Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: titanic3 on August 31, 2011, 12:44:30 PM
-
There's an issue that irks me, and it makes me wanna know if you could really do it in RL. What hapens if you cut an engine mid flight? I know some older planes required to be cranked on the ground, is there a difference between those and more modern planes?
Some guys say your fuel lines would be cut and you would turn into a glider. Others say if your propeller is moving fast enough, it would turn right back on.
So what would happen? And is it realistic to be able to do it in AH?
-
Yes, it is realistic. Happened many times in the war... a pilot forgot to switch tanks and the engine dies. He switches tanks, turns it back on. One P-38 pilot was the first recorded to score a kill with engines off because this happened while he was just about to fire. He calmly coasted in for the shot then started up afterwards.
Even Hitech himself flies, and has mentioned on the forums how he's had his sputter out on him before, switched tanks and started up again.
-
So it IS possible. But should it be done? It must've put stress on the engine. And I'm pretty sure pilots weren't told to do it just to lose speed.
Is there a difference between throttling to idle and cutting in?
-
I am aware of at least one case where a Mosquito Mk VI had its engines go off due to fuel starvation (crew forgot to switch fuel tanks) and then restarted the engines once the fuel flow was restored.
-
No it is not realistic. In the real world, shutting down an engine risks the real possibility that it won't restart. In a real world combat situation there is no tactical or other reason to shut down an engine. In game, an engine will restart. Those that use an engine shutdown to "sneak up" on an opponent are gaming. Anything for a kill, even if it's unrealistic.
In real world multi-engine flight training student pilots will practice securing an engine in a simulated emergency situation and learn to fly on one engine. At the end of the training event, the engine is restarted, hopefully. Yes there instances of pilots mis-managing their fuel, engine failure, and successful restart if the fuel supply isn't exhausted. Some are not so fortunate in fuel mis-management situations. Case in point; well known aviation writer Jeff Ethel's unfortunate death flying a P-38. :salute
-
In a modern piston AC (only personal experience I have - multi-engine check rides wohoo!) it is very possible to shut down an engine and restart it in flight without engaging the starter.
If you have a fixed pitch prop the engine will continue spinning even with power off, creating a lot of drag, and once you turn the mags back on and let the fuel flow it will start right up. On a prop with a governor it can depend on the the governor and if you fully feathered the prop. If you did not feather the prop OR if your governor supports un-feathering while stopped you can restart without a starter. If it does not support un-feathering while stopped then you will need to engage the starter to un-feather the prop and re-start the engine.
In many radials the reason you see them being hand turned while on the ground wasn't to start them but was to get the oil out of the bottom cylinders. There can be quarts/gallons of oil in the bottom cylinders if the engines had been sitting for a time (how long I don't know).
In Korea the Saber pilots would use this trick to get back to base after fighting at the Yalu River. Climb up to alt, cut the engine, glide back to home and restart the engine for the landing. They were very tight on fuel. The US Navy's P3 Orions have been known to shut down 2 engines on long patrols. I believe I read the same thing about the British Nimrod to increase loiter time.
The B-36 could and did shut down it's 4 jet engines for cruise flight and I believe there were some cargo AC that could and did to the same.
shdo
-
In Korea the Saber pilots would use this trick to get back to base after fighting at the Yalu River. Climb up to alt, cut the engine, glide back to home and restart the engine for the landing. They were very tight on fuel. The US Navy's P3 Orions have been known to shut down 2 engines on long patrols. I believe I read the same thing about the British Nimrod to increase loiter time.
The B-36 could and did shut down it's 4 jet engines for cruise flight and I believe there were some cargo AC that could and did to the same.
shdo
there was a story of a pilot in the vietnam war who cut his engine in his F-105 to glide back to base and land. he switched the engine on/off (for about 600 miles i believe?) so he could just get across the border of the north/south vietnam line.
-
there was a story of a pilot in the vietnam war who cut his engine in his F-105 to glide back to base and land. he switched the engine on/off (for about 600 miles i believe?) so he could just get across the border of the north/south vietnam line.
It's doubtful that a Thud could glide engine off for 600 miles. Anyone with actually Thud experience that can confirm? When running out of fuel in a combat situation, the pilot has to do what he has to do for survival, something that is optional in AH.
