PDA

View Full Version : Radiator and radiators



jugent
11-05-2005, 06:06 AM
Why is radiator-damage not included in the damageprofile.
It would give the radial-engined aircrafts the advantage it got in real-life.

Why does the FW reduce speed when radiators was set to open?

As I know the FW got a high-rew fan connected to the prop.

The FW also got its oilcooler in the outher line of the cylinder-heads, very exposed to fire.
I havnt seen any particulary oil-leek there.
By the way I am thankful that the sight of the FW is better connected in the later patches.
Before it fell off very easy.

jugent
11-05-2005, 06:06 AM
Why is radiator-damage not included in the damageprofile.
It would give the radial-engined aircrafts the advantage it got in real-life.

Why does the FW reduce speed when radiators was set to open?

As I know the FW got a high-rew fan connected to the prop.

The FW also got its oilcooler in the outher line of the cylinder-heads, very exposed to fire.
I havnt seen any particulary oil-leek there.
By the way I am thankful that the sight of the FW is better connected in the later patches.
Before it fell off very easy.

Tully__
11-05-2005, 10:06 AM
Radiator damage is included AFAIK. Some of the leaks you see are coolant leaks, not fuel leaks.

FritzGryphon
11-05-2005, 11:05 AM
Coolant radiators are not damagable. All white vapor seen is fuel. You can try this yourself on any of the planes with coolant radiators.

The advantage of radial engines is still quite apparent, however. In testing durability of various engines, I've found the radial engines to survive 2-3 times as many hits as inline ones.

The FW, like other planes with radial engines, has flaps that control airflow through the cowling. But in the case, they are mostly hidden out of sight, and are not animated either. These slow the plane when open.

jugent
11-05-2005, 03:54 PM
The radiator damage is not included, as far as I know.
I have spawned this matter many times without beeing heard.

A single hit in the radiator brought the aircraft down, when the coolant liquid ran out and the engine overheated.

Me 109 got two radiators on of which could be turned of and the a/c could limp home with reduced speed.

The spit couldnt do this with the early models because it got only one radiator. The later models got two.

The radiators had to exposed.
The P-51 got the radiator in the fuselage to get a better protection.

How the radiators where protected in the Mig and the yaks I dont know.

The cooland liquide was very flamable and often caused the aircraft to burn.
All of this is an important aspect of aircraft construction, and to make it more realistic, the radiator should be included in the damage model.
It would give the radial-engined aircrafts one more advantage.

VW-IceFire
11-05-2005, 06:49 PM
Oleg a long time ago said that the only plane that models radiator damage in the game is the IL-2. This is true...shoot the radiator and the engine will stop after a while.

jugent, Oleg a long time ago explained to all of us why the FW190, despite its seemingly sophisticated radiator design, still looses speed when its open. Its a series of complex aeronautical terms that I don't completely understand but it seemed to make sense...

jugent
11-06-2005, 06:33 AM
Olegs sophisticated calculations must origin from his secret sources, because FW designed the cooling-fan so it wouldnt cause so much drag.

As for the IL2, I havnt seen any evidence of engine-cooler damage on the a/c IL2, it got its air-cooling radiator inlet on top of its nose, and what smokes after a hit is the "jesus-bolt" oil-cooler, well described by many german fighterpilots as the achilleus-heal of the well armoured IL2.

Perhaps it was the demand for this that made Maddox to put this detail of the aircraft IL2:s damagemodel.

I may be wrong but I think that the oilcooler-damage is wasnt included in the a/c IL2 on the early patches of the game IL2 Sturmovik.
I dont know where the enginecooler-radiator outlet is but it should be well protected, after all it was close-air-support aircraft

effte
11-06-2005, 07:02 AM
To cool the cylinders, air has to be made to flow through the cooling fins.

Air flowing through cooling fins will create drag.

To overcome this drag, the air will have to be forced through the fins.

If this is done through ram-air pressure (open inlets), said ram-air pressure will add to the total drag of the airframe.

If it is done through a fan, the fan will have to be driven somehow. The only source of power available is the engine. Thus, power will have to come from the engine, reducing the available amount of thrust.

In either case, you slow down.

effte
11-06-2005, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
I may be wrong but I think that the oilcooler-damage is wasnt included in the a/c IL2 on the early patches of the game IL2 Sturmovik.
I dont know where the enginecooler-radiator outlet is but it should be well protected, after all it was close-air-support aircraft </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try an armored radiator flap. Keep the radiator closed when expecting to take fire.

jugent
11-06-2005, 09:20 AM
The full open radiator reduces the top-speed for FW-190.

The cooling airstream is produced by a fan and it takes energy from the engine,yes.

I dont know if the cooling was manually controlled in the FW-190.
It got a automatic controlled fuelinjection, ignition, pitch gauge.
It isnt impossible that it controlled the cooling as well.

The main issue is that a/c:s hasnt got the radiator damage included in the damage-profile, and this good game should be much better if it was included.

As far as I know, if Maddox has done a ordinary damgeprofile-programming, it wouldnt be so difficult to include radiatordamage to a damageprofile.
They got the white smoke from the leaking fuel, they got the engine failure when loosing oil.
The only thing would be to include the area for the radiators to this damage, and a timer to controll the leakage.
Perhaps if they are in a good mode, the Me-109 could get a controll to the valve that shut of the radiator.
Its one part of my wichlist to BoB.

WOLFMondo
11-06-2005, 09:26 AM
Its not like you could turn the fan off though.

jugent
11-06-2005, 09:54 AM
As I wrote, I dont know how it works, but if you say so...

