mercedes forum)

2./JG54 Chumleigh
Feb-17-2014, 01:29
Great post, Bliss.

The thrust of my argument does not revolve around whether or not a leaking radiator should cause my engine to fail or whether or not all it would take is a single bullet to cause that failure. It has to do with the incredible ability of single bullets or fragments or debris or flak or silent or nonexistent projectiles of whatever type or whatever to find their way to the radiator more often than they do to all the other parts of the aircraft combined. I've flown back with far fewer single holes in my wings than I've had single hits to my radiator.

It's as if there's a high powered magnet sucking every ferrous object within a hundred meters right into the water radiator.

I wouldn't waste my time raising the subject if the evidence I've experienced led to reasonable explanations involving engine management, combat tactics or the like.

For example, no one has offered any explanation for the radiator leaks that occurred on the airfield. There isn't one nor is there any reason for the number of water radiator leaks to be 10, 20 or 30 times higher than the number of oil radiator leaks. Lets look a little more closely at that sort of data before we conclude that we don't have anything worth scrutinizing a bit further.

ATAG_Bliss
Feb-17-2014, 01:39
Great post, Bliss.

The thrust of my argument does not revolve around whether or not a leaking radiator should cause my engine to fail or whether or not all it would take is a single bullet to cause that failure. It has to do with the incredible ability of single bullets or fragments or debris or flak or silent or nonexistent projectiles of whatever type or whatever to find their way to the radiator more often than they do to all the other parts of the aircraft combined. I've flown back with far fewer single holes in my wings than I've had single hits to my radiator.

It's as if there's a high powered magnet sucking every ferrous object within a hundred meters right into the water radiator.

I wouldn't waste my time raising the subject if the evidence I've experienced led to reasonable explanations involving engine management, combat tactics or the like.

For example, no one has offered any explanation for the radiator leaks that occurred on the airfield. There isn't one nor is there any reason for the number of water radiator leaks to be 10, 20 or 30 times higher than the number of oil radiator leaks. Lets look a little more closely at that sort of data before we conclude that we don't have anything worth scrutinizing a bit further.

I agree with you. I just wanted to chime in on the real life engine stuff because I've seen so many people (not saying you by the way) complain about the radiator damage before and saying they should be able to fly much longer etc., when in reality we see video after video of people flying around with leaking radiators still trying to fight and fly with the power on full blast and wondering why the engine doesn't last longer.

The other thing is the radiators are huge rearward targets. A single bullet to one of them and essentially the 109 engine will be toast. So I think the water rads are the most fragile and easiest thing to hit on the 109 (as in reality).

I do remember a problem with clod and the temperature rising if the engine has been tried to be started and shutoff? The coolant temp might climb on its own. But I thought that problem was long gong?

Do you have anyway you could replicate the issues? Obviously if there's a ghost overheating problem it needs to be sorted out. And the best way for TF to be able to fix it is if you could find out a way to replicate the issue. I know it's not going to be an easy thing to do, but if you could find it, record a track of the issue etc., at least the peeps could take a look at it and see exactly what is happening.

Broodwich
Feb-17-2014, 02:01
Nice post Bliss.

Most everyone (myself included) uses the "do not exceed" or "max power" limits of the engine as basically their cruise setting. I honestly think we get away with too much as it is.

As to the bomb on airfield causing leaks, it could just be that the hit sound didnt play even though you were. I cant tell you how many times I've been hit and the only reason I know is because of a giant column of red damage text. The rest has been debated ad finium so I'll just leave it alone

BTW Bliss, I got the lady an eGo Twist starter pack off eBay as part of Valentines day because of your recommendations. I found out the next day its a knockoff but the guy at the vape store said its ok since they are pretty much the same thing. She loves it (and so do I) and although I havent mentioned this part to her I'm REALLY happy her breath isnt horrible anymore

Cheers

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-17-2014, 03:04
A couple of things;

BOMBS on AIRFIELDS:
To test if a nearby bomb had something to do with it, I suggest you do the following.
Build a single-place mission, and place a bunch of moving vehicles (with short way points, just a 1m trip is enough) in a grid pattern on the field. Start recording a .trk file. Jump in a stuka a place a single bomb in the middle of the group. Wait for a few minutes, then stop the .trk file.
Now review the .trk.
Observe how wide the pattern of destruction is. Note which vehicles are venting steam from their engines. That will give you an idea of blast radius and how far engines are affected.

Do NOT use the "debris cloud" as an example to measure damage area by. That's a graphics effect only.

AIRCRAFT Radiators:
This is going to be controversial... but I have a .trk file with me attacking nine AI spitfires in a 109. In 6 out of the 9 attacks (short, <1 seconds bursts) the spitfires sustain water Radiator damage. So is that too high a % also?

Before we get fixated by a 109-radiator band wagon again let's bring to mind a few things;

1. Just because the 109's rads seem to be getting hit every time does not necessarily mean the radiators are too prone to damage. Perhaps, in fact, it is that the other parts of the 109 are NOT taking as much damage as they should. If one part is to be review, all parts should be reviewed.

2. Other aircraft suffer high rates of radiator perforation too, as my test against the spitfires suggests. If one aircraft is under review, ALL aircraft should be similarly under review.

3. TF have stated a few times that damage models will be looked at for TF 5. There's much more to review here than just the 109 radiator. All aircraft need to be given the same level of attention.

2./JG54 Chumleigh
Feb-17-2014, 03:08
Bliss,

I could definitely make it a point to record sorties and send any of the ones that contain a suspicious leak. I really haven't attempted to edit any videos other than to upload them to the track editor for outside views. Shall I just send the originals or try to get a slow motion sequence on Fraps or something along those lines?

Headshot
Feb-17-2014, 04:52
LOL all this talk about radiators has jinxed me. I just loaded my old van with my oldest son and his wheelchair (I'm a full time carer nowadays) to go and pick up his sister and twin brothers from school. Half way there I blew off a heater hose. Luckily I wasn't in traffic and pulled into a car park with a shady tree. Managed to get a bucket of water and a pair of plyers to repair the hose from a friendly bloke who lived over the road from the car park.

I think the next thing we should discuss is winning lotto. Then maybe that will happen.

Did a quick google and found that E model radiators were a big problem, even had trouble with getting blocked with debris thrown up from the wheel during take off. Later models had the ability to isolate one or both radiators in emergencies.

Oh and Chumleigh apparently the oil cooler is under the nose of the 109 so its alot smaller better protected than the two wing mounted engine radiators.

9./JG52 Hans Gruber
Feb-17-2014, 05:59
The radiator leaks on the ground, was it after you landed? Or did you have the engine running and then turn it off? Either way your engine overheats after you shut it down unless you fully close then open radiators. It's a strange bug.

Also, the 109 DM has some serious issues with its engine. It's near invincible to 303s so it's unlikely to see oil gasket leaks, cylinder head fires, or other engine related damages.

Osprey
Feb-17-2014, 09:54
I could give you some tips on that dragster overheating problem there Bliss. I used to drive an Austin Mini, (the old original British one, not the BMW monster) and the old A-series engine in that would pop a core plug so often that I would carry a gallon of water and a hammer with me. "Pop" it would go on the motorway and I would just pull over, find it lodged in the engine bay somewhere, bang it back in, top up the water and away I'd go. Hope that helps, not sure if you'll win another 1/4 mile like that though :salute: :)



....those were the days......

Zisi
Feb-17-2014, 12:03
That was an amazing post Bliss, thanks!

It is the number one frustration for me and you can bet it is for all 109 pilots.
I fly mostly the 109, though I fly the spit as well, and I just don't see it. Both aircraft will primarily get downed due to the radiator. The spit might be *SLIGHTLY* more resilient in this respect, but not by much. I have never understood why 109 pilots are so fixated on the radiator, its the most common "killing" blow to any aircraft.


... It has to do with the incredible ability of single bullets or fragments or debris or flak or silent or nonexistent projectiles of whatever type or whatever to find their way to the radiator more often than they do to all the other parts of the aircraft combined. I've flown back with far fewer single holes in my wings than I've had single hits to my radiator.
You simply don't know that. You can be hit by bullets, and not have that damage show up visually. It's just a function of how the graphical effects work. If you are getting hit mostly by AP rounds, most of that damage is not going to be visible, especially from the 6, the radiators will inevitably be the first thing you notice. It's hardly that they are the only things getting hit, just the only thing that generally matters. Frankly, MG's do so little right now that when I'm flying the spit I'll only attack a 109 until its radiator goes, and then leave, going past that is just a matter of luck and wastes ammo, the only other things that could happen that would matter would be things like fire / pilot kill / control surface and if unlucky you could go through your entire belt before that happens in an online dogfight.