Real world, with effective fuel management, there's no logical reason to shut down the one good engine you have and expect it to come back when you want it to. Doing so is just asking for an unnecessary bad day. :salute
-
It's doubtful that a Thud could glide engine off for 600 miles. Anyone with actually Thud experience that can confirm? When running out of fuel in a combat situation, the pilot has to do what he has to do for survival, something that is optional in AH.
Real world, with effective fuel management, there's no logical reason to shut down the one good engine you have and expect it to come back when you want it to. Doing so is just asking for an unnecessary bad day. :salute
whoops the 600 miles was a typo, meant to be 60 miles :lol
-
So it IS possible. But should it be done? It must've put stress on the engine. And I'm pretty sure pilots weren't told to do it just to lose speed.
Is there a difference between throttling to idle and cutting in?
iirc the prop gets feathered when you cut the engine in AH, so it wont slow you down as much as just throttling back.
-
whoops the 600 miles was a typo, meant to be 60 miles :lol
The Thud had a reportedly better than 7:1 glide ratio, F-4 Phantoms(The Lead Sled) 5:1 like a rock so still the Thud had nothing to brag about gliding.
If you like the 105 & F-4 here a good read. http://acepilots.com/vietnam/olds_bolo.html (http://acepilots.com/vietnam/olds_bolo.html) :salute
-
Real world, with effective fuel management, there's no logical reason to shut down the one good engine you have and expect it to come back when you want it to. Doing so is just asking for an unnecessary bad day. :salute
I think you adopt a worst-case scenario. I've read many times of both combat and civilian engine restarts in midair. It's as common as starting the engine in the first place. If you have no problems (i.e. combat damage) and willingly shut it off, there's no reason it won't restart again, if it was flight worthy when you took off.
If it's at the point it won't start up, you probably never would have got airborn to begin with, no?
P.S. Skorp, I don't think the thud had a 600mi range on full gas, let alone glide!
-
titanic3,
You seem to be fishing for something here. Just come out and say what you want.
-
cant speak for WW2-era fighters, but modern day aircraft will start no problem mid flight. the engine does not care where it is. as long as it has fuel, air, and spark- it will start.
-
P.S. Skorp, I don't think the thud had a 600mi range on full gas, let alone glide!
P.S. i said the 600 miles was a typo. :noid
-
titanic3,
You seem to be fishing for something here. Just come out and say what you want.
I believe he's referring to the practice of cutting off an engine mid-dogfight using the sudden increase in drag to force an overshoot.
-
I believe he's referring to the practice of cutting off an engine mid-dogfight using the sudden increase in drag to force an overshoot.
Haven't tests in AH shown that reducing throttle to minimum has the same exact effect?
-
Haven't tests in AH shown that reducing throttle to minimum has the same exact effect?
So why are people doing this and not that? I'm not forcing a certain type of gameplay on players, but cutting engines mid flight was never done in WW2 on purpose during a dogfight, why should it be allowed to be done here?
Not so much of an unbalanced issue where cutting engines is better, it's not, I know that. But it subtracts from a sense of realism.
-
If I am correct, then the people who are doing it are doing so because they have falsely been lead to believe that it causes more drag.
One would have to do tests to see if that is the case. Also note that single engined and multi-engined fighters may have different results.
-
It was a practice, in the P38 at least, to use asymmetric throttle to tighten turns, effect changes in aerobatics during combat. For all it's good things multi-engine controls in AH2 leave a lot to be desired IF you don't want all the engines performing with the same settings.
Yes I know you can select the separate engines and monkey with them but what is needed are separate controls for all the engines at the same time. In a multi-engine AC I can push both throttles forward at the same time and I can retard/advance one separately, same with prop and mixture settings. I know why it's like it is but it's not optimal and shutting down 1 engine is faster than trying to monkey with power/rpm settings as currently implemented.
shdo
-
I used to do it all the time but it wasn't anything sneaky. I rigged my X52 so that pushing past the forward throttle detent would active WEP and bringing the throttle back through the idle detent would shut down the engine. Push the throttle forward of the idle detent and the engine started. During fights the WEP worked great but when I chopped my throttle (such as to control closure) I'd often pull back too hard and shut the motor down. Didn't really make any noticable difference in deceleration but it's realistic as that's the way most jet aircraft throttles work. I had to change the X52 back to normal operation after I wore out (broke) the throttle detents.
