An idea about engine reliability

[rust]

There were many late war planes, particularly Japanese, that were amazing machines except for engine reliability.  This was a MAJOR problem for the pilots and the reason that many of these planes did not do as well as they should have.
Now, I understand that random engine failure would not make for a fun game but how about this:

Each engine would have a reliability rating based on historical evidence.  A Thunderbolt would be 90% and a Niki would be 35% (just random examples and I'm guessing-  I have no idea about actual reliability).  Every random couple of minutes, between say 5 minutes and 15 minutes, a dice would roll.  If you're flying a Tbolt and the random number is a 60 (below 90, the percentage reliability of your engine) nothing would happen.  If you're flying a Niki and the number is 60 (above 35) your engine would belch black smoke and quit for a random amount of time, between say 5 seconds and 1 minute.  It would then kick back into life and all would be well until the next random dice roll.

This would be cool because it would throw an element of chance, and realism, into the mix and, just like real life, engine reliability would be something you would have to consider when choosing a plane (not just turn rate, speed, guns, etc.)

You could also incorporate it into the strategic scheme.  If you knock out the factories the reliability of the engines for that country would fall.  So a country with two fields, no headquarters and no factories will have severely less reliable Jug engines than the country with the most resources (50% instead of 90%, for example).

Incidentally, the engine would belch black smoke when the engine goes out AND comes back so you couldn't base an attack on someone because you KNOW their engine is out due to the black smoke.

Does this make any sense?

When I read about late war Japanese planes they all seem to say, "This would have been an incredible plane except for the reliability of it's engines."  The Luftwaffe was being strangled and the few planes it could get into the air were just not of the same quality as when they were gobbling up Europe in the beginning.  I'm just trying to think of a way to incorporate this into the game.

------------------
RUST
   


[This message has been edited by rust (edited 09-27-2000).]

[Karnak]

rust,
Interesting idea.  It comes to me though, that the N1K2 and Bf109G-10 would have been quite a bit more reliable than they were if they hadn't been bombed and strangled.

I like your basic idea though.  Multi engined aircraft should get one roll per engine with each eangine having an individule chace of failure, e.g. 1 enging on a P-38 fails leaving it with 1 or the 1 and 3 engines on a Lanc fail leaving it with 2.

Sisu
-Karnak

[Hristo]

Would the Hispanos and .50 cals jam too ?  

P.S.
Unreliable Daimler Benz ? Who are you kidding ?

[rust]

Yes, Karnak, that's true about actual reliability in WWII.  There were also many planes that could have been produced that were not due to the late stranglehold, but we have to start somewhere.  We take the actual engine reliability at the time the particular plane in question was produced and use that as the starting point from which random reliability in the game is generated.  This means that the Niki and G10 will never be as reliable as the P51 but, hey, that's how it really was.  I think it has to be played this way if all planes are to be available to all countries at all times.  Flying an unreliable plane would also increase your perk points in HT's perk system.

What would really be neat is a two country, Axis vs. Allies, rolling plane set where all planes start out with the same reliability and as the war progresses the winning side gets more reliable as the losing side's engines randomly fail more.

Keep in mind, though, this is only failure for a few seconds to a minute or so.  Perhaps bombers could have engine go for several minutes or permanently.   It just would not be fun to fly a fighter to 25K feet and be nearing the combat area only to have the engine fail permanently and have to ditch.  I know that's how it was in real life but I think we are trying to simulate air combat as realistically as possible while keeping it a fun game to play.

[Nath-BDP]

Never heard of a BMW 801 or DB 605 being 'unreliable'(except for some early 801s having overheating problems, and in the cockpit, was easily fixed by rerouting part of the exhaust system)... on the other hand, almost every late-war Jap aircraft I read about had engine probs...



[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 09-28-2000).]

[arhurb]

I second the Idea. Both engine probs & gunjams.

Pepino.

[GRUNHERZ]

Hi

Its a nice idea but it might be hard to implement in a realistic way. For example some Doras were more reliable than others and had better fit/finish, and higher speeds than others depending on which factory made them. The same might well apply to certain Japanese planes and their engines. Plus the skill, experience and dedication of groundcrews and logistics people definately affected reliability.For example, some of the things JG26 maintenace people did to keep the early 801s going were amazing, even going as far to fly all over Germany to locate spare parts. Again a good idea, but difficult to implement.

thanks GRUNHERZ

[arhurb]

I think the random thingie that rust suggests would be ok as to simulating different aleatory conditions to each engine (or guns, as the case may be). As for ground crew ability, I would link it to base bombardement (dunno if that's the correct spelling). Not to only to direct hits destroying hangars, etc., but also to time between buff rides. That would somehow simulate lack of sleep, etc.

Dunno if it's easy or not to code, but I like the idea.

Cheers,

Pepino.

[JimBear]

Please, only AFTER full engine management is implemented.  As far as the guns go... had the old Saiteks with the stickey key prob and would occasionally saddle up get in nice a close, pull the trigger.....and nothing  waaaaaaa.  it can also be real interesting in knife fights when you realise you have an old banana instead of a .50  

[Vermillion]

An interesting concept that could have some application in Scenarios/Special Events.

But for the MA, it would just not work very well.

Remember that the late war Japanese aircraft are already modeled under the handicap of 80 octane fuel, where the US/Brits etc., used 100 octane fuel. This has a huge effect on performance. For instance a Ki-84 (same engine as the N1K2) has its top speed typically reported around 384mph which was true of the conditions of their fuel during their wartime testing. But after WWII a captured Ki-84 was brought back to the US, and tested with US 100 Octane Avgas.

Its top speed was 427mph!! which would come close to rivialing a P-51D in speed, and it is much more capable in climb, zoom, acceleration, and definitely in turning ability.

So just realize that those Japanese aircraft are under a handicap already.

In fact the N1K2-J should easily be a +400mph aircraft if it used 100 octane fuel.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 09-28-2000).]

[juzz]

 

In 1946, a captured late-production Hayate was restored and tested at the Middletown Air Depot in Pennsylvania. At a weight of 7490 pounds, the aircraft achieved a maximum speed of 427 mph at 20,000 feet, using war emergency power. This speed exceeded that of the P-51D Mustang and the P-47D at that altitude by 2 mph and 22 mph respectively. These figures were achieved with a superbly maintained and restored aircraft and with highly-refined aviation gasoline, and were not typical of Japanese-operated aircraft during the later stages of the war.

Stolen from here.

[Lepton]

Individual guns jamming was a much more common problem, so my vote would be for modelling that first.

As far as engines are concerned, there's a lot more variety available than simply on-off. They could run hot, produce reduced amounts of power, surge, knock, ping, and a bunch of other things. Overall, you need to think about the trade-off between detailed features like this and playability.

While we're off daydreaming, wouldn't controls for the mixture and propellor pitch be cool   Then you could optimize performance and fuel consumption for various phases of your mission.

[Jigster]

Random engine seizures were not all that common. (of course there are some exceptions)

Power output could vary greatly though. Having spark plugs foul out by running to rich for the altitude, ignition failure on some cyclinders, clogged injecters on the Benz, sucking up water, etc

Be nice if battle damage was done that way too  

But engine quality could be a stratgic thing. Don't apply the random effect unless engine plants are destroyed.

- Jig