Engines runing full blast

[moot]

However, I can put an end to this debate...

I apologize. I came into this with the assumption that at least some of you thought you were flying a SIM.

Adios!

[thrila]

At least now i dont have to search a lanc's pilot's memoirs i once read, in which an engine failed on takeoff, so he proceeded to fly the entire mission at full throttle with his 3 remaining engines.

In all the RAF biographies i've read, i've never encountered a pilot being concerned with his engine overheating, with exception to taxiing and landing.

[hitech]

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.

Real pilots did not HAVE to fly at reduced throttle, they were ordered to to reduce overall maintenance. The planes are perfectly capable of flying at mil power.

It is no difference than my plane, I can fly at full throttle for ever also, but it uses more gas and will reduce the time between overhauls.

What you suggest is not simulating the plane but rather simulating orders, if you take that view of modeling then you are no longer simulating "Vehicles" but rather the war.

HiTech

[Anaxogoras]

In all the RAF biographies i've read, i've never encountered a pilot being concerned with his engine overheating, with exception to taxiing and landing.

That's because the vast majority of flight time was non-combat time.  When combat did occur, the results were usually decided in less than a minute.

In flight sim games we spend upwards of 10 minutes or more engaged in combat without breaks.  If similar events had occured in "real life"tm, overheating would have been more of a concern.

[Saxman]

Real pilots did not HAVE to fly at reduced throttle, they were ordered to to reduce overall maintenance. The planes are perfectly capable of flying at mil power.

It is no difference than my plane, I can fly at full throttle for ever also, but it uses more gas and will reduce the time between overhauls.

What you suggest is not simulating the plane but rather simulating orders, if you take that view of modeling then you are no longer simulating "Vehicles" but rather the war.

HiTech

*Sits back for Stiglr to complain about HTC not flying a WWII-era piston engine*

Really, I don't see anywhere that a SIMULATOR can really accurately represent the effects of this sort of wear on the engine. There's a handful of them out there that involve attrition (European Air War is the only one that really jumps out at me) but this is REALLY something that's more at home in an Real-time or Turn-based Strategy game, where maintenance times and supply would actually come into effect and impact your available aircraft.

As hitech more or less implied: A WAR game, not an air-combat simulator.

[Widewing]

Never, not once, anywhere have I read of an engine actually failing like you insist would happen if you ran it past the manual's limits.

That's because Stiglr has never flown a military recip.... Then again, I have over 3,200 hours pushing those things through the sky. This gives me a slight advantage when discussing the topic of engine management....


My regards,

Widewing

[Anaxogoras]

Just to prevent misunderstanding, I'm not saying that overheating an engine would immediately cause it to fail.

So many of you complain about Il-2, but I am yet to ever blow an engine from overheat in the game.  I've run the F4U for 9 minutes with WEP and the "overheat" message and got bored before the engine blew.

[Stiglr]

Neither am I, Arax. But then, the others just aren't listening.

In an attempt to discredit the argument, they're trying to make it completely black and white, e.g., "if you abuse the engine, it immediately blows up, without fail, without delay." Which isn't what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is, if you run it full out for long periods of time, engine heat will collect and that will soon produce a lack of efficiency (loss of "full" power) and eventually it could burn up or fail.

As for those saying they've never heard of pilots being concerned about engine heat (whether at taxi or at any other time), they simply don't remember reading it, if they read it at all. I have many books that mention it, especially in theatres like the Mediterranean, the tropics and the Dutch East Indies.

And again, if heat were no consideration, why do ALL aircraft have not only engine heat gauges, but usually cylinder head temp and oil temp, and sometimes air temp gauges in the pit? And cooling gill controls? Because the engine heat has to be carefully monitored by the PILOT (not just the mechanics and ground crew) to keep the engine going, that's why. Otherwise that's a lot of gauges to cram into the pits for no apparent reason.