For example, no one has offered any explanation for the radiator leaks that occurred on the airfield.
Pretty sure that bombs cause an AOE damage effect that will impact pretty much all parts equally, and radiators being a weaker part will get blown. Happens on any plane. It's not like the game fully models realistic dynamic effects of an explosion...


There isn't one nor is there any reason for the number of water radiator leaks to be 10, 20 or 30 times higher than the number of oil radiator leaks.
It doesnt, oil perforations happen all the time on a solid hit. However it's in a much less vulnerable position and occupies far less space.

vranac
Feb-17-2014, 14:23
I agree with all you said Zisi, except this.


. Frankly, MG's do so little right now that when I'm flying the spit I'll only attack a 109 until its radiator goes, and then leave, going past that is just a matter of luck and wastes ammo, the only other things that could happen that would matter would be things like fire / pilot kill / control surface and if unlucky you could go through your entire belt before that happens in an online dogfight.

MG are quite good actually.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDz49HtJHbs

Or this, mg only, E4.

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/2w/7x/363bODmw/300m-rud.jpg

And 3-4 wings cut off from 109s. It's rare but possible.

ATAG_Colander
Feb-17-2014, 14:40
http://images.nationaltoolwarehouse.com/images/Product_Images/LIS/LIS-75500.jpg


Bliss, what is that?!!! :)

Zisi
Feb-17-2014, 15:34
I agree with all you said Zisi, except this.
MG are quite good actually.


I wouldn't debate that stuff can happen, I've very rarely taken off wings too. However lately I've just come to the conclusion for me personally, that continuing to spend bullets on a 109 past the radiator, is just not worth it if I intend on shooting down several more aircraft. On the 109 I generally don't stick around once my cannons are out, unless i'm going after a bomber or something.

I'm certainly not saying they are ineffective, but I do think that they are now a bit on the weak side, whereas in the previous patch they may have been a bit too strong.

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-17-2014, 15:45
I agree with all you said Zisi, except this.



MG are quite good actually.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDz49HtJHbs
.

Wow! That's great shooting, Vranac! :stunned: I've never shot off the tail of a 109, in fact, my own experience with this current TF patch 4.0 is much closer to Zisi's. You were right up on him, less than 50 yards it looked. Do you do this often? What convergence did you have set?

vranac
Feb-17-2014, 17:14
You're welcome Snapper )

No, that was the first time ever, so I think that's very, very rare :devilish:

Yes, I was around 50 m , my convergence is on 170 and I think I just hit the tail with one wing mg's and second wing hit bellow fuel tank but only the tail went off.

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/g/aE/44MFU1r2/109-tail-2.jpg
http://www.dodaj.rs/f/2/G4/4OWaVJwq/109-tail-1.jpg


Zisi, you are right with that also, I also leave those damaged ones but the most of them continue to fight until engine is dead , so you got to keep your eye on them ;)

2./JG54 Chumleigh
Feb-17-2014, 17:19
I have an idea. What if I collected data comparing how often my wings are hit to how often my radiator is hit? I can see my wings and they're much bigger targets than my radiators. If the radiators are hit far more often than the wings then I should think it logical to conclude something is amiss. Is that reasonable?

Keep in mind that if the wings are hit first then I'll probably keep flying which will give everything a chance to be hit again. This will increase the chances of more total hits to the wings so that on any given sortie I can have multiple wing hits with a maximum of one radiator hit added to the total.
I'll count cockpit hits and black-outs as well.

ATAG_Endless
Feb-17-2014, 17:20
I've been building race cars a large majority of my life. I've experienced just about every fathomable engine failure possibility there is. The V8's I run can range from 800bhp to 2500+bhp.


A few things about real life cooling systems to consider: Horsepower is heat. Maintaining a correct cylinder temperature is CRITICAL in an engine's survival. As an example of devastation from heat: As a drag racer, I typically tow the car through the staging lanes and only start it once I'm just about to stage (aka 30 seconds before I race). I use an electric magnetic heater to warm up the engine oil and a block heater + an electric water pump for coolant temperature. The point is, the coolant and oil are up to operating temperature before I fire the car up. Anyhow, a typical race lasts less than 30 seconds of engine on time. 10 seconds worth of burnout and coming up to stage, another 10 to get everyone staged, and 7+10 seconds of WOT (wide open throttle). One particular pass I made, my electric water pump failed. I had no idea it happened. So I made the pass and before I could shut it down I noticed sparks coming from the rear view mirror. Essentially it was pieces of aluminum that had melted clean off the cylinder head and shot it self out the exhaust. The heads were obviously in terrible shape. The cylinders were out of round etc. Essentially the engine had to be completely gone through again from a single water pump failure in 30 seconds of run time.

I know most people will base their engine experience on what they drive, their car for example. But there's a huge difference in a 4 banger that makes 120hp compared to a much larger engine producing 1000+HP and the combustion and cylinder heat it produces. You can run a modern engine, especially one that lacks power, aka, heat, for minutes and minutes with the temp gauge buried with, quite honestly, a very savable state. You do that with something that makes 1000HP, it doesn't last very long at all. It's kinda like trying to heat up a piece of thick steel with a simple cigar lighter compared to doing being able to cut it in 1/2 with an oxy/acetylene cutting torch. Of course, one could make the argument that a smaller producing engine also has thinner cylinder walls etc, as it doesn't need as much cooling absorption. (which is true) But it is by no means is comparable to the heat output from high horsepower producing power plants.

So without your cylinder head, cylinder block, and water jackets of the block being surrounded by coolant at all times, any one of those areas will be just like putting a cutting torch up to them. That metal will get ridiculously hot, which causes heat soak, which causes the remaining coolant to boil, which causes less physical coolant surrounding and absorbing heat around it's metal parts, which causes more heat soak etc. etc.etc.. This poses another problem. Gasoline of any type is designed to fire at a certain cylinder temperature. This is also why a cold engine requires much greater amounts of fuel to keep it running. The sweet spot of combustion engines (180-200F depending on the engine) is all designed around the philosophy of that engine design in the 1st place. Hardly anyone makes an engine designed to under deliver in HP. So essentially at 190F you have an ignition timing that is slightly advanced based upon load/rpm (all they had back then) and fuel timing that really wasn't that advanced, essentially fuel waiting on the camshaft timing etc. The point is, you increase heat (excessive cylinder temp) into this engine, fuel starts detonating and preigniting, this causes a very uneven burn, a burn so far out of it's intended timing that it can actually melt the face of parts of the cylinder head or pistons at the same time.

For example here's a simple picture of detonation on a piston. What you see in this picture could happen in less than 10 seconds of detonation (fuel exploding at the wrong time because of heat).

http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/images/LET/melted_piston.jpg

Something else to consider in the real life world. Boost/manifold pressure can most definitely puncture a radiator long before it completely destroys a head gasket or even has the systems of a blown head gasket. There are more cases than I could possibly count of oil cooler contamination (by antifreeze) and vice versa in boosted applications that I've seen. In other words, combustion is leaking into the cooling system without coolant actually leaking into the combustion chamber. And because of this excessive boost, the oil cooler (which is cooled by antifreeze) can blow out, and has blown out on many modern engines. The point is, you can actually have combustion in the coolant system without coolant in the combustion chamber (a leaky head gasket).

This tool, for example, is a quick test just for that example, that almost any mechanic that knows anything, has used before:

http://images.nationaltoolwarehouse.com/images/Product_Images/LIS/LIS-75500.jpg
Description
• Quickly pinpoints and checks for combustion leaks.
• Fluid changes from blue to yellow when exposed to gases in the radiator. Weight: 1.880 lbs.

