Author Topic: Advanced Engine Mannagement? (Read 797 times)

Wilbus · « **on:** March 30, 2004, 11:48:24 AM »

Are you planning on making some kind of more advanced or even very advanced engine mannagement? Such as maybe having different kind of WEP possibilities. I.E, I believe most planes were able to overrev their engine, running it at higher boost then it was ment to or aproved for for short periods of time, ofcourse they risced blowing the engine.

Second they had (mostly germans I believe) GM1 and MW50, but I know some US planes used Water Methanol aswell. Would it be possible to modell this in a way that you can select what you want? I.E I wanna run my engine at 80% of the maximum and USE Water Methanol injection or maybe I wanna run it at 110% + water methanol injection for even more power, cons would have to be to keep an eye on the engine heat/listen to sound of engine.

Maybe have it as a possiblity for advanced engine mannagement? Something like the "stall limiter" where AH as it is now would be "auto engine mannagement" while for those more experienced pilots who want that extra little power we could chose "advanced engine mannagement" with all good and bad things to go of course.

Any chance of something like this happening or just a total NO to it?

Wilbus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 30, 2004, 11:52:20 AM »

Forgot, also, gear settings and supercharger settings for planes that didn't have it automatic. This too, of course player selectable. If you don't want it just select "auto mannagement" in setup or something similair.

Westy · « **Reply #2 on:** March 30, 2004, 12:41:49 PM »

heh heh heh...

Yo banana!? Where you be at? This topic has some "fun" potential...

Wilbus · « **Reply #3 on:** March 30, 2004, 02:04:17 PM »

Meaning?

Batz · « **Reply #4 on:** March 30, 2004, 03:09:26 PM »

Do a search on the subject (a post by Vulcan), its been discussed.

Westy · « **Reply #5 on:** March 30, 2004, 04:35:02 PM »

"Meaning?"

Here's the answers....

No
No
No
Maybe
No
Not realistic
No
We don't "do" metric
No
No
We've changed the fuel system
No
and
Never

REVGST · « **Reply #6 on:** March 30, 2004, 07:20:17 PM »

As neat as it would be, and fun to learn to fly the plane the real way as they did in real life, I am sure this would be way to unappealing to many players and might scare them from the game. Some might complain that it would lower the fun factor, but I am all for it...show those LDweeb7 riders not to leave wep engaged their whole flight:D

Karnak · « **Reply #7 on:** March 30, 2004, 08:36:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by REVGST
As neat as it would be, and fun to learn to fly the plane the real way as they did in real life, I am sure this would be way to unappealing to many players and might scare them from the game. Some might complain that it would lower the fun factor, but I am all for it...show those LDweeb7 riders not to leave wep engaged their whole flight:D

The problem is that leaving WEP engaged for the whole fight is the realistic thing to do. That is the whole point Pyro was making.

The reason that you didn't cruise around at boost +14lbs wasn't because the engine would overheat and seize, it was because it wasn't fuel efficient. The reason you weren't supposed to run at WEP for the entire combat wasn't because the engine would overheat and seize, it was because it decreased the overall engine lifespan and increased the overhaul rate/ Needless to say, many, many pilots ignored that.

One P-38 pilot's description of throttle managment in combat was that he pushed the throttles all the way forward and left them there for the entire fight, regardless of duration and that the same would be done in any WWII aircraft because none of them had a satisfactory power to weight ratio.

I also recall a Pratt & Whitney R-2800 being run at WEP power for 96 hours straight in the factory.

Now using MW50 or N2O is different as there would be a limited supply of it and after it was gone it wouldn't work anymore. I guess that would affect aircraft like the Fw190A-8 thru Ta152H-1, Bf109G-6/AS thru Bf109K-4, P-47D, Mosquito Mk XIX, Ki-84 and some others.

Pyro · « **Reply #8 on:** March 30, 2004, 11:48:22 PM »

Karnak- Actually, I was talking about military power, not wep. And I didn't say that running around on military was realistic per se(although there are accounts of Russian units at times not worrying about engine limitations when their average aircraft service life was a lot shorter than time between overhauls), just that the restrictions on military power that people were asking for were very unrealistic.