I had a friend accidently shut down a T38 after landing at Pax River when he pulled the throttles back too hard. The 38 has no APU so he couldn't restart the engines and he had to get towed back to the line by a tractor. His callsign is now "Whisper".
-
I believe he's referring to the practice of cutting off an engine mid-dogfight using the sudden increase in drag to force an overshoot.
Haven't tests in AH shown that reducing throttle to minimum has the same exact effect?
Test have shown that reducing the throttle is far more effective than shutting off your engines. It's been an urban AH myth for over a decade about turning off your engines to 1) slow your plane really fast to force and overshoot and 2) slow you down faster than the other guy so you can out turn him. Like using elevator trim to turn better, it's nothing but in the mind of the beholder.
ack-ack
-
So why are people doing this and not that?
I do it because it does the same thing as slamming the throttle down, but how my controls are set up (Hand on stick and keyboard) I can't really control the throttle lever on my stick (right below the stick) in a dog fight, and it is much easier to press the engine key. If I had a hotas set up, I'd kill throttle rather than engine, because I like to hear my engine lol.
-
I think you adopt a worst-case scenario. I've read many times of both combat and civilian engine restarts in midair. It's as common as starting the engine in the first place. If you have no problems (i.e. combat damage) and willingly shut it off, there's no reason it won't restart again, if it was flight worthy when you took off.
If it's at the point it won't start up, you probably never would have got airborn to begin with, no?
P.S. Skorp, I don't think the thud had a 600mi range on full gas, let alone glide!
You are absolutely right, Krusty. Restarts happen every day. But, the pilot who doesn't plan and prepare for the worst case scenario isn't going to be around for long. Aviation out in the real world is very unforgiving. An old saying states: " There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but, there are no old, bold pilots". Temp fate in aviation one too many times and and you are going to pay dearly for it. Intentionally shutting down an engine in an air combat scenario will put you right at the front of the line.
The point being that it is illogical to intentionally shut down an engine in a combat scenario (real world). Yeah, obviously the engine(s) started up fine on the ground to get the pilot where he is going, to this point. Shutting down in combat is asking for that random point in time where the "where did that come from" mechanical failure, vapor lock, etc. that has never happened before just happened and the steely eyed fighter pilot is now sitting in a large refrigerator with wings. There is NOT a valid or logical reason to shut an engine down in a combat situation. Speed is life and speed comes from a well maintained and operated engine(s). If one needs to reduce speed, slow down, force an overshoot, etc. there are other time tested options that work effectively, i.e. BFM, speed brakes, engine(s) to idle etc. It comes down to pilot skill or lack thereof. Shutting down an engine to achieve victory doesn't demonstrate a shred of pilot skill.
-
Yes, it is realistic. Happened many times in the war... a pilot forgot to switch tanks and the engine dies. He switches tanks, turns it back on. One P-38 pilot was the first recorded to score a kill with engines off because this happened while he was just about to fire. He calmly coasted in for the shot then started up afterwards.
Even Hitech himself flies, and has mentioned on the forums how he's had his sputter out on him before, switched tanks and started up again.
Colonel Robin Olds.
Jettisoned his fuel tanks and forgot to switch over to his internal tanks while he was lining up for a shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXa1v7zlfAc <--- His dogfights episode.
-
I assume all could agree that there is a vast difference between intentionally shutting down an engine in combat vs. running a fuel tank dry during the battle and fog of war, resolving the fuel supply problem, restarting, and continuing to wage war against the enemy. :salute
-
I assume all could agree that there is a vast difference between intentionally shutting down an engine in combat vs. running a fuel tank dry during the battle and fog of war, resolving the fuel supply problem, restarting, and continuing to wage war against the enemy. :salute
It is much ado about nothing in AH. It is less effective than just throttling back, so let them do it and kill them.
-
It is much ado about nothing in AH. It is less effective than just throttling back, so let them do it and kill them.
A perfect lead in to my next point. For those who feel intentionally shutting down an engine is an effective tactical move in AH, please continue. That short time period that you are intentionally distracting yourself on the keyboard, etc is an opportunity for you to lose sight of the other guy and/or for him to maneuver for an advantage. :aok
-
Still can't help but feel as though realism goes out the window when people do it. No big issue, just...awkward.
-
The only time I shut down my engines is to get an ear on incoming GV's.
-
I saw a comment about the B-36 being able to restart its turbines.