See here: http://www.nationaltoolwarehouse.com/Combustion-Leak-Detector-P20940.aspx?utm_term=LIS75500&gclid=CICqlp-r0rwCFckWMgodx38AKQ

So in saying all of this, I'm not necessarily saying that the 109 cooling isn't right in Clod, but I see many arguments saying it's incorrect based of falsehoods. If you want a combustion engine to have a long life, it's not a matter of keeping the coolant on the verge of overheating, it's a matter of keeping the coolant smack dab in the middle of the normal operating temperature of the engine. Excessive heat WILL cause detonation and preignition, especially when under high rpms, high engine load, and boost. You mix that together, and you have a recipe for a very quick failure with a 1000+HP engine.

The other thing is that once a cooling system runs low, you are screwed in the same situation. There is no, "my engine should be able to run for 10 minutes well the coolant has leaked down to the water jackets or below". If that's happened, by way of leak of any sort, it's going to fail pretty quick (remember, mine failed in less than 30 seconds and I HAD full coolant in the engine). Of course, in today's world, everything is electronically controlled and computed. If your engine gets hot, the timing is vastly retarded, the fuel is quickly turned down, and in many cases, the engine will stop firing certain cylinders all together in the hopes that it can prevent self destruction. But in the 40's, not so much.

And if anyone doesn't think a single .303 or, hell, a pellet gun wouldn't make a devastating hole to a radiator that would cause the water pump to drain all the coolant out of that hole in short order (aka making everything else I said above happen also in short order), then you need to put a hole in the radiator of your car, drive it at whatever it's redline is on the rpms and see how many minutes you get out of it. Then imagine your car had 1000HP with the same issue, you'll be lucky to get around the block.

I too hav been around high performance cars for many years and have seen allot of engine failures
The danger to almost all the failures I have seen are
OVER REV , TO MUCH BOOST , AIRFLOW RESTRICTION
All of these cause massive amounts of heat
If you sit on a certain boost level without the right airflow / speed for to long the amount of heat that puts into the motor is huge
It can cause the oil to degrade causing the engine to not lubricate properly and can also cause radiator rupture or worst pinging ( pre ignition)
I have seen a radiator hose swell to almost double it's size due to a car that was running 42pound boost and revving to 9000 rpm

The same rules apply to aircraft run it slow and safe
And only give it short bursts at full load

In the 109 I am now flying and dog fighting with 50 % oil rad and 75% radiator with no issues

Kling
Feb-17-2014, 18:32
Arent those drag cars running at a much higher RPM and as such create much more heat compared to a for example a DB601 or a Merlin? I mean, are these type of engines comparable? Isnt the cooling system also smaller for a drag racer as the engine is not built for continous running?!
Honest question!

2./JG54 Chumleigh
Feb-17-2014, 18:34
In the 109 I am now flying and dog fighting with 50 % oil rad and 75% radiator with no issues

My settings are the same and I handle the throttle bursts the same way. I'm almost certain my radiator leaks have nothing to do with engine management. Anyway hopefully the data I collect will provide some insight.

vranac
Feb-17-2014, 18:57
I have an idea. What if I collected data comparing how often my wings are hit to how often my radiator is hit? I can see my wings and they're much bigger targets than my radiators. If the radiators are hit far more often than the wings then I should think it logical to conclude something is amiss. Is that reasonable?


Chumleigh, I think you're on a wrong track. There was one epic radiator thread here and Colander who has "some access " to code confirmed that everything is ok with the hit box.
Rad is very weak target even from 1000 m for a rifle cartridge.

ATAG_Endless
Feb-17-2014, 19:20
Arent those drag cars running at a much higher RPM and as such create much more heat compared to a for example a DB601 or a Merlin? I mean, are these type of engines comparable? Isnt the cooling system also smaller for a drag racer as the engine is not built for continous running?!
Honest question!

Good question Kling
And the anwes to your question is that in WW2 these engines were some of the most powerful in the world
With the technology they had these motors were pushing between 1000 to 2000 hp and keep in mind that the quality of Oil, Fuel ,Cooling systems and even Engine components are not nearly as advanced as they are today
So the motors were extreemely tempremental and most engines had to be completely rebuilt and checked after two or three flights if the ground crew knew that the pilot had seen or interacted with an enemy
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but with the 109 boost pressures if you run the ata at 1.2 that is equivellant on 1.2 kg per centimetre of pressure being put into each cylinder and its about 17- 18 psi the amount of heat that that puts into the engine is emmense and the pilots had a fine line between running the motor properly

So in relation to your question yes drag cars do run much higher rpm than the old db engines but if you figgure that there were 12 massive cylinders all under boot it's not that far off that of an 8 cylinder drag car in comparison to heat loads

Dutch
Feb-17-2014, 19:46
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gou1cspUfdY

Much better use of the name. Imo.

Osprey
Feb-18-2014, 03:22
I have seen a radiator hose swell to almost double it's size due to a car that was running 42pound boost and revving to 9000 rpm


My hose doubles in size when I over rev too.:devilish:

Skoshi_Tiger
Feb-18-2014, 04:24
I have an idea. What if I collected data comparing how often my wings are hit to how often my radiator is hit? I can see my wings and they're much bigger targets than my radiators.

Not sure if it's been mentioned but not all hits are shown as visual damage on the aircraft model.

It's a pity we don't have the 'arrow' markers that the original Il2 used for training. They would make it a lot clearer where the hits actually occurred.

Cheers.

ATAG_Endless
Feb-18-2014, 04:44
My hose doubles in size when I over rev too.:devilish:

Just don't blow a gasket mate haha :glaughter:

ATAG_Lewis
Feb-18-2014, 11:24
Bliss, what is that?!!! :)

Hmmm...I have no idea.....But I'm pretty sure I stumbled on one in the wifes cupboard last March!!

Back on Topic.....As for 109 venting...MAN, Dont take that away from us Hurri and Spit fliers....We got no cannon...We got little 303s.....we rarely take wings off or do structural damage...and we only burn them on occasion with our little De Wildes....Don't take the radiator vulnerability away from us..venting the 109s is all we can do.....WE GOT NOTHING LEFT, MAN!!!!....

Have a care!!

lol....

Headshot
Feb-18-2014, 22:24
I fly red and blue and know what frustrates me. For the spit its being out run (not as bigger problem now) and my ability to exhaust my ammo supply very quickly.
With the 109 ( I'm not saying it's not well modelled) It's how quickly you can destroy your AC because of the weak radiator and how hard it is to hit any thing with the cannons (I know some people find it easy, not me and I'm a vet).
It can be frustrating playing a perfect tactical game. Getting a gun solution on a red again and again and again (too many "agains" sorry) then from a great distance the red blighter hits you with a stray bullet after a wild spray and you've had it. 2 mins before major engine damage. Then you have a choice brake off and hope he wont follow, because as soon as you engine starts to die your a sitting duck. Or fight for another 2mins and hope you get him before you have to ditch. When your over the English coast your with a damaged radiator your not making it home.

As I said it's probable the way it really was in 1940 but us supper human virtual pilots hate the kryptonite/weak radiators on the 109.

Zisi
Feb-18-2014, 23:51
I have an idea. What if I collected data comparing how often my wings are hit to how often my radiator is hit? I can see my wings and they're much bigger targets than my radiators. If the radiators are hit far more often than the wings then I should think it logical to conclude something is amiss. Is that reasonable?

You couldn't test this statistically, or online for a variety of reasons. The only way you could test this reliably that I know of would be (offline) to put a 109 at an elevated point possibly even tip it on its nose or something, and then setup something like a bomber rear gun nearby such that you could shoot all around the radiator accurately. You would want to have the mission script print out the damage you are causing so you know when you cause the damage and track record everything for review.

Testing statistically doesn't work because people do not have an equal probability to hit through the whole surface, it's an unknown factor to what extent that area is bias by players. You cannot test online because I am rather sure that visual hit effects are client side, and do not necessarily correspond to an actual hit on the server. Logically, the higher your ping the more pronounced this discrepancy will be.


I fly red and blue and know what frustrates me. For the spit its being out run (not as bigger problem now) ...
Not a larger problem now relative to what? The last patch? This is true if you are talking about the Spit IIa, it's very much false if you are talking about the 1a100. The level speed differences (relative to the 109 before and after the patch) at all altitudes, as well as difference in climb rates have increased by quite a lot. In fact the IIa is faster than the 1a100 in level flight at all altitudes, feel free to test and verify this yourself. Should you decide to test, make sure you are going full boar, don't fly it by the specs, do what you can get away with without blowing your engine. I have heard this is apparently a known bug with the overheat changes and is apparently getting very much looked at for the next patch.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-19-2014, 06:25
It can be frustrating playing a perfect tactical game. Getting a gun solution on a red again and again and again (too many "agains" sorry) then from a great distance the red blighter hits you with a stray bullet after a wild spray and you've had it..

