Engines runing full blast

[Clone155]

   Has to stop. This isn't very realistic, because last time I checked, if they ran full power for long periods of time the engine would become damaged (overheat?).

   What I propose is something like WEP. Lets call it, Full Throttle or FT. You can engage FT for lets say 10 minutes. After 10 minutes of FT you will be given a warning light, or warning noise, and if not turned off within another minute, you will experience engine failure or engine oil leaking. If you take the plane off of FT, then after 4 minutes, you will be able to engage FT again. When you are not in FT you will fly on Normal Power, as stated in the E6B.

  I would like this to be added because first of all it would make it realistic. It just gives me this frustrated feeling when I think all of these planes are flying full throttle, with no consequences. Second of all, it would help with creating formations, because you will no longer be able to say, "slow down, I can't catch you!" And last but not least, this will create a whole new E management system which would be entertaining to master.

  This is my wish.

[Karnak]

You need to check more carefully.

The limits you speak of were for maintainance scheduling purposes by and large.  There is, for example, a known case of a Spitfire Mk Vb pilot panicing and running his machine at WEP boost for 30 minutes, no damage to the engine at all.  R-2800s were run for 20+ hours at WEP boost in the factory without failing.

[Clone155]

You need to check more carefully.

The limits you speak of were for maintenance scheduling purposes by and large.  There is, for example, a known case of a Spitfire Mk Vb pilot panicing and running his machine at WEP boost for 30 minutes, no damage to the engine at all.  R-2800s were run for 20+ hours at WEP boost in the factory without failing.

Yes, but since we don't have maintenance then this might add some sort of feeling of it, and I say 10 minutes because of the shortened fuel time we have. It could be any time frame they want it to be, be that 5 minutes, or an hour.

[Heater]

I may be wrong (it happens ) But I think what he is saying, is he would like to see engine management implemented....

I agree  I to would to see it, but it is was done, the crying would never stop!.

[Karnak]

Yes, but since we don't have maintenance then this might add some sort of feeling of it, and I say 10 minutes because of the shortened fuel time we have. It could be any time frame they want it to be, be that 5 minutes, or an hour.

Why?  What does it add to the game except to make flights to and from the combat area longer?  It isn't realism that it adds as it is an unrealistic thing, therefor it must have a gameplay reason to be added.  What reason do you see for it and what effects from it do you imagine would happen?

I may be wrong (it happens ) But I think what he is saying, is he would like to see engine management implemented....

I agree  I to would to see it, but it is was done, the crying would never stop!.

What he describes is very much less like engine management than what we already have with the RPM and throttle controls.  He is talking about artificial penalties for certain behaviors.

[texastc316]

the crying would never stop!.

hasnt yet anyway

[Noir]

People who want more range and a good formation don't fly at full power. Fly an event sometime !

[RTHolmes]

if you mean give heavy buffs the same WEP restrictions that fighters already have, then +1

[5PointOh]

If we are to go that far, lets throw in reliabilty as well. Random failures occured more than one thinks.

[Baumer]

First I just want to make it clear that I am not supporting the OP's wish. The current model (while historically inaccurate) is very fair and consistent for all aircraft and all players. It would be an exceeding difficult task with little return to model the reliability that we're talking about.

However, to the people who cite impressive engine reliability and not needing to adhere to the guidelines set forth in the various aircraft manuals, I suggest you look at the detailed Air Force statistics at the link below;

http://www.afhra.af.mil/timelines/

To paraphrase table 130, there were 36,652 mechanical failures that occurred in flight in the European Theater alone, from August of 1942 to May of 1945. These failures were enough to warrant an RTB for repairs. Mind you this is just the total for RTB planes that actually made it back to base, many more were counted as non-combat operation losses when the aircraft went down.

Here is a breakdown by aircraft category, 

• Heavy Bomber- 11,839
• Light/Medium Bomber- 3,564
• Fighter- 21,251

[Wedge1126]

How many flights were there from August of 1942 to May of 1945?

[Karnak]

Baumer,

Many, if not the vast majority, of those malfunctions were completely unrelated to use of high boost settings.

[morfiend]

Baum,

  Nice site thx!! 

   

[james]

Let's get Into a heated dogfight that lasts more than 3 merges and have it end because one of us forgot to come back on the throttle. This is a game not mscfs. The whining wouldn't end.

[Clone155]

First of all guys, have you ever flown on normal power? It isn't that much slower than military power. And in many planes its only a few RPMs lower.

Second, I forgot to add a big part of why I wanted this added. This is suppost to be a flight simulator right? No? Combat simulator? Well what ever it is, I think that if the real pilots had to fly like this then we should too.

And for those that say to me "Just do it yourself you twit!" well then that gives the feeling of fighting against jets since I don't climb to the normal 15K to dive in and pick like the rest. I am tired of some friendly zooming past me to get the kill on the plane I just tore half a wing off only 600 out.