Yes, it could. I'm quite sure that they used them for takeoff, and for the climbout to altitude, and then shut them down. They may or may not have turned them back on for the landing sequence, for reverse thrust (?) But those are turbines, not piston engines. I also think there were starters for some of the engines, as the OP mentioned. Maybe, once your engine cuts out, it starts a timer for... I don't know, 10 seconds? 30? Something, because eventually the fuel will drain from the lines, no?
-
Still can't help but feel as though realism goes out the window when people do it. No big issue, just...awkward.
It's still realistic to be able to shut an engine down in flight. It's just illogical to do so. Perhaps if HT modified the code so that at random times the engine would not restart after an inflight shutdown, it would more accurately reflect real world possibilities.
To draw a parrallel, would it make sense to turn your car ignition off while cruising down the interstate in heavy traffic at 75 mph? Yes, you can do it at will but, common sense, logic, and a sense of survival prevails with the vast majority of people.
-
To draw a parrallel, would it make sense to turn your car ignition off while cruising down the interstate in heavy traffic at 75 mph? Yes, you can do it at will but, common sense, logic, and a sense of survival prevails with the vast majority of people.
The threat here is nto that the engine starter will fail nor that your engine will be damaged, but rather crashing and dying in a horrible 100-car pile-up.
Apples and oranges. Now imagine a totally free sky with no collisions around, plenty of airspeed over the wings, and no damage or anything.
IMO it's really not an issue. It wasn't done for a reason, but that reason wasn't because of the "engine won't start back up"...
-
Ya missed again, Krusty.
-
Puma you're stating a point that isn't true (the engine wouldn't start up) and them mixing your comparisons to explain why it's bad.
It's a non-issue. It happens all the time every day. If the engine starts up on the ground to get you OFF the ground, it will start up in midflight, so long as it's not shot up and as long as it was in good condition to begin with.
AH starts every sortie as if you are in good flight-worthy condition. We don't have random BS engine failures like Ubisoft or TW games.
It's a non issue you keep pushing for.
EDIT: I do agree it wasn't common, but for different reasons. Practical reasons. Not technical failure reasons.
-
It's a non-issue. It happens all the time every day. If the engine starts up on the ground to get you OFF the ground, it will start up in midflight, so long as it's not shot up and as long as it was in good condition to begin with.
It's a non issue you keep pushing for.
You are so intent on being right all the time, you miss the point. I'm not pushing for any issue. I'm trying to inject some logic and realism into the orginal "cutting engines mid flight" question. HT owns the game and does what he sees fit, that is unless you have an under the table agreement with HT and tell him what to do also.
In game, engines quit running because they are combat damaged, run out of fuel, or the player chooses to shut it(them) down.
In real world, engines quit running because they are combat damaged, run out of fuel, the pilot chooses to shut it (them) down, there is a random mechanical failure, fuel contaimination, etc, etc, etc.
My attempt is to try and add to the conversation with some real world experience and provide some reasoning for not shutting down and engine vs using piloting skills in an air combat situation.
You are so intent on being "King Krusty", never admitting to being wrong, and talking down to everyone, that you miss the true intent and meaning of what is being discussed. You seem to be the only one in this discussion that can't get down off your high horse, relax, and consider what others have to say without going on the attack.
Is that simple enough for you?
-
Puma you've had a chip on your shoulder against me for quite some time so I am used to your insulting demeanor. I suspect it stems back quite some time from the AvA forum with you and a select group of other malcontents that like to snipe at me.
However your opinions shouldn't be trolled all over the forums. Please reign in the insult factor.
My attempt is to try and add to the conversation with some real world experience and provide some reasoning for not shutting down and engine vs using piloting skills in an air combat situation.
Fair enough. I missed that distinction through the changing tone of this thread. For all general reasons in WW2 we agree it shouldn't have been done, but if you move on to "it couldn't be done" by some chance, that's a whole other conversation.
-
There again you are wrong, Krusty. Name calling doesn't make you right. Your pompous attitude is well known in the forums.
You seem to have wealth of historical knowledge to contribute and that's a great thing. But, your method of talking down to others diminishes your contribution.
-
Still can't help but feel as though realism goes out the window when people do it. No big issue, just...awkward.
Realism also goes out the window when a Typhoon follows its bombs into its target so the player can up another Typhoon faster....
-
:rofl It's true.
Puma? Krusty?