It takes 0.35s for a spitfire to reach its ammo out over a 300m range (850 m/s)
In that 0.35 seconds there will be somewhere between 50 and 60 bullets covering that 300m space (which equates to each bullet averaged at around 5m apart)

The time it takes one bullet to catch up to the location of the previous bullet is 0.005 of a second.

It is highly unlikely that a single "stray" round will hit the radiator, and not be followed up by one other round.

The number of times I've heard people swear they were ruined by a "single round" astounds me. How people can possibly know that beggars belief.
Bullets from these aircraft travel in streams. It's like standing in a river and complaining about being hit by a single water droplet.


That's not to say that the Radiators need a damage-model-investigation. But the problem that is being looked for must be approached rationally, and not on the basis of some pretty wild speculations.
Also, if the 109 Radiator is being reviewed, ALL radiators need to be reviewed likewise.

Headshot
Feb-19-2014, 07:19
Jezz Philstyle,a bit harsh with your reply mate. I didn't say that it happens all the time but it has happened and when I say A stray bullet takes out my radiator I didn't say the rest of the AC was not peppered with rounds, I didn't inspect the ac after ditching. Can you tell me honestly that a radiator can't be perforated with one round?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-19-2014, 07:43
Jezz Philstyle,a bit harsh with your reply mate.

Not sure why you found it harsh. Tone doesn't get transmitted in text, I intended no harshness. Still, apologies if I offended.


I didn't say that it happens all the time but it has happened

I never made that exaggerated claim either.
Your comment that "getting a gun solution on a red again and again and again (too many "agains" sorry) then from a great distance the red blighter hits you with a stray bullet after a wild spray and you've had it " appears to me as though this scenario is a regular occurrence for you. It seems entirely rational that I would associate that comment with the other comments to that effect that I've seen.

Still I'm not sure how we can know how many rounds hit our radiators.
But I've seen plenty of people use the chat-bar in game to reiterate that claim enough times to make me suspect that there is a good deal of guessing and/or hyperbole going on.


Can you tell me honestly that a radiator can't be perforated with one round?

No, I can't answer that question either way.
There are others far more qualified than me looking at the damaged models.

Wulf
Feb-19-2014, 08:01
I have an idea. What if I collected data comparing how often my wings are hit to how often my radiator is hit? I can see my wings and they're much bigger targets than my radiators. If the radiators are hit far more often than the wings then I should think it logical to conclude something is amiss. Is that reasonable?

Keep in mind that if the wings are hit first then I'll probably keep flying which will give everything a chance to be hit again. This will increase the chances of more total hits to the wings so that on any given sortie I can have multiple wing hits with a maximum of one radiator hit added to the total.
I'll count cockpit hits and black-outs as well.


I tell you what you could do. Why not note down the various radiator issues you're having online in a poll of 109 drivers (on this forum) and see how many of them have the same inexplicable issues. If you get responses from a reasonable sample and a healthy percentage share your concerns I suspect TF would be quite happy to consider the issue when an opportunity presents itself.

Headshot
Feb-19-2014, 08:04
Philstyle, when I said getting a gun solution on a red again and again and again I meant in a 10min + fight where I'v out flown an opponent (someone probably less experienced than me) in a boom and zoom with him total strugling to survive and me with the advantage. The other thing is bullets will spred over distance and have trouble hitting a target moving at high speed.
Please don't over analyze every word I write , I'm no expert and no writer just a bloke with my own thoughts and opinions.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-19-2014, 08:10
I tell you what you could do. Why not note down the various radiator issues you're having online in a poll of 109 drivers (on this forum) and see how many of them have the same inexplicable issues. If you get responses from a reasonable sample and a healthy percentage share your concerns I suspect TF would be quite happy to consider the issue when an opportunity presents itself.

And one for Blenheim piltos too, who lose their wings too often. And one for Hurricane pilots with their wings too.
And one for spitfire pilots, and their radiators (yes, they get perforated often also, just without the publicity) . .

OK, I'm being facetious...

Here's the thing. No-one has really conducted any kinds of reliable tests yet.
When I tried looking at this, I found that the AI spitfires I was attacking were venting from their radiators with the same frequency as the 109s (65% of the time, within a 1 seconds burst).

Someone should first identify a solid methodology, then seek community-wide comment on the method.
Then, with the method agreed, let the results of the testing speak for themselves.

Chumleigh's proposal to "collected data comparing how often my wings are hit to how often my radiator is hit?" is noble; But in all likelihood not possible.
Chumleigh probably [maybe?] does not have a script or code installed that can count each bullet that impacts his aircraft, and provide him with the data to accurately compare these two pieces of information.

9./JG52 Hans Gruber
Feb-19-2014, 09:27
I tell you what you could do. Why not note down the various radiator issues you're having online in a poll of 109 drivers (on this forum) and see how many of them have the same inexplicable issues. If you get responses from a reasonable sample and a healthy percentage share your concerns I suspect TF would be quite happy to consider the issue when an opportunity presents itself.

Posts #3 & #8 already told the OP what the problem is but were ignored.

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-19-2014, 10:30
Posts #3 & #8 already told the OP what the problem is but were ignored.

Good points. As Philstyle mentioned earlier, Spitfires get frequent radiator leaks and "perforations" as well, both by direct battle damage (bullet/flak hits) and through engine mismanagement (overheating). When I see the rad damage report come up, I can see the glycol streaming out......but NO appreciable loss in engine performance. Since most of my fighting is over home territory, I usually keep fighting on for the two minutes I have left since I know I can safely glide to an airfield (or any field) once the engine goes kaput. When I'm lucky enough to get hits on a 109 and see copious streaming of fluids I fully expect the 109 to keep fighting as well. He's not going to make it home anyway, so he may as well carry on the fight. Better to perhaps score another kill, then bail and be taken prisoner than abandon the fight immediately and drown in the Channel off the French coast.

My own personal thoughts are that if I take significant damage to my aircraft, historically self preservation should immediately take precedence. To that end, I should be disengaging at earliest opportunity and diving away. If rads with only a small number of perforations were to last, say, 10 minutes rather than two before bleeding dry and leading to engine seizure, that would probably provide enough time to cross the Channel to safety.

For those who say "that will only provide an additional 8 minutes of fighting time to a mortally-wounded machine", then perhaps as the engine temps rise a corresponding loss in horsepower should occur. If, after 2 minutes, the hot engine started to lose 10% - 20% power over the next 8 remaining minutes of engine life, the 109/Spit/Hurri pilot would still have enough juice to nurse his wounded machine home, yet effectively be out of the fight.

I don't know if what I've described is in fact accurate from a historical viewpoint, but I know my Harley (yeah, I know, air-cooled) loses power on exceedingly hot days when caught in traffic. If engine temps start to creep above spec in DB601's or Merlins, would not their power output begin to decline as well?

9./JG52 Hans Gruber
Feb-19-2014, 11:09
As currently modeled in TF4.0 it is completely possible to return to France with a perforated radiator in a 109. Key is altitude and getting your pitch down before governor seizure. Just the other day I overheated my 109 like a dope north of Manston and had to glide back to France making a wheels down landing at Coquelles.

As soon as you see radiator perforated message go for speed if above 4km or alt if below. You need at least 4km to make it back from most points in Kent. You have about 2 minutes to run the engine as hard as you can. As soon as you see the water temp climbing cut fuel (close fuel cock) to engine and wind prop down to 8:30. If you time it correctly you will suffer no further engine damage. Open flaps a bit, close rads to 1/4, and glide. If you cut the engine in time you will have about a minute worth of power if needed to make the coast or land.

Osprey
Feb-19-2014, 11:41
Yup. The channel is only 22 miles so if you are high enough you are fine. The problem is for most people is that they are at 0 feet. I've glided the Hurricane back into Hawkinge from Calais without issue, because I was nobbled at over 20k ft.

