gpbob

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_Disk

Again, from AI (ChatGPT 5.2): What materials are actually used in modern F1 engines? F1 isn’t magic — it’s metallurgy + coatings + fatigue modeling taken to the extreme. Pistons Material Forged aluminum-lithium alloy Much higher stiffness-to-weight than normal 2618 or 4032 Lower thermal expansion → tighter clearances Better fatigue resistance at extreme temps Coatings Thermal barrier coating (ceramic-based) on crown → reduces heat transfer into piston body DLC (diamond-like carbon) on skirts and pins → lowers friction and scuffing at insane cylinder pressures Why this matters: The piston survives brief extreme pressure spikes Heat is kept out of the ring lands Weight is kept absurdly low to reduce inertia loads at high RPM Piston Rings Material Steel alloy rings (not cast iron) Often martensitic or nitrided steels Coatings Chromium nitride (CrN) or PVD coatings Handle boundary lubrication at very high temps Maintain seal with minimal tension (less friction) Connecting Rods Material Titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V or proprietary variants) Why titanium? Extremely high strength-to-weight ratio Lower reciprocating mass = lower peak tensile loads at TDC Better fatigue life when carefully life-cycled Surface treatments Shot peening Polished beams Local reinforcement where FEM predicts stress risers Crankshaft Material Micro-alloyed steel billet Not cast, not typical forged steel Optimized grain flow and fillet geometry Treatments Nitriding Superfinishing journals Extremely tight balance tolerances Why not titanium? Steel handles torsional vibration and fatigue better under sustained load Cylinder Block & Head Material High-silicon aluminum alloy Excellent thermal conductivity Dimensional stability at high temps Cylinder liners No traditional liners Plasma-sprayed steel or iron coatings (similar to Nikasil but tougher) Ultra-thin Better heat transfer Reduced friction Valves Intake valves Titanium alloys Lightweight for high RPM Coated for wear resistance Exhaust valves Nickel-based superalloys (Inconel variants) Survive extreme EGTs Resist creep and oxidation Valve Seats Material Beryllium-copper alloys (yes, really) Exceptional heat transfer Pulls heat out of the valve face fast (This is one of those “road cars will never do this” materials.) Pre-Chamber Components Material Nickel-based superalloys Ceramic coatings internally Why: Tiny volume Repeated ultra-hot ignition events Must resist erosion from flame jets Fuel Injectors Material Hardened stainless or superalloy bodies Laser-drilled nozzles Designed for 500+ bar pressures Coatings: Anti-coking coatings Thermal isolation from combustion chamber Bearings Material Tri-metal bearings Steel backing Copper-lead intermediate layer Soft overlay tuned for debris tolerance F1 engines run: Extremely thin oil films Precisely controlled oil temperatures Zero tolerance for debris Turbocharger Turbine wheel Inconel or ceramic-matrix composites Compressor wheel Machined aluminum alloy or titanium Shaft Exotic steel alloys Ultra-high-speed balance (well over 100,000 RPM) Coatings (everywhere) If you took one apart, the shock wouldn’t be the parts — it’d be the coatings: DLC PVD Thermal barrier ceramics Anti-friction polymers Oxidation-resistant layers Almost nothing is “raw metal”. Why these materials work together F1 engines survive because: Heat is blocked, redirected, and removed Parts are designed to just survive their planned lifespan Fatigue life is calculated down to individual combustion events They don’t overbuild. They precision-build to the edge.