Please kindly take it somewhere else. I'm on the forums to discuss Aces High, military history, and random things with people that actually value my opinion sometimes. Not to watch people accusing others of doing acting like this, or saying stuff like that.
Sorry if this seems like "backseat moderating" but I'm just sharing my opinion, and attempting to be polite abou tit.
I'm 15 by the way. Just if you need some perspective. :P
-
:rofl It's true.
Puma? Krusty?
Please kindly take it somewhere else. I'm on the forums to discuss Aces High, military history, and random things with people that actually value my opinion sometimes. Not to watch people accusing others of doing acting like this, or saying stuff like that.
Sorry if this seems like "backseat moderating" but I'm just sharing my opinion, and attempting to be polite abou tit.
I'm 15 by the way. Just if you need some perspective. :P
My intent was/is to contribute to the discussion. I never intend to insult anyone. It's not in my nature. But, I won't be talked down to when trying to contribute to a conversation. :salute.
-
It was done a lot more back in the day. One of the best pilots was SNIPER(not the current one ingame). IIRC he said he was left handed and used numpad for views so it was not practical to reach around the joystick for the throttle. It became obsolete(pretty much) when they added the option to map a key to 0% throttle and map one to 100% throttle which is what I used for a long time. Now I use the CH right toe brake for throttle(axis inverted) and numpad for views with CH combatstick, wonder if anyone else does/thought of this? :lol
-
I believe he's referring to the practice of cutting off an engine mid-dogfight using the sudden increase in drag to force an overshoot.
I just stick my head and arms out of the cockpit and open my mouth...
-
some engines will not continue free-wheeling, forever, during flight with the ignition off. Like the old shotgun shell started cartridge types, if the engine stopped you might have trouble IMO. I'm not Flight mechanic...but if it's turning fast enough and still hot, it should fire. :airplane:
-
It was done a lot more back in the day. One of the best pilots was SNIPER(not the current one ingame). IIRC he said he was left handed and used numpad for views so it was not practical to reach around the joystick for the throttle. It became obsolete(pretty much) when they added the option to map a key to 0% throttle and map one to 100% throttle which is what I used for a long time. Now I use the CH right toe brake for throttle(axis inverted) and numpad for views with CH combatstick, wonder if anyone else does/thought of this? :lol
Yes and I suspect it's being done ingame today for much the same reason,well the lefthanded thing may be a small percentage but plenty of players use the keyboard for most of the commands,it's just easier to press E to get the results you want than it is to use the 2 keys for throttle.
I asked a player just the other day why he was doing this and he said his throttle quit working on his joystick,so there may be several reasons player do this.
If you ask me the only problem I see with shutting the engine down is the time it takes to restart and get power again,this certainly takes longer than chopping throttle and applying full throttle again.
YMMV
:salute
-
It's still realistic to be able to shut an engine down in flight. It's just illogical to do so. Perhaps if HT modified the code so that at random times the engine would not restart after an inflight shutdown, it would more accurately reflect real world possibilities.
To draw a parrallel, would it make sense to turn your car ignition off while cruising down the interstate in heavy traffic at 75 mph? Yes, you can do it at will but, common sense, logic, and a sense of survival prevails with the vast majority of people.
HiTech has already updated the code years ago to prevent people from gaming the game by turning off their engines. If you notice, you cannot start your engines automatically at 100% with WEP on, like you could in the past that made it easier for those to turn on/off their engines in mid-flight.
Personally, when I see someone turning off their engines trying to either force the overshoot or gain an angle on me, I know that I've got a kill coming in the next few seconds. I also like to play with them, when I see that they've cut their engine, I will go vertical into a spiral climb and then come down for the very easy kill. Used to love killing hblair like that.
ack-ack
-
HiTech has already updated the code years ago to prevent people from gaming the game by turning off their engines. If you notice, you cannot start your engines automatically at 100% with WEP on, like you could in the past that made it easier for those to turn on/off their engines in mid-flight.
Personally, when I see someone turning off their engines trying to either force the overshoot or gain an angle on me, I know that I've got a kill coming in the next few seconds. I also like to play with them, when I see that they've cut their engine, I will go vertical into a spiral climb and then come down for the very easy kill. Used to love killing hblair like that.
ack-ack
you know what works better at gaining angles and forcing overshoots?