Wilbus, why would you want to run water injection at a low manifold pressure? While there is a slight power increase from water injection without increasing MP just from the cooler charge, the real point is that it allows you to run a higher MP without detonating. Using it at a low setting is akin to putting premium gas in a car that doesn't need it. On US planes with water injection, there isn't a separate control for it. You push the throttle through the gate and the water injection kicks on.

Westy, you've had the opportunity to make a cogent argument on the subject and to debate the validity of my points if you desired. To duck that and then come back later to snipe from the sidelines is just lame.

Karnak · « **Reply #9 on:** March 31, 2004, 12:05:12 AM »

Pyro,

Ah. I misremembered. Thanks for the clarification.

Wilbus · « **Reply #10 on:** March 31, 2004, 02:33:27 AM »

Uhmm, well that's true Pyro, guess I just thought it was a cool thing...

How about the other functions? Any chance for it such as superchargers and so on? If it was selectable in setup like stall limiter so noone would be forced to use it? Or in ToD Only pherhaps?

Batz · « **Reply #11 on:** March 31, 2004, 03:04:23 AM »

Wil,

Supercharger changing is just "remember to click X button at X alt"

On most planes it would be an auto setting anyway (109s/190s for instance).

In fact post '42 all lw fighters were "single lever operation" (engine and the propeller function to one control lever). The DB, Jumo and BMW systems were different in detail but they controlled the engine and propeller etc…. The pilot basically moved the "Throttle" to adjust the power at all speeds and altitudes. These “automatic” systems adjusted the mixture, ignition timing, supercharger speed, manifold pressure, engine speed (via prop pitch) and even MW50/GM1. Each version of these engines had their own particular set-up and variations.

Power setting limits weren't set because if you ran 11 min of mw50 your eng overheated or was damaged, limits were set mostly to increase eng life ( to keep as many aircraft in service as possible) and fuel considerations.

Il2/FB/AEP's "overheat" is designed to force you to fly at certain limits, Those maps are small and there isnt a fuel Mod. In AH the fuel mod can be used to do the same thing, especially in tod where fuel may be crititical.

Adding extra button clicks isn't going to do much for gameplay.

We don't need magnetos, supercharger or mixture control ect...

Read Pyro's replies in this thread:

Feature Request please HT - engine management originally posyed by Vulcan

I would like to see a "110% throttle" (I dunno what we would call it) setting. Where by "110%" would be "dry wep" and 110% + "wep button" would be "wet wep" (mw50/c3 injection/ADI/GM1).

Also MW-50 was only "on" when the throttle was pushed to stop. You flipped a switch on the dash then when you advanced the throttle to stop it engaged. You only needed it below critical supercharger alt. Above that you are losing power any way. It would still provide some cooling through charged cooling but there would be no need for an anti-detonate.

Wilbus · « **Reply #12 on:** March 31, 2004, 03:21:16 AM »

Quote

In fact post '42 all lw fighters were "single lever operation" (engine and the propeller function to one control lever). The DB, Jumo and BMW systems were different in detail but they controlled the engine and propeller etc…. The pilot basically moved the "Throttle" to adjust the power at all speeds and altitudes. These “automatic” systems adjusted the mixture, ignition timing, supercharger speed, manifold pressure, engine speed (via prop pitch) and even MW50/GM1. Each version of these engines had their own particular set-up and variations.

Batz, I know it would merely be a push of a button, I know that most fighters had it automatic, specially the ones I fly, I know the engine didn't burn up if you ran it at boost for too long and I know how the throttle/rpm etc worked, specially in the 190 where it was all automatic. No need to tell me that mate, the reason I want this is because it would be cool and it would add a little more simulation to AH.

Argh! I know! It would be cool, that's why I'd want it!

Wilbus · « **Reply #13 on:** March 31, 2004, 03:25:54 AM »

Pyros reply seem to be pretty good in the other thread...

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 31, 2004, 03:58:55 AM »

I'm running FB EAP now it's got engine management u can feather the props, fight fires on the engine, set cowling, set chargerstages etc. Right now i play AH 10% of time and FB EAP about 80% of time after 3 years i want more. FB does have it AH doesn't.

"Hardcore" flightsimmers always search for the most realistic
AH used to be in that category. Now FB got the edge.

i don't wanna be good in a simplified sim compared to fb
i wanna learn in the most realistic wo2 flightsim. It's just that easy.

Please HTC don't loose a strongpoint.