Here's what AI says, I'm a huge F1 fan but your question is far beyond my understanding of modern F1 engine development: That 16:1 is geometric compression ratio, not effective compression under boost. In F1: Very late intake valve closing (Miller/Atkinson-like cycle) Massive valve overlap Carefully shaped cam profiles So although the static CR is high, the effective compression during boost is much lower than you’d expect. This allows: High expansion ratio (great efficiency) Controlled compression temperature before ignition Your Lotus likely had much earlier intake valve closing, so you were actually compressing that hot, boosted charge the whole way up. 2. IAT isn’t the metric that matters most anymore In club and pro-am racing, IAT > 175°F = knock city is a very real rule of thumb. F1 instead controls: Charge temperature at ignition timing, not just post-intercooler In-cylinder temperature gradients Burn rate, not peak pressure alone They use: Extremely high turbulence combustion chambers Jet-ignition / pre-chamber ignition (key point) Very lean mixtures compared to typical boosted race engines So even if the intake air is “hot” by our standards, the combustion event is fast, predictable, and controlled, which avoids detonation. 3. Pre-chamber (jet) ignition is the real magic 🧨 This is huge. Instead of one spark plug lighting a big boosted charge: A small pre-chamber ignites a rich mixture Multiple flame jets shoot into the main chamber Combustion starts in several places at once Benefits: Much faster burn Lower peak pressure duration Reduced knock sensitivity Allows leaner mixtures under massive boost Your Cosworth was probably fighting: Single flame front End-gas autoignition Long burn time under high pressure F1 avoids that almost entirely. 4. Fuel is doing more than you think Yes, the fuel is synthetic and road-relevant—but it’s still extremely tightly controlled. Key properties: Very high knock resistance under lean conditions Tailored flame speed Controlled autoignition behavior (not just octane) Important nuance: F1 fuel is not “high octane race gas” in the traditional sense It’s designed to work with jet ignition and extreme turbulence, not brute-force octane numbers. 5. Charge cooling happens inside the cylinder You relied on: Intercooler efficiency Radiator capacity Ambient temps F1 adds: Ultra-high-pressure direct injection (500+ bar) Multiple injection events per cycle Injection timed to maximize evaporative cooling during compression So the mixture is actively cooled after it enters the cylinder, not just before. 6. Boost pressure ≠ cylinder pressure (in F1 terms) 69.6 PSI sounds apocalyptic—but: Tiny displacement per cylinder Very short stroke Extreme rod ratios Very high RPM (even post-2026) Peak cylinder pressures are: Carefully limited Spread over shorter crank angles Matched to material fatigue models They’re not chasing “max boost”; they’re chasing max area under the torque curve per joule of fuel. 7. Materials and tolerances are space-program level This part is obvious, but still matters: Exotic alloys for pistons and valves Advanced thermal barrier coatings Oil jets that are effectively active cooling systems ECU strategies that react per combustion event And yes—each ICE is basically fully life-modeled before it ever turns a wheel. 8. Why your Lotus died at 175°F and F1 doesn’t Because you were fighting: End-gas detonation Long flame travel Fixed ignition compromises Limited control authority F1 has: Multiple flame kernels In-cylinder cooling Lean burn Active energy recovery controlling engine load A combustion event that’s over before knock can happen Different universe. The big takeaway F1 engines survive because they’re not brute-force turbo motors. They are: Highly lean Highly controlled Extremely fast-burning Designed around efficiency first, power second Your Lotus was trying to survive heat. F1 engines avoid creating it in the first place.

Does this have a Pause at TOD built into the tablet?

I'm also glad to have purchased, I have the Fenix and all the PMDG planes which are also awesome. This is a similar experience for me with the A350 - seems to do everything it's supposed to do and the modern large clear glass cockpit is awesome. I'm running it on MS2024 and my PC is and i9-13900KF and a 4070Ti. Smooth performance for me under all scenarios I throw at it.

Anyway to take the pilot out of the aircraft? His head is sticking out above the windscreen. Just realized it's the copilot and he can be removed by going to "Identity" from the Main Menu and selecting no copilot.

Roland, if you click on the gear icon to the right of your preset config, there is an option to "clear" the settings. This should delete all you current assignments so that you can easily start from scratch, but tbh ... Jim's idea of not checking the "Apply to all aircraft" or "Set as default" still didn't solve the problem for me. BTW, I'm running on a PC and not Xbox.

Jim, are you talking about the "Keyboard presets config" settings to not have those checked? I did have them checked so I created a duplicate set and made sure they were unchecked. That still did not work - it seems that the only plane in my hanger that consistently saves these settings is the Vision Jet. Very perplexing ....

I've also had my camera views mapped to my hat switch, but removing them didn't help. I've spent hours trying to determine the cause of the misbehaving custom cameras. I've even had one flight with the Vision jet that was amazing, cameras worked great the entire time. Next time I loaded, the cameras had a mind of their own. Something is overwriting the camera settings and it seems very unpredictable and intermittent. Hope this one gets a quick hot fix because it pretty much makes the sim unusable.

Seems to be FUBAR ... I cannot consistently set up cameras. I had a good flight with the C172 with stable cameras but when I loaded it again for a different flight the camera's were all bonkers again. Will all get sorted out in due time. I'm patient ... and good news is that msfs2020 is in an awesome place right now.

I just created a new keyboard profile from scratch by deleting all the settings. I setup the custom camera save and customer camera load again and it seems ok ... let's see if it continues to work properly now. For sure, the new sim requires a commitment to go through and setup all controls again.

Has anyone had luck in setting up and saving custom camera views in MSFS 2024? They don't seem to save properly, it also seems to be intermittent, sometimes it works and sometimes not.

Love them ... black and white does them a lot of justice

OK, I'll reply to myself - tried a Radeon card with same result. Looks like a new MOBO is in the cards. I'm hoping to get myself back to the GTX970 based on the excellent reviews I see on AVSIM gp_bob

Looking for inputs and recommended solutions regarding my motherboard and the ability to accept a newer GPU. Because I currently have the GTX660 running ok I expected to be able to update to a GTX970 without problems. When installed, the computer will not boot beyond the HP boot screen. A little research on forums seems to indicate that the Pegatron MOBO has this bios version that isn't supported any longer and requires a version 8 bios which doesn't exist in order to run the GTX970. Short of installing a new MOBO is there another solution? How about a Radeon GPU? Is there any difference between Nvidia and AMD regarding the ability to be backwards compatable to this AMI bios? Seems the R9 390 should also work on a 600W PSU but not sure its compatable with the bios?? Thanks to the community for some advice! System Specs: Hewlett Packard h8-1070t, I7 2600 3.4Ghz, GTX660, Mobo - Pegatron 2AB5 with AMI bios version 7.05, 600W PSU gp_bob

Yup, i saw that today also ... First time