Engines runing full blast

[Saxman]

Stiglr,

Exactly how many aircraft losses can be contributed without a doubt to be the result of engine failure due to overheating in the course of a single sortie? Y'know, as compared to the other large number of mechanical failures even the best and most reliable of these engines were liable to experience.

The simple FACT of it is that there's far more examples of pilots I'm aware of exceeding these power restrictions and returning to base to tell about it afterwards than there were aircraft that you can conclusively say WITH NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER, that "Oh, Bob was exceeding his maximum engine temperature for ten minutes and it seized up, causing him to crash."

As I said, the impact of such abuse was seen more often on the ground during maintenance than anywhere else.

[BnZs]

Sax,
And that is exactly why HTC's solution to the nasty problem is probably best. A "by-the-book" limit with automatic shutoff, not engine failure after five minutes and three seconds of WEP.

Stiglr,

Exactly how many aircraft losses can be contributed without a doubt to be the result of engine failure due to overheating in the course of a single sortie? Y'know, as compared to the other large number of mechanical failures even the best and most reliable of these engines were liable to experience.

The simple FACT of it is that there's far more examples of pilots I'm aware of exceeding these power restrictions and returning to base to tell about it afterwards than there were aircraft that you can conclusively say WITH NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER, that "Oh, Bob was exceeding his maximum engine temperature for ten minutes and it seized up, causing him to crash."

As I said, the impact of such abuse was seen more often on the ground during maintenance than anywhere else.

[Stiglr]

It's your WITHOUT A DOUBT WHATSOEVER dodge that gets in the way of clearing this up.

There are too many variables in any flight, let alone a combat flight with bullets flying and lives on the line, to identify one thing out of thousands of other variables as the sole reason for anything happening.

It's a red herring.

Let's try another tack: explain why ALL aircraft had manuals that instructed the pilot how to use the engine, and then explain why, if he could "just throw the throttle forward and not worry about it", the manual wouldn't just say that? Keep in mind that the folks that wrote those manuals knew full well that the pilots were going into harm's way with the planes. And, keep in mind we know that some "margin of safety" is built into those*.But we also know there's a big difference between 'minding a margin of safety' and ignoring the instructions altogether.

Finally, if it was all so automatic, why were there even any other engine controls other than throttle in the pits? Why were those "unnecessary" mixture, prop pitch, fuel mixture and cooler flap controls even THERE?

Also, to head off your next spurious argument, it is not within reason to expect the pilots of the sim/game aircraft to go to some lengths to preserve their aircraft for longevity, even if the game doesn't actually support a "real" career and a "real aircraft life"? Otherwise, where do such hypotheses stop? Do we then just say, "Well, let's say just for the sake of fun, that all planes had unlimited ammo and gas...you just don't need to worry about it. It'll be more fun, and I can rack up a 350-kill mission...[Beavis and Butthead style laughing ensues]"


*(Best example of that is a manual telling you not to spin the plane, and of course we all know that it can and will spin, given the right situation; idea is not to lose aircraft and pilots doing unnecessary stunts that are unsafe)

[Karnak]

Let's try another tack: explain why ALL aircraft had manuals that instructed the pilot how to use the engine, and then explain why, if he could "just throw the throttle forward and not worry about it", the manual wouldn't just say that?

It was for maintainance schedules.  This has already been stated.

[Saxman]

Fuel conservation in flight, maintaining formation, reduced maintenance times, extended equipment life.

NOWHERE did I say there was no long-term effect from running an engine maxed out beyond its manufacturer's specifications on a routine basis. But to impose an artificial "Your engine is about to explode if you don't back off the throttle" limitation is no more accurate than allowing max power with no effect at all.

As I said, the ACTUAL effects were more often seen in maintenance, where these overworked engines required more and longer maintenance and earlier replacement. Until maintenance time becomes a factor in the game there is no practical purpose to its addition other than trying to impose an artificial restriction on power management.

[Stiglr]

@Karnak:
Not just for maintenance. You guys ever READ? I've read many books by the real pilots that have anecdotal stories of mechanical misfortune brought about, many times, by inexperience with aircraft operation or abuse of same. Yes, like the Battle of France Hurri pilots who hadn't trained well enough on their variable speed props, and promptly oversped and threw the props in battle; yes, physically and literally THREW them off the nose in some instances. History's full of this, and you can't make it go away because it's inconvenient to an arcade flying style.

@Saxman: that's YOU saying 'your engine automatically explodes'. Not me. As I explained earlier, the affects from abuse might only be increasing loss of power.


Also, none of this "rationalization" changes the FACT that pilots did, and HAD TO, manage their engines to fly these planes. They simply did NOT, AT ANY TIME, fly around at 100% throttle for an entire sortie.

[TheAce]

   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.

[BnZs]

Let's try another tack: explain why ALL aircraft had manuals that instructed the pilot how to use the engine, and then explain why, if he could "just throw the throttle forward and not worry about it", the manual wouldn't just say that?