Taylortony
11-06-2005, 04:35 PM
The Mustang one actually produces thrust due to the convergent divergent ducting.....


The Big fan on the front is called the Propeller, its sole reason for being there is to keep the pilot cool............. don't believe me? well turn it off and watch him start to sweat...

jugent
11-07-2005, 08:27 AM
The produced drag from the radiator must be something of a physicians dream. Like the Delta-wood is to a aircraft designer.

How the airstream that sourrounds the aircraft is forced into a slot, and through a radiator and out in the air using another slot, produces thrust.
Is must be that the cooling air is heated so much that it expand into a great volume and therefor produce thrust.
Cant you make a calculation of this as proof.
It must be very advanced thermodynamics?

Kocur_
11-07-2005, 09:12 AM
On Il2:
The inlet over the engine is for coolant radiator, which was located oblique behind the engine inside that armour shell.
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/3817/il2coolantsystem1dq.gif (http://imageshack.us)
But there was also oil radiator, and this one was located under belly and was easily damaged, which AFAIU is modelled.

effte
11-07-2005, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
How the airstream that sourrounds the aircraft is forced into a slot, and through a radiator and out in the air using another slot, produces thrust.
Is must be that the cooling air is heated so much that it expand into a great volume and therefor produce thrust.
Cant you make a calculation of this as proof.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever see a jet engine? Notice any similarities? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Air goes in, is compressed (ram pressure, in the radiator or ramjet case, compressor in a turbine engine), is heated and shoved out a nozzle, and what do you know? Thrust! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Of course the energy still comes from somewhere, but in this case it is energy we had to get rid of anyway to avoid ending up with an engine on the wrong side of hardboiled, eggmetaphorically speaking...

Kocur_
11-07-2005, 11:58 AM
I guess we all heard of Meredith effect. I encoutered once idea that similar effect, i.e. cancelling out considerable part of drag by thrust produced by air heated by engine and let out backwards applies to radials too. But I find it hard to belive: in radiator case we have nice smooth tunnel, which is purposely shaped to create thrust. In radials there is nothing but "problems" within cowling, and no tunnel that could be shaped like a nozzle. So...?

jugent
11-07-2005, 02:59 PM
Thanks for the nice pic from the IL2. It seems to be built for maximum protection.
But why didnt they protect the oil-cooler as well?

About the jet engine;
The fan or compressor-blades tighten the engine and togethe with the burnchamber-walls directs the hot gases at the wanted direction.
If you dont have this limitations the hot gas will expand at all directions.

Think of this as metaphore, dont try this at home.

Think is as if you put powder in a pipe with both ends open, ignite the powder and the pipe will not move much, the gases will expand at both directions, they will equalize each other.

Think agin; What will happend if you plug one end of the pipe and ignite the powder.
I imagine that Ii the pipe dont burst, the pipe will move a lot, like a rocket.

Back to the mustang.
I dont think that there where anything in the P-51 cooling device that prevent the heated air from going forward.
I can, and from time to time be mistaken.
In that case please send me proof, not;
I read that someone ........

There is a thrust from the muffler of a car too but it is so small that it is neglectable.

Remember dear readers, that the main issue is a want cooling-radiator-damage-model on all inline engine-equipped aircrafts.

Kocur_
11-07-2005, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
Thanks for the nice pic from the IL2. It seems to be built for maximum protection.
But why didnt they protect the oil-cooler as well? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Beats me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Back to the mustang.
I dont think that there where anything in the P-51 cooling device that prevent the heated air from going forward.
I can, and from time to time be mistaken.
In that case please send me proof, not;
I read that someone ........
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im positive the thing to prevent hot air from moving forward from radiator was the same as in case of jet engine, i.e. pressure before radiator was higher than pressure behind it - because of plane's speed.
In mid 1930's a British named Meredith came up with idea, that radiator could be positioned in the airframe and shaped in a way to create some thrust by hot air. The thrust was little of course, but enough to cancel out radiator drag at higher speed.
http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Supp/JJ99/Mustang.html

jugent
11-07-2005, 04:02 PM
The venturi doesnt prevent the airstream to move forward unless the thrust is small.
It would be nice to se some windthunnel-data.

Tully__
11-07-2005, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
Thanks for the nice pic from the IL2. It seems to be built for maximum protection.
But why didnt they protect the oil-cooler as well? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
They did. The box it was in is armoured and there is an armoured shutter that closes off the oil cooler intake. The IL2 was designed for ground attack and the armour is designed to protect the pilot against ground based AA fire. While it's generally very effective against aerial attackers as well, the ground fire focus shows in the oil cooler as there is no armoured shutter at the REAR of the housing, allowing attacking pilots with good aim a "weak spot" to shoot at.

effte
11-09-2005, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
The venturi doesnt prevent the airstream to move forward unless the thrust is small.
It would be nice to se some windthunnel-data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The compressor in a turbo engine, followed by the diffuser section, creates a pressure gradient which stops the air in the combustion chamber from going forward (until you have a compressor stall, that is).

In a rocket engine, it is not the wall that stops the air from going forward but the pressure rise generated as the air pushes against the wall (not a very good parallell, but think about it: Only an infinitesimal amount of the combustion gases will actually touch the wall, the rest will be turned as it encounters high pressure gas).

In a ramjet engine, or a thrust-generating radiator, you have ram air pressure recovery in the inlet instead of a compressor. It is the exact same thing.