On SoW there is the frontlines functionality which accounts for your survival once ditched, I think No.401 extended that too, I don't know if that is also running on ATAG? Perhaps if this is credited in the stats somehow this behaviour could be encouraged eg, player has an improved score, or loses fewer points, the closer he gets back to his own front. We did this in the USL where players could 'recover' points awarded to the enemy team by trying to get back to home base. A damaged aircraft who RTB'd only lost 10% of it's value as opposed to 75% for ditching behind the lines.

Would be nice to get all of this stuff into shareable functionality and standardised the lot across servers - choice is good for the sim.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-19-2014, 12:30
My own personal thoughts are that if I take significant damage to my aircraft, historically self preservation should immediately take precedence. To that end, I should be disengaging at earliest opportunity and diving away. If rads with only a small number of perforations were to last, say, 10 minutes rather than two before bleeding dry and leading to engine seizure, that would probably provide enough time to cross the Channel to safety.


I think we can always quibble over how much time a rad should last after perforation, or how long it should take before total seizure, or how much progressive damage is done (rpm loss) how rapidly.

However, whatever decision is arrived at, for me, "making it back across the channel" should definitely NOT be the yardstick we are aiming to achieve. The problems are;

1. One can already make it "back across the channel" in a glide, from the right altitude.

2. At what point of the channel crossing should we set the bar? The narrowest point? The widest point? How does that affect game-play on different maps where the Geography is different?

3. Many players already chose to use their 2.5 minutes in varying ways. Would more time simply provide damaged aircraft with a more unrealistic combat capability? If players get 6 minutes (enough time to fly across the narrowest point in the channel in almost any aircraft in the game (@200mph) would these players just choose to fight on for those 6 minutes (you can get a couple of kills in 6 minutes....)

For me, the solution has to be quite sophisticated in order for it to be immersive/ realistic. Here's how I'd like to see it pan out.


The Radiator can take three levels of damage;

MINOR DAMAGE:
Results from 1 to 3 MG bullets, or from a single explosive round (flak or canon) from 5 to 10 cm away, but not a direct hit.
Fluid leaks out slowly. Total time to radiator-empty is a function something like this;

Fluid pressure (in radiator)* fluid volume (in radiator system) *1 = time to bleed out

At the point of complete bleed out the radiator stops having any cooling effect. However long the engine takes to overheat is governed by the existing overheat model.

MEDIUM DAMAGE:
Results from 3 to, say 5 MG bullets, or from a single explosive round more less than 5cm away, but not a direct hit.
Fluid leaks out faster. Total time to radiator-empty is a function something like this;
Fluid pressure (in radiator)* fluid volume (in radiator system) * 0.5 = time to bleed out
So it would take twice as fast to bleed out of fluid.

At the point of complete bleed out the radiator stops having any cooling effect. However long the engine takes to overheat is governed by the existing overheat model.

HEAVY DAMAGE:
Results from 6 or more MG bullets, or from a single explosive round direct hit.
Fluid leaks out within 5 seconds, irrespective of fluid volume/ pressure.

At the point of complete bleed out the radiator stops having any cooling effect. However long the engine takes to overheat is governed by the existing overheat model.
There might be a small % chance of an engine fire resulting if temps were already above a certain high value, or if RPM were high when damage was inflicted.


In the case of light damage, I'd expect the aircraft to take a few minutes to run out of fluid. Then, provided the RPM were low and the engine had been kept cool, you might get 20 or 30 seconds more before seizure?

In the case of medium damage, you'd probably get something similar to what we see now. A fairly fast loss of fluid, followed by an overheat soon after unless RPM was very low.

In the case of heavy damage, the overheat might be almost instantaneous, especially if the aircraft engine was already very hot when the damage was inflicted. There would be no chance of continuing in the aircraft, bail out would be the only realistic option.

The above is pure wishful thinking on my behalf. It's not the opinion/position of TF and I have no idea if it would, or could, be implemented.

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-19-2014, 12:44
Uh, Phil, your Point 3 ignores my Paragraph 3. :doh:

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-19-2014, 12:56
Uh, Phil, your Point 3 ignores my Paragraph 3. :doh:

Correct.

2./JG54 Chumleigh
Feb-19-2014, 17:23
So far I've flown 9 sorties during which I took damage. The results suggest there is no hit box issue judging by the reasonable distribution the hits taken across the entire surface of the aircraft.

On three occasions however the radiator sprung a leak without any flak or enemy aircraft in the vicinity somewhere over the channel. I will take more comprehensive notes with regard to these occurrences because I suspect that that the erroneous or premature radiator leaks are due neither to flak, enemy fire, or poor engine management but instead from a faulty overload or overheat trigger - intermittent or otherwise. That is, at the time of failure the engine has not exceeded the max run time at 1.3 ATA or the max rate of climb or the max rpms necessary to trigger the failure.

Failures that are often attributed to combat or flak damage may actually have been caused by what I've described above. The failures I experienced occurred when the engine had been running no more than 30 seconds and no more than 1.3 ATA.

i'll experiment with radiator settings also.

Zisi
Feb-19-2014, 17:39
I think the mechanics and realism of the aircraft themselves should be as accurate as it can be made. I personally wouldn't like the idea of spending any aircraft realism / accuracy in trade for behavioral incentives. On the flip side I'm perfectly happy with trading scenario/score/map "realism" for behavioral incentives, because when it gets down to it, none of that is even remotely realistic anyway in most respects.

Zisi
Feb-19-2014, 17:45
... That is, at the time of failure the engine has not exceeded the max run time at 1.3 ATA or the max rate of climb or the max rpms necessary to trigger the failure. ...

What matters is the heat. Exceed that and that radiator will go nearly instantly, and the gauge will then fall almost instantly so you won't even see it. With such a small gauge, and such a small part of that small gauge actually being relevant in flight, it is HARD to keep an eye on it properly, on top of that, in certain configurations the heat will rise very very rapidly.

I would bet you anything what you are seeing lies in the above. Of course if you believe there is something amiss with the FM's, and you can provide a good objective demonstration of it, I'm sure the dev's would welcome any such testing data.

No.54 Ghost (KL-G)
Feb-19-2014, 18:07
I think we can always quibble over how much time a rad should last after perforation, or how long it should take before total seizure, or how much progressive damage is done (rpm loss) how rapidly.

However, whatever decision is arrived at, for me, "making it back across the channel" should definitely NOT be the yardstick we are aiming to achieve. The problems are;

1. One can already make it "back across the channel" in a glide, from the right altitude.

2. At what point of the channel crossing should we set the bar? The narrowest point? The widest point? How does that affect game-play on different maps where the Geography is different?

3. Many players already chose to use their 2.5 minutes in varying ways. Would more time simply provide damaged aircraft with a more unrealistic combat capability? If players get 6 minutes (enough time to fly across the narrowest point in the channel in almost any aircraft in the game (@200mph) would these players just choose to fight on for those 6 minutes (you can get a couple of kills in 6 minutes....)

For me, the solution has to be quite sophisticated in order for it to be immersive/ realistic. Here's how I'd like to see it pan out.


The Radiator can take three levels of damage;

MINOR DAMAGE:
Results from 1 to 3 MG bullets, or from a single explosive round (flak or canon) from 5 to 10 cm away, but not a direct hit.
Fluid leaks out slowly. Total time to radiator-empty is a function something like this;

Fluid pressure (in radiator)* fluid volume (in radiator system) *1 = time to bleed out

At the point of complete bleed out the radiator stops having any cooling effect. However long the engine takes to overheat is governed by the existing overheat model.

MEDIUM DAMAGE:
Results from 3 to, say 5 MG bullets, or from a single explosive round more less than 5cm away, but not a direct hit.
Fluid leaks out faster. Total time to radiator-empty is a function something like this;
Fluid pressure (in radiator)* fluid volume (in radiator system) * 0.5 = time to bleed out
So it would take twice as fast to bleed out of fluid.

At the point of complete bleed out the radiator stops having any cooling effect. However long the engine takes to overheat is governed by the existing overheat model.

HEAVY DAMAGE:
Results from 6 or more MG bullets, or from a single explosive round direct hit.
Fluid leaks out within 5 seconds, irrespective of fluid volume/ pressure.

