Refined damage model

[Karnak]

How about disconnecting the controls for the constant speed propeller(s), or the propeller losing its fluid and thus going to max or minimum pitch (I forget which would happen without the fluid).

[Raptor05121]

engine needs to be remodeled the most. Running 100% power with full pitch and full rich mixture and 14lbs of boost at sea level = hear some things pop, maybe pitch changes a bit, boost pressure leaks, then oil lines rupture and covers the windscreen, etc. etc. force people to be gentle with their enignes instead of full power from takeoff to landing.

[Karnak]

engine needs to be remodeled the most. Running 100% power with full pitch and full rich mixture and 14lbs of boost at sea level = hear some things pop, maybe pitch changes a bit, boost pressure leaks, then oil lines rupture and covers the windscreen, etc. etc. force people to be gentle with their enignes instead of full power from takeoff to landing.

The engines weren't that fragile.  Running at higher boost settings mainly decreased the time between overhauls.

One Spitfire V pilot panicked and ran at WEP for ~30 minutes.  After landing his engine was inspected and no damage found.  R-2800s were run at WEP for 24 hours in the factory during tests without failing.

[Raptor05121]

The engines weren't that fragile.  Running at higher boost settings mainly decreased the time between overhauls.

One Spitfire V pilot panicked and ran at WEP for ~30 minutes.  After landing his engine was inspected and no damage found.  R-2800s were run at WEP for 24 hours in the factory during tests without failing.

Well IMO the R-2800 was a lot tougher than say the Merlin 1650. I've got a copy of Jane's that states: "common problems were coolant leaks, cylinder head splits, and failure of camshafts and crankshaft bearings during routine flight"

Not much is listed for anything else, but common pilot knowledge among the GA world (especially The M20F variants with the Garret turbo-normalized IO-360s) is that boosting at sea level could cause major problems and catastrophic failure. Not saying those engines are as fragile as a Lycoming, but then again I'd bet there have been quite a few cases of powerplant failures from time to time.

A damage model like on from MSFS would be great. A random engine failure for running full power or maybe a severe vibration from the imbalance of the prop from getting hit and having pitch set wrong. I mean with as many parts as these things have rattling about. Something is bound to fail. Right now its a little bland either having a rad leak, complete engine failure from prop strike, or oil leak. Like it was said earlier, there have been cases of R-2800s coming home missing a few cylinders. How cool would it be have a shot up Corsair lugging home with a engine coughing and sputtering but still making some power?

How about disconnecting the controls for the constant speed propeller(s), or the propeller losing its fluid and thus going to max or minimum pitch (I forget which would happen without the fluid).

You'd have to find engine-specific examples for the WW2 planes. For instance, I know in a plane such as a Arrow or Bonanza, loss of oil pressure sends it into max pitch meanwhile a PT6-A on a Caravan losing oil pressure sends it into Beta.

[Karnak]

I am sure there were plenty of such failures.  I have read of many.

However, those engines likely had a flaw, a manufacturing defect or something that had developed later.  In AH we are given new, "perfect" aircraft for each sortie.

Nobody wants to be having a furious fight in their P-38 against a Ki-84, finally, in a spiral climb, approaching a gun solution only to have the random number generator decide that their #2 engine just conked out.  Ki-84 spirals up, then comes down and kills the P-38.  Sure, the Ki-84 pilot, not even knowing the P-38 suffered an engine failure, may think it was a great fight.  Do you think the P-38 pilot will think so?  He won't feel like the Ki-84 pilot beat him, he'll feel like the random number generator beat him.

[Charge]

I think that we need to separate this random damage model from usage model in regards to engines.

Refined engine usage model has been discussed first time years ago and it was a consensus that it should not be implemented, at least not in MA environment as people want to focus on ACM, not engine management.

I supported an advanced engine usage model then, but I fully understand that it would take the fun out of game for too many people. However it would increase the immersion in scenarios as they would try to simulate the "real deal" more closely.