[Saxman]

Stiglr,

You're wanting something to be applied over the course of a single sortie. As has been pointed out AD INFINITUM THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. The wear and tear on an engine that would occur from instances of pilots running beyond the manufacturer's specified power settings for durations exceeding the safety manuals (as has been pointed out, MANY times for all or parts of some sorties!) built up OVER TIME. As in, MULTIPLE MISSIONS.

[hitech]

I didn't notice stiglr made an appearance welcome to our board.

If you wish to remain on this board you will adhere to the rules. Calling me names, and miss quoting me in a derogatory manor will not be tolerated.

So to be clear about metric gauges.

I have no preference if AH is in metric or English units.
I have a very big preference that all planes use the same units.

The reason for this is simply a communication issue between all players. When calling an altitude to another person or your speed or what ever, I have no desire for anyone to have to convert units in your head.

2nd not many pilots of the world have to switch between metric and English on a 5 minute basis as would be the need if we did each plane in its native unit. This drives game play that players would tend to only fly English or metric planes and not mix switch easily between the 2.

This like many other "realism issues" that on the surface sound realistic, are not in the bigger since. How many pilots flying a fight had to think in a unit they are not used 2.

Finally if we need to choose 1 unit for all planes I will choose the unit that most of my customers are used to, I.E. English units.

SO stiglr if you ever quote me in a derogatory fashion again,as you did, you will be gone from this bbs. This is my home, do not even think of throwing stones because you will be escorted to the door very rapidly.

HiTech

[hitech]

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...

Back that statement up. As far as I know the attitude you are portraying destroyed 1 game, and keeps another from ever getting a real following. So if you think "seen it work" is a few people having fun together think again. Exactly how many players are up in TW your current game of choice.

HiTech

[Karnak]

Anaxogoras,

My experience with overheating in IL2 is very different.  Shortly after the onset of the overheat my engine starts to lose power, rapidly reaching such critical power loss that the aircraft can no longer maintain level flight.  That bears no similarity to actual engine performance.

What I'm saying is, if you run it full out for long periods of time, engine heat will collect and that will soon produce a lack of efficiency (loss of "full" power) and eventually it could burn up or fail.

You keep saying that we aren't listening, but we really are and you are not.  The statement I quoted is flat out wrong and we have told you that over and over and over yet you do not listen.

[trigger2]

What I'm saying is, if you run it full out for long periods of time, engine heat will collect and that will soon produce a lack of efficiency (loss of "full" power) and eventually it could burn up or fail.

Although these are modern aircraft, they're similar.

Run balls to the wall in a 182R and a 172, no issues, engine's still in excellent condition. HiTech, IIRC, flies a little wanna be plane (RV-8 ) and has probably run full for extended periods of time as well. So, first hand experiance, vs a manual (still haven't seen a page on a manual warning of engine overheating from throttle). Hmm...

[Ack-Ack]

OK, one at a time...

To those "you code it" or show me realistic engine management challenges... I deal with it all the time in Targetware.
Yes, it is simplified such that one system can handle many, many types of planes and engines from different countries. But, even in this simplified state, it's quite robust, adds the correct amount of "pilot workload" and well simulates the benefits and consequences of managing or mismanaging one's engine. As for IL-2, well they OVER-simplified it to the point where it pretty much doesn't even work. But, it can be, and has been, done.

The only problem is that both of your examples do not model realistic engine management.  Just because you have to hit an extra button does not increase the 'realism' of the sim.


ack-ack

[Anaxogoras]

Anaxogoras,

My experience with overheating in IL2 is very different.  Shortly after the onset of the overheat my engine starts to lose power, rapidly reaching such critical power loss that the aircraft can no longer maintain level flight.  That bears no similarity to actual engine performance.

I agree.  I don't know why it's different for us.  Besides the F4U, I have also tried to bust the DB605 on the 109G-6, without success after 7 or 8 minutes of overheat, radiators closed (complex engine management on of course).  Maybe it's something that changed with the latest version of the game, 4.08m.