At the point of complete bleed out the radiator stops having any cooling effect. However long the engine takes to overheat is governed by the existing overheat model.
There might be a small % chance of an engine fire resulting if temps were already above a certain high value, or if RPM were high when damage was inflicted.


In the case of light damage, I'd expect the aircraft to take a few minutes to run out of fluid. Then, provided the RPM were low and the engine had been kept cool, you might get 20 or 30 seconds more before seizure?

In the case of medium damage, you'd probably get something similar to what we see now. A fairly fast loss of fluid, followed by an overheat soon after unless RPM was very low.

In the case of heavy damage, the overheat might be almost instantaneous, especially if the aircraft engine was already very hot when the damage was inflicted. There would be no chance of continuing in the aircraft, bail out would be the only realistic option.

The above is pure wishful thinking on my behalf. It's not the opinion/position of TF and I have no idea if it would, or could, be implemented.

should you be able to turn the engine off to cool it down a bit? right now you can land before the 2 min´s run out, turn off your engine and then all of a sudden the engine temps start to rise. i think there are many things that could be done to improve on the radiator damage model but the fact that one bullet is enough to bleed it dry over a course of time is probably true. and lets be honest, its not that well protected or hard to hit on any of the aircraft in game. if im on the dead six of a 109 and open up, i will score hits on a lot of things including the radiator. and since the reaction time for the average human is just slightly below a second (i stand to be corrected on that one) there will be a lot of bullets hitting before the unlucky guy even starts to maneuver.
i would like to see different amount of damage being done to it. we have different amount of damage being done to the fuel tanks so why not have the same for the radiators if possible.

ATAG_Bliss
Feb-19-2014, 18:18
BTW Bliss, I got the lady an eGo Twist starter pack off eBay as part of Valentines day because of your recommendations. I found out the next day its a knockoff but the guy at the vape store said its ok since they are pretty much the same thing. She loves it (and so do I) and although I havent mentioned this part to her I'm REALLY happy her breath isnt horrible anymore

Cheers

Good for you!

Vaping is awesome :)

I'll send you a PM later on with some good sources for fluid etc., that I've found that are fantastic.

ATAG_Bliss
Feb-19-2014, 18:25
I could give you some tips on that dragster overheating problem there Bliss. I used to drive an Austin Mini, (the old original British one, not the BMW monster) and the old A-series engine in that would pop a core plug so often that I would carry a gallon of water and a hammer with me. "Pop" it would go on the motorway and I would just pull over, find it lodged in the engine bay somewhere, bang it back in, top up the water and away I'd go. Hope that helps, not sure if you'll win another 1/4 mile like that though :salute: :)



....those were the days......

Haha,

I started off with a Ford Fiesta (not a festiva) and I couldn't keep heat in that thing. Had carboard covering the radiator etc., but the worst part was it took a special, more expensive battery, so I bought the cheaper one that I "made fit" that was bigger. My biggest problem was the rubber insulation on top of the battery (I needed it lol) would move about and then the hood when make contact with both terminals of the battery and almost catch the car on fire. The good ol' days of driving junk :D

And yeah, they kinda frown on any fluid being dumped on the track. The 2 hours they spend in clean up and prep afterwards makes the other racers just a bit pissed off at you :D



Arent those drag cars running at a much higher RPM and as such create much more heat compared to a for example a DB601 or a Merlin? I mean, are these type of engines comparable? Isnt the cooling system also smaller for a drag racer as the engine is not built for continous running?!
Honest question!

Depends on the car, but in all honesty heat is horsepower, regardless if 8 cylinders of a 4" bore turns at 6500rpms or a 12 cylinders of a 6" bore turns at 2500 RPMS the only reason you have the power in the 1st place is because of the heat generated to turn either engine. So RPMs really are not that relevant with regards to heat.

Wulf
Feb-19-2014, 18:30
And one for Blenheim piltos too, who lose their wings too often. And one for Hurricane pilots with their wings too.
And one for spitfire pilots, and their radiators (yes, they get perforated often also, just without the publicity) . .

OK, I'm being facetious...

Here's the thing. No-one has really conducted any kinds of reliable tests yet.
When I tried looking at this, I found that the AI spitfires I was attacking were venting from their radiators with the same frequency as the 109s (65% of the time, within a 1 seconds burst).

Someone should first identify a solid methodology, then seek community-wide comment on the method.
Then, with the method agreed, let the results of the testing speak for themselves.

Chumleigh's proposal to "collected data comparing how often my wings are hit to how often my radiator is hit?" is noble; But in all likelihood not possible.
Chumleigh probably [maybe?] does not have a script or code installed that can count each bullet that impacts his aircraft, and provide him with the data to accurately compare these two pieces of information.


OMG!!!!!!

It seems I can't even be a facetious irritating smart-arse these days without being misunderstood. For the record, I don't believe there's anything unusual or magical going on here. We all know, from our own online failings, what causes rad failure.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Feb-19-2014, 19:16
I know my Harley (yeah, I know, air-cooled) loses power on exceedingly hot days when caught in traffic. If engine temps start to creep above spec in DB601's or Merlins, would not their power output begin to decline as well?

This already is modeled in the game... if you are running your engine at near maximum heat, even if you don't blow it, it will be producing less power at a given boost/rpm than if the temps are normalized.

Zisi
Feb-19-2014, 19:20
It seems I can't even be a facetious irritating smart-arse these days without being misunderstood.

lol well, the trouble is that when it comes to discussions on FM's, radiators, DM's, etc etc nobody can tell the difference since anything one person may say in jest, another ten have said previously with sincerity.

ATAG_Ezzie
Feb-20-2014, 05:34
I've been reading this thread and enjoying the discussion. I can't add anything re the i game issues re radiator as I am not yet able to play clod. Nor do I know much re engine cooling etc. But I've just skim read Chris Goss's 'Luftwaffe fighters battle of Britain' and was interested to see how often downed 109 pilots mentioned being hit in the radiators or cooling system. And in a number of engagements the attacking RAF pilot reported streaming vapour etc

To quote Victor Moelders 'all that I can remember after that is that I was hit in the radiator and I began to leak glycol and the engine temp rose. I decided to remain low as the engine was not capable of climbing'.

SGT Wright who shot him down noted glycol coming from wing radiator and left him losing height....

2 pages later Oberleutnant Schypek was hit in radiator and engine seized it seems, tried to glide to Chanel but didn't make it.

So doesn't prove anything but I found it interesting that radiators were mentioned so often. I'd read the book a few times but hadn't picked up on this but now I have as a result of this discussion.

Ezzie

Kwiatek
Feb-20-2014, 06:19
Radiators like the inline engines were the weakest points of WW2 fighters. Read P-51 pilots opinion about strafing ground targets during WW2 - they often mention how risky biusnees it was casue 1 single bullet in engine or cooling system was enought to shot down these planes. Thats why P-47 was much more safe in such job.

Backing to BOB time 109 got 2 alumunium radiators in rear section of their wings which was the weakest point of these plane when shoting from its rear from 8x0.303 mgs. One single bullet was enough to damage cooling system and casue glycol leak. Which mean that engine will be dead in 2-3 minutes of flight. Spitfire and Hurricane got only one radiator so probability of hit it is much less then in 109.

If i fly 109 E-1 which got 4x mgs i very often damaged Spitfre or Hurricane cooling system when i shoting from their six - much more often when shoting from E-3/E-4 cannons version.