... a text book reversal! :aok
-
"Often they shut off their engines so as to make it difficult to locate them and go into a glide; then all we can hear is the wind humming through their wires. The tiny bomb drops out of this silence and immediately their engines begin to purr again."
Excerpt from Stuka Pilot by H.U.R.
Yes, it was done for various reasons, wasn't all that common though...
-
"Often they shut off their engines so as to make it difficult to locate them and go into a glide; then all we can hear is the wind humming through their wires. The tiny bomb drops out of this silence and immediately their engines begin to purr again."
Excerpt from Stuka Pilot by H.U.R.
Yes, it was done for various reasons, wasn't all that common though...
It was also very common tactic amongst the PBY pilots in the PTO but I don't recall reading any fighter pilot's accounts of them turning off their engine to force the bandit on their six to overshoot or to gain an angle for the shot.
ack-ack
-
As others have said, I like to see a player turn their engine off in a fight. It's no more effective than cutting throttle and it takes them much longer to spin it back up again than simply increasing throtte.
Whenever I see that I think n00b... easy kill. Same goes for the guys who think dropping gear in a turn fight makes them turn better.
-
I don't think I ever heard gear dropping makes you turn better. Wouldn't it just add drag and slow you down?
Only exception are the Corsairs I believe.
-
Why would F4Us be an exception?
Yes, it will add drag and slow you down faster, potentially letting you turn a tighter radius. Of course, it also dumps lots of your E in a very wasteful manner.
-
Well no, I meant that the only planes that seems logical to drop their gear in combat would be the F4Us, to force an overshoot or to prevent going too fast in a dive. I didn't mean that it would make it turn tighter.
-
I don't think I ever heard gear dropping makes you turn better. Wouldn't it just add drag and slow you down?
Only exception are the Corsairs I believe.
Yes it would and another AH falacy that you often see is that Corsairs turn better with the gear out. I can't tell you how many people I've seen do that over the years. They are not some special exception to the rule.
-
Yes, it is realistic. Happened many times in the war... a pilot forgot to switch tanks and the engine dies. He switches tanks, turns it back on. One P-38 pilot was the first recorded to score a kill with engines off because this happened while he was just about to fire. He calmly coasted in for the shot then started up afterwards.
Even Hitech himself flies, and has mentioned on the forums how he's had his sputter out on him before, switched tanks and started up again.
And that P-38 pilot was none other than Robin Olds! Just read his book Fighter Pilot, fantastic book that I think all of you would love.
-
:rofl It's true.
Puma? Krusty?
Please kindly take it somewhere else. I'm on the forums to discuss Aces High, military history, and random things with people that actually value my opinion sometimes. Not to watch people accusing others of doing acting like this, or saying stuff like that.
Sorry if this seems like "backseat moderating" but I'm just sharing my opinion, and attempting to be polite abou tit.
I'm 15 by the way. Just if you need some perspective. :P
So, aside from the name calling and lack of tolerance for it, what did you learn from this discussion? :salute
-
Why would F4Us be an exception?
Yes, it will add drag and slow you down faster, potentially letting you turn a tighter radius. Of course, it also dumps lots of your E in a very wasteful manner.
Very true! It also put nose down drag which directly counteracts elevator input. If you want to slam on the brakes and make someone fly past you before they can get guns on, then maybe, but there are better, faster, easier was to do that as well. :salute
-
Why would F4Us be an exception?
Yes, it will add drag and slow you down faster, potentially letting you turn a tighter radius. Of course, it also dumps lots of your E in a very wasteful manner.
Its not, one can drop the gears and/or flaps if they want to dump a ton of e fast.
-
I turn my engine off when I do high speed passes on teammates.
-
Colonel Robin Olds.
Jettisoned his fuel tanks and forgot to switch over to his internal tanks while he was lining up for a shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXa1v7zlfAc <--- His dogfights episode.
Unrelated. I got loaded on beer and single malt at robins nest back in June.
-
why do people even cut engines to slow down? if you just go to min. throttle and keep RPM all the way up, it acts like a brake as its at a fixed speed and not windmilling as it wishes. try it on a B17 or a P38. those are the greatest examples of "RPM-brakes"
-
why do people even cut engines to slow down? if you just go to min. throttle and keep RPM all the way up, it acts like a brake as its at a fixed speed and not windmilling as it wishes. try it on a B17 or a P38. those are the greatest examples of "RPM-brakes"
In the P-38? nope, just chopping throttle with full RPM isn't going to act like a brake. The P-38 is quite aerodynamic and retains energy quite well.
ack-ack
-
In the P-38? nope, just chopping throttle with full RPM isn't going to act like a brake. The P-38 is quite aerodynamic and retains energy quite well.
ack-ack
what i meant is it slows down faster than just cutting engines. would you rather have a hardly any brakes or at least some control over it?