However, it seems that there is a pressure to introduce lots of switchable stuff in scenarios, as per different requests on Wishlist lately, but as the main action happens in MA where these features would usually be disabled I do not see beneficial for HTC to spend time on matters that fall to secondary category from priority perspective but which require lots of work.

But the random damage model could be implemented also on MA, IMO.

-C+

[kvuo75]

You'd have to find engine-specific examples for the WW2 planes. For instance, I know in a plane such as a Arrow or Bonanza, loss of oil pressure sends it into max pitch meanwhile a PT6-A on a Caravan losing oil pressure sends it into Beta.

that's interesting, I always assumed it was the opposite usually for piston engines, singles go fine pitch, multis go coarse/feather with no pressure.. I wonder why that is, I figured you'd want a twin to go to feather for the same reason you feather a dead engine, and fine pitch on a single to still be able to make best power if it's only the prop that failed. 

[321BAR]

Charge, I agree, but the piece I am fuzzy on is:  Will any enhancements to the damage model tax peoples systems or make the game less stable?  I recall reading that terrains needed to be simple to a certain extent and stable to be used for MA flying.  Anyway, the thought crossed my mind.  

theyve already extensified the damage model with no problems. don't think it would if they did it again

[Raptor05121]

that's interesting, I always assumed it was the opposite usually for piston engines, singles go fine pitch, multis go coarse/feather with no pressure.. I wonder why that is, I figured you'd want a twin to go to feather for the same reason you feather a dead engine, and fine pitch on a single to still be able to make best power if it's only the prop that failed.  

You're confusing yourself. Beta IS a measure of feathering fine pitch. Likewise, coarse pitch for a piston is the same thing as pushing prop lever forward for more thrust.

A fine pitch propeller has a low blade angle (more "vertical") and will take a 'small' bite of the air, each rotation will try to move forward a small distance through the air. It requires relatively low power to rotate, allowing high propeller speed to be quickly developed, but achieving only limited airspeed. This is like having a low gear in your car.

A coarse pitch propeller has a high blade angle (more "horizontal"), will try to advance a long distance through the air with each rotation, it will take a big 'bite' of the air. It requires greater power to rotate, limiting the propeller speed that can be developed, but achieving high airspeeds. This is like having a high gear in your car.

[JOACH1M]

I wish for more damage smoke, watch some gun cam videos and those planes are just belching smoke from every hole I the plane.

[Skyguns MKII]

+1

[Raptor05121]

I wish for more damage smoke, watch some gun cam videos and those planes are just belching smoke from every hole I the plane.

Meh. Somehow it has to be frame rate friendly. Maybe not a stream of smoke but like a big puff or something? Smoke kills my FPS

[kvuo75]

You're confusing yourself. Beta IS a measure of feathering fine pitch. Likewise, coarse pitch for a piston is the same thing as pushing prop lever forward for more thrust.

wait a sec... now you're the one confusing me  ..   I thought beta was essentially NO pitch, close to reverse on turboprops..  feather is ~ 90 degree pitch / prop stopped

and pushing prop lever forward increases RPM no? this would be generally reducing prop pitch

[hitech]

Most civil aircraft go flat pitch with loss of oil.

My guess would be (i Know some do but havn't looked at all) fighters go full pitch with oil pressure loss. Some also have electrical.

My RV also goes max pitch, this is normally referred to as an aerobatic prop. The reason is that in zero G maneuvers you can temporarily loose oil pressure because the valve that switches oil flow works with gravity, and it can be stuck in the middle at zero g. This does not really cause any problems except that if the prop goes flat pitch when you are at full power as in a zero g vertical zoom the engine will almost instantly over rev (not a good deal). And hence  loading up the engine is a much better trade off.

HiTech

[Vudu15]

I like it anything to put the game on a new level of........................... ............................. ..yea some word I cant think of right now...