9./JG52 Hans Gruber
Feb-20-2014, 18:30
With regard to radiator damage in the 109, I think if you look at the list of possible damage types in CloD most 109 pilots would admit to never seeing most of these. Most common damages probably being water system damage, fuel tank leaks/fires, & control damages. Not all are applicable to the aircraft but many of the engine damages I have never seen in a 109. For example, I have never had my engine seize quickly from Spitfire/Hurricane attack but I see occasionally with Spitfires/Hurricanes where engine cowling flies off and props stops instantly. Are red pilots not hitting the engine? No, I don't believe that at all. Only conclusion is the 109 engine is too strong relative to the damage done by .303 as it seems only 20mm and larger are capable of inflicting some of these damages. So with many critical damage types unable to be achieved by .303 it is quite natural that most 109 pilots complain of radiator leaks and red pilots feeling their guns are ineffective.


part.NamedDamageTypes.AirbrakeDriveFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.AirbrakeHosePerforated
part.NamedDamageTypes.AirbrakePistonFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.ChunkLargeDamage
part.NamedDamageTypes.ChunkSmallDamage
part.NamedDamageTypes.CockpitDamageFlag00 ... part.NamedDamageTypes.CockpitDamageFlag14
part.NamedDamageTypes.ControlsAileronsDisabled
part.NamedDamageTypes.ControlsElevatorDisabled
part.NamedDamageTypes.ControlsGenericKickdown
part.NamedDamageTypes.ControlsRudderDisabled
part.NamedDamageTypes.ElecBatteryFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.ElecGeneratorFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.ElecIlluminationFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.ElecMasterCompassFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.ElecPrimaryFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.ElecPriNavigationFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.ElecSecNavigationFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.ElecSecondaryFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.ElecTransceiverFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.ElecWeaponryFailure

// Engine Damages Engine0 - Engine7
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0CarbControlsFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0CarbFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0CompressorFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0CompressorGovernorFailur e
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0CompressorSeizure
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0CylinderHeadExtinguished
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0CylinderHeadFire
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0ExhaustHeadFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0FuelLinePerforated
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0FuelPumpFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0FuelSecondariesFire
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0GovernorFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0GovernorSeizure
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0IntakeBurnt
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0IntercoolerBurnt
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0Magneto0Failure
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0Magneto1Failure
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0OilGasketLeak
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0OilLineBroken
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0OilPumpFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0OilRadiatorPerforated
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0OilSecondariesExtinguish ed
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0OilSecondariesFire
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0OilTankPerforated
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0Plug00Failure - part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0Plug17Failure
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0PropBlade1Broken - part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0PropBlade4Broken
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0PropControlBroken
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0ThrottleControlBroken
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0TotalFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0TotalSeizure
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0TretiaryControlBroken
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0WaterJacketBroken
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0WaterLineBroken
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0WaterPumpFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0WaterRadiatorPerforated
part.NamedDamageTypes.Eng0WaterTankPerforated

part.NamedDamageTypes.EngineLargeDamage
part.NamedDamageTypes.EngineSmallDamage
part.NamedDamageTypes.FuelPumpFailure

// Tanks 0 - 7
part.NamedDamageTypes.FuelTank0Exploded
part.NamedDamageTypes.FuelTank0Fire
part.NamedDamageTypes.FuelTank0HosePerforated
part.NamedDamageTypes.FuelTank0LargeLeak
part.NamedDamageTypes.FuelTank0PumpFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.FuelTank0SmallLeak
part.NamedDamageTypes.FuelTank0TinyLeak

part.NamedDamageTypes.HydraulicsEmergencyFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.HydraulicsPistonOpened
part.NamedDamageTypes.HydraulicsPrimaryHosePerfora ted
part.NamedDamageTypes.HydraulicsPumpFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.HydraulicsTankPerforated
part.NamedDamageTypes.LandingFlapsDriveFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.LandingFlapsHosePerforated
part.NamedDamageTypes.LandingFlapsKinematicFailure 1
part.NamedDamageTypes.LandingFlapsKinematicFailure 2
part.NamedDamageTypes.LandingFlapsPistonFailure1
part.NamedDamageTypes.LandingFlapsPistonFailure2
part.NamedDamageTypes.LifeKeeperPartLargeDamage
part.NamedDamageTypes.LifeKeeperPartSmallDamage


// Weapondamages 00 - 11
part.NamedDamageTypes.Machinegun00BeltBroken
part.NamedDamageTypes.Machinegun00Charged
part.NamedDamageTypes.Machinegun00Failure
part.NamedDamageTypes.Machinegun00Jammed
part.NamedDamageTypes.Machinegun00LineDamaged


part.NamedDamageTypes.PartLargeDamage
part.NamedDamageTypes.PartSmallDamage
part.NamedDamageTypes.PneumaticsCompressorFailure
part.NamedDamageTypes.PneumaticsPrimaryContainerPe rforated
part.NamedDamageTypes.PneumaticsPrimaryHosePerfora ted
part.NamedDamageTypes.PneumaticsSecondaryContainer Perforated
part.NamedDamageTypes.PneumaticsSecondaryHosePerfo rated
part.NamedDamageTypes.UndercarriageDownLockFailure C
part.NamedDamageTypes.UndercarriageDownLockFailure L
part.NamedDamageTypes.UndercarriageDownLockFailure R
part.NamedDamageTypes.UndercarriageDriveDamaged
part.NamedDamageTypes.UndercarriageHosePerforated
part.NamedDamageTypes.UndercarriageKinematicFailur eC
part.NamedDamageTypes.UndercarriageKinematicFailur eL
part.NamedDamageTypes.UndercarriageKinematicFailur eR
part.NamedDamageTypes.UndercarriageShockFailureC
part.NamedDamageTypes.UndercarriageShockFailureL
part.NamedDamageTypes.UndercarriageShockFailureR
part.NamedDamageTypes.UndercarriageUpLockFailureC
part.NamedDamageTypes.UndercarriageUpLockFailureL
part.NamedDamageTypes.UndercarriageUpLockFailureR
part.NamedDamageTypes.WeaponLargeDamage
part.NamedDamageTypes.WeaponSmallDamage
part.NamedDamageTypes.WheelBrakesFailureL
part.NamedDamageTypes.WheelBrakesFailureR
part.NamedDamageTypes.WheelBrakesHosePerforated
part.NamedDamageTypes.WheelBrakesTotalFailure

Rare 109 engine fire inflicted by Bofors. http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s207/atp9697/th_2013-03-25_00004_zps76b7677c.jpg (http://s153.photobucket.com/user/atp9697/media/2013-03-25_00004_zps76b7677c.jpg.html)

Broodwich
Feb-21-2014, 02:15
should you be able to turn the engine off to cool it down a bit? right now you can land before the 2 min´s run out, turn off your engine and then all of a sudden the engine temps start to rise.
Are you sure its a bug? The engine runs a lot hotter than the coolant. If your coolant stops flowing to the engine the heat could still spread throughout the system, especially if there is no coolant in the system and all that is hitting the thermometer is hot air. Remember your instruments arent measuring how hot the engine is, just the liquids that flow through it. Probably explains these engines blowing below overheat is reached, the thermometer is before the engine, so it doesnt exactly reflect whats going on in it.

In IL2 1946 these parameters are modeled (engine head temp vs coolant temp vs oil temp) as well as the other stuff i described. I would be surprised if that wasnt the case in this sim as well. I dont claim to be an engine expert, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but there are a few basics people are forgetting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_timer

Big +1 on more serious radiator damage. ATM there really isnt much point in shooting more bullets into a 109 after you get him leaking, its mostly a waste of ammo

Looking forward to that pm Bliss :)

Kling
Feb-21-2014, 03:34
Are you sure its a bug? The engine runs a lot hotter than the coolant. If your coolant stops flowing to the engine the heat could still spread throughout the system, especially if there is no coolant in the system and all that is hitting the thermometer is hot air. Remember your instruments arent measuring how hot the engine is, just the liquids that flow through it. Probably explains these engines blowing below overheat is reached, the thermometer is before the engine, so it doesnt exactly reflect whats going on in it.

In IL2 1946 these parameters are modeled (engine head temp vs coolant temp vs oil temp) as well as the other stuff i described. I would be surprised if that wasnt the case in this sim as well. I dont claim to be an engine expert, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but there are a few basics people are forgetting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_timer

Big +1 on more serious radiator damage. ATM there really isnt much point in shooting more bullets into a 109 after you get him leaking, its mostly a waste of ammo

Looking forward to that pm Bliss :)

I know of at least one report of a 109 pilot (think the book was called Spitfire on my tail) The pilot was hit over London and his engine started overheating so he shut it off and let it cool down and then he would switch it on and climb back up and then off again This way he made it quite far but eventually the engine made a loud bang and that was the end of it and he had to bail. So yes one should be able to shut off and cool it, at least for a little bit. However when the engine is not running there no circulation of fluid either so not sure how well the cooled fluid would flow?

In either case, there are some weird issues with DM and hopefully most can be looked at for TF5.0.
For example landing a damaged aircraft and two mins after the engine has stopped you get propeller governor failure message. Weird to say the least but maybe the original developers did it this way to save time for a rushed release. In either case it makes engine damage extremely predictable. You know what will happen and when.