-
what i meant is it slows down faster than just cutting engines. would you rather have a hardly any brakes or at least some control over it?
Speaking as someone that exclusively flies the P-38, just chopping throttle isn't enough if I want to bleed energy quickly.
ack-ack
-
In the P-38? nope, just chopping throttle with full RPM isn't going to act like a brake. The P-38 is quite aerodynamic and retains energy quite well.
ack-ack
The P38 has more drag than every single engine fighter of WWII.
The intersection drag is what kills it.
The p38 has 14 intersections while most single engine fighters had only 5.
The P38 also has two engine nacelles as well as cockpit pod counting toward frontal area.
This is one of the reasons the "pond racer" was not as fast as they though it would be.
-
The P38 has more drag than every single engine fighter of WWII.
The intersection drag is what kills it.
The p38 has 14 intersections while most single engine fighters had only 5.
The P38 also has two engine nacelles as well as cockpit pod counting toward frontal area.
This is one of the reasons the "pond racer" was not as fast as they though it would be.
NACA wind tunnels test of a YP-38 showed the Lightning to be an aerodynamically clean aircraft. If you have any data that shows the P-38 didn't retain energy very well or was not aerodynamic, please post it. Before you do though, I would suggest you read Warren Bodie's The Lockheed P-38 Lightning.
ack-ack
-
Coefficient of drag must still be multiplied by frontal area.
Frontal area and intersection drag is what kills the P38.
The fastest qualifying lap ever for a p38 is 390mph in air racing.
That's 100mph slower than the mustangs.
http://aerofiles.com/nar.html
Some familiar names in those early postwar races at cleveland.
http://www.airrace.com/
-
Back to the engine cutting for a moment... I'd respectfully submit there might be another motivation for cutting it out.
On a few occasions the last little while, I've been tooling along and spied somebody all by his lonesome on climbout. Having alt on them, I came in for the bounce, getting low six as I approached. I don't like to fire outside 600 on such an attack, I usually wait for the icon to go to 400 and then open up. What I've noticed in a lot of cases lately is right around the time the icon goes to 600, a guy that most likely can't see me from his canopy suddenly does a panic break. Again, we're the only two in icon range.
After considering it a bit, it occurred to me that we can hear other peoples' engine noise between 800 and 600 over your internal engine sounds.
Might people be wanting to use it as a gamey measure to help sneak up on people? On a related matter, I've never flown a single engine prop plane built for raw performance in close proximity to other aircraft, but I'm really having trouble believing you'd be able to hear another plane's engine 1/2 a mile away from you over your own engine.
Wiley.
-
I'm pretty sure that nobody flying a top line fighter in WWII ever heard the plane that bounced them.
-
I find it hard to believe that one could hear another's engine when one has 2000hp engine within 6 feet from oneself (in most single engine fighters).
-
I find it hard to believe that one could hear another's engine when one has 2000hp engine within 6 feet from oneself (in most single engine fighters).
I find it easier to see that theyve turned their engines off rather than hear it.
When im in pursuit of an AC, i like to keep an eye on their nose. If i see the props slow down or stop spinning, it warns me they've shut their engines off alot quicker than trying to listen for it.
-
I find it easier to see that theyve turned their engines off rather than hear it.
When im in pursuit of an AC, i like to keep an eye on their nose. If i see the props slow down or stop spinning, it warns me they've shut their engines off alot quicker than trying to listen for it.
you misunderstood what I said.. I stated, that in RL you wouldn't be able to hear weather they had their engine on or off, thus turning your engine off to sneak up on someone is absurd.
I do agree its easier to see it than to hear it, but it doesn't change that turning off your engine is dumb and 'gamey'. There are much better ways to accomplish the same goal.
1) to sneak up on some one..
come in below and behind them
2) Force an overshoot
cut throttle, make a hard turn create some separation and an off angle between the nose of the attacker and you, then do a barrel roll and pop them as they try to pull up and match your barrel roll.
3)To bleed speed
* cut