You are criticizing AHII. In AHII you are *not* allowed to use 100% power continuously. Quit throwing out THAT red herring.  In AHII, you CAN'T fly a P-51D around at 67" on the MP continuously. You are limited to a (rather conservative) five minutes. You ARE allowed to use some lesser power setting continuously. You seem to be implying that this lesser power setting is ALSO, realistically speaking, too high for continuous operations, yet you offer no suggestions on how it should be changed, no data to support your suggestions.

[Stiglr]

100% doesn't mean WEP, or ADI, or water-injection or any other boost system like that.

It means simply what it says 100% (unaided) military engine power.

That your AHII doesn't model these properly (in use, application or effect) isn't my fault.

As for suggestions, I have made one... model it correctly. That suggestion seems to be the problem for many of you.

And yes, I am being critical. Engine management (or lack of it) isn't the ONLY problem with this particular game system.

[moot]

That your AHII doesn't model these properly (in use, application or effect) isn't my fault.

What fault?  It's fine as it is.

As for suggestions, I have made one... model it correctly.

And run it on Deep Blue with a 500 page manual to get off the runway, along with 2 tons of other superfluous micromanagement to take away from dogfighting.  I don't think so. 

That suggestion seems to be the problem for many of you.

Only one with a problem here seems to be you.

[Stiglr]

moot wrote:

And run it on Deep Blue with a 500 page manual to get off the runway, along with 2 tons of other superfluous micromanagement to take away from dogfighting.  I don't think so.

Yeah, sure, go to extremes to try and discredit the idea, without even trying it... that's a true fanboi tactic.

As I've said, I've seen it work, seen it work well, and not have it take away from dogfighting, but rather have it become an intriguing factor in dogfighting.

The actual FACT of it being a factor in flying and fighting, well that one you can't win, so don't bother.

Your turn...

[BnZs]

100% doesn't mean WEP, or ADI, or water-injection or any other boost system like that.

It means simply what it says 100% (unaided) military engine power.

Um, again the military power settings used in AHII are not actually throttle to the firewall, and do NOT represent 100% of the engine's rated horsepower. You use of the term "100%" does not make any sense in this context and does not convey any useful information about specific power setting for specific WWII airplanes.

That your AHII doesn't model these properly (in use, application or effect) isn't my fault.

As for suggestions, I have made one... model it correctly. That suggestion seems to be the problem for many of you.

You have failed to define what "correct" would be for even a SINGLE airplane, much less the plethora of aircraft in AHII. For instance, currently in AHII, you can run the P-51D at 60'' MP and 3000 RPM continuously without reaching redline temperature. Is this inaccurate? If so, how long should it take the P-51D to redline at those settings?  What power settings should the P-51D (or any other plane) be able to operate at continuously? Be sure to back up your answers with some sort of valid data.

If you cannot even give a valid answer to these questions, then you have no evidence and leg to stand on when criticizing the engine modeling.

[moot]

moot wrote:

Yeah, sure, go to extremes to try and discredit the idea, without even trying it... that's a true fanboi tactic.

As I've said, I've seen it work, seen it work well, and not have it take away from dogfighting, but rather have it become an intriguing factor in dogfighting.

The actual FACT of it being a factor in flying and fighting, well that one you can't win, so don't bother.

Your turn...

That's because it is an extreme suggestion.  What kind of simulation of real engines and protocol would it be with anything less than a completely fair emulation, across the board of the whole plane set (good luck finding all that data, with no exceptions since this is supposed to be fair), of complex engine management, complex damage, etc?  You'd have near-zero new player retention and dogfighting would be choked with micromanagement, and there'd be no room left for e.g. acceptable graphics at MMO scale in the resource budget.   The intrigue of whether you should push button A, B, C, D, E, or F, in combination with enough things going on OUTSIDE the airplane to, on their own, already give 90% of players information overload to the point of ruining the actual dogfighting taking place? Flipping a dozen switches and turning knobs to do a single thing that you can do as well with just one or two buttons like the automations in the AH cockpit aren't fun.  Are you dense or pretending?  No one here is pretending to be a real life pilot. 

[The Fugitive]

I believe that one other time when this topic came up on the boards HT said something like "why make more button pushes available just for the sake of pushing buttons?" The idea is to have a fun game that the majority of people can play. The game has a steep learning curve as it is, adding "engine management" just for the sake of realism is going to turn more people off than it would bring in.

[BnZs]

I believe that one other time when this topic came up on the boards HT said something like "why make more button pushes available just for the sake of pushing buttons?" The idea is to have a fun game that the majority of people can play. The game has a steep learning curve as it is, adding "engine management" just for the sake of realism is going to turn more people off than it would bring in.

Ironically, the one button you have to push to utilize WEP is one MORE button than you would have to push to utilize WEP in many WWII aircraft, where WEP was simply balls to the wall.

P.S. There are very, very, very good reasons button WEP instead of just making it reliant on the throttle slider, that anyone who has ever played with a worn-out Z-axis is aware of.