Cheers

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-21-2014, 04:23
With regard to radiator damage in the 109, I think if you look at the list of possible damage types in CloD most 109 pilots would admit to never seeing most of these. Most common damages probably being water system damage, fuel tank leaks/fires, & control damages. Not all are applicable to the aircraft but many of the engine damages I have never seen in a 109. For example, I have never had my engine seize quickly from Spitfire/Hurricane attack but I see occasionally with Spitfires/Hurricanes where engine cowling flies off and props stops instantly. Are red pilots not hitting the engine? No, I don't believe that at all. Only conclusion is the 109 engine is too strong relative to the damage done by .303 as it seems only 20mm and larger are capable of inflicting some of these damages. So with many critical damage types unable to be achieved by .303 it is quite natural that most 109 pilots complain of radiator leaks and red pilots feeling their guns are ineffective.

HG, some interesting observations here.

I've been suggesting for a long time (partly in jest) that perhaps the 109-radaitor-bullet-magnet is an illusion. What's really going on is that the radiator is ONLY part which can take damage. The reason 109 pilots "always" take damage to the radiator is because none of the other parts of the engine do.

OK, I'm not 100% serious with that above. However, my point is probably the same as yours; That the entire DM, for all parts on all aircraft will have to be reviewed. Responding to 109-radiator complaints only is too narrow an approach to take.

Gromit
Feb-21-2014, 11:36
HG, some interesting observations here.

I've been suggesting for a long time (partly in jest) that perhaps the 109-radaitor-bullet-magnet is an illusion. What's really going on is that the radiator is ONLY part which can take damage. The reason 109 pilots "always" take damage to the radiator is because none of the other parts of the engine do.

OK, I'm not 100% serious with that above. However, my point is probably the same as yours; That the entire DM, for all parts on all aircraft will have to be reviewed. Responding to 109-radiator complaints only is too narrow an approach to take.

How often do Spits and 109's suffer oil tank damage, it's a common occurrence on the Hurricane, leading to a black windscreen and seized engine in very short order!

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-21-2014, 11:43
How often do Spits and 109's suffer oil tank damage, it's a common occurrence on the Hurricane, leading to a black windscreen and seized engine in very short order!

I don't have access to the figures that would answer this question.

I would say (kind-of a guess) that around 25% to 50% of the times that I get damaged enough to retire from the flight I wind up with oil on the windscreen.

Gromit
Feb-21-2014, 11:52
I don't have access to the figures that would answer this question.

I would say (kind-of a guess) that around 25% to 50% of the times that I get damaged enough to retire from the flight I wind up with oil on the windscreen.

Do you get the oil tank perforated warning with that?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-21-2014, 11:58
Do you get the oil tank perforated warning with that?

I don't know. I have damage information turned off.

Catseye
Feb-21-2014, 12:23
OK, I'm not 100% serious with that above. However, my point is probably the same as yours; That the entire DM, for all parts on all aircraft will have to be reviewed. Responding to 109-radiator complaints only is too narrow an approach to take.

Hi Philstyle,
This is exactly the issue and one in which TF has been working on constantly.
During my tenure on TF, I worked on the damage models and weapons models and want to say that up until the current release, it has been very difficult to make large changes to the damage model with the access to certain files that were available. It requires "deeper" access into the code and then an analysis of just what components are then accessible for adjustment and then how "hit boxes" are placed and then the calculations of the specific rounds and energy applied during specific bullet flight path and aircraft flight path.

This is ongoing as I write this.

Certain adjustments were made for example to prevent bomber engines from departing from their mounting rails and engine damage by finding incorrect parameters applied to the construction of these components - specifically the reference to incorrect material used - ie., aluminium instead of steel and cast iron instead of aluminium - each metal having different damage properties and applied who knows why at the time of the initial release before TF started work.

The Hurricane and Spit eluded all common sense when I was working on the detailed schematics of each trying to determine just which components were grouped together as an assembly wherein you hit one part and the rest fail. Many of these components were not visible links within the files at my disposal but again buried much deeper in the code and others were/are working hard to determine what they are and how they should be linked - if at all. There is also no consistency as to naming conventions for sub-components and even which components are linked between the Spit and the Hurri for example. Many inconsistencies are in place such that it appears that different programmers/designers were working on models at different stages and were applying their own concepts to the models without cross reference to those others that were already in place. This has to be analyzed and understood in order to make the necessary changes.

I can't begin to tell you how many hours were spent by the team going through detailed drawings that were extracted directly from COD and comparing them to the aircraft designers actual detailed schematics in an attempt to determine just how exposed certain components were to damage and why one aircraft failed here and another aircraft does not fail in the same location. Why for example, do rounds easily penetrate seat armor in the Hurricane but not as readily in the Spit. Wings are broken down into sections with sub-components within each section with different naming conventions between aircraft and different sections defined. Some components in the wing are linked to undercarriage and the next aircraft has the same components assigned to the wing leading edge. This is even before going deeper into the code if at all possible.

What I'm trying so long-winded to say is that TF have been and are currently (not me at this time) working on this complex model to try and apply changes to reflect on realities as defined by fact. (Hard to even get fact without broaching into the subjective area.)

So, between the weapons modeling and the damage modeling, the chore is quite large and consuming much time but is continuing and so forth. The weapons model is pretty-well finished as of the last release with some tweaking here and there. It is the damage model that is the most visible to our virtual pilots and often time causes a discussion on weapons modeling when it fact . . . . . . it is the damage model that is not working correctly.

Regrettably, discussion ensues not always but most likely, in the wrong area. Understandable though.

My apologies for this long-winded post but as a previous member of TF involved in the areas of discussion, I am a bit at liberty to bring forward a bit of what has taken place and assure all that it is not being looked at willy-nilly, nor in a cavalier mode - but rather with a very concerted effort.

Knowing TF, I'm pretty sure that we will see some movement for improvement in 4.2 with further large improvement in 5.0.

Hang in there chaps.
Thanks for a great thread!

Cheers,
Cats . . . .

DUI
Feb-21-2014, 12:32
Great, very informative post! Thanks Catseye!

Broodwich
Feb-22-2014, 14:07
+1, very illuminating cats, clears up a lot of questions!:salute:

Gromit
Feb-22-2014, 14:30
So it's simple enough to sort then :stunned:

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Feb-22-2014, 15:00
Nothing in this game is simple... :doh:

That is good news in one way... the engine is capable of almost anything...

The bad news is that when something is mis-calibrated or simply wrong, trying to find and fix the error is a major pain...:banghead:

Catseye
Feb-22-2014, 18:55
So it's simple enough to sort then :stunned:

SORT of! :)

vranac
Feb-22-2014, 19:31
Cmon guys thats easy :bricks:

http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/confused-kid-looking-at-math-problem-Getty-Images.jpeg

Gromit
Feb-23-2014, 13:55
What I respect most of all with you guys is the patience you display trawling through the hieroglyphics and Japanese mixed with Klingon that gets passed off as computer code, it's a bloody mystery that you guys understand any of it!

:salute:

2./JG54 Chumleigh
Feb-24-2014, 04:14
To all that disagreed with me, I must concede that you are correct. I started flying with both radiators open 80% or more to see what would happen and have not seen a suspicious radiator leak since. I flew over 30 sorties at he more open settings at consistently higher rpms and 1.3 ATA for extended periods and lengthy climbs at less then 250 km/hr. I must say it was a very pleasant surprise. I apologize to Team Fusion and the rest for my frustrated rant and thank you for your time and attention.

In the meantime, there have been a number of very interesting posts that materialized as a result and that's to the benefit of all, hopefully.

Kling
Feb-24-2014, 04:52
To all that disagreed with me, I must concede that you are correct. I started flying with both radiators open 80% or more to see what would happen and have not seen a suspicious radiator leak since. I flew over 30 sorties at he more open settings at consistently higher rpms and 1.3 ATA for extended periods and lengthy climbs at less then 250 km/hr. I must say it was a very pleasant surprise. I apologize to Team Fusion and the rest for my frustrated rant and thank you for your time and attention.

In the meantime, there have been a number of very interesting posts that materialized as a result and that's to the benefit of all, hopefully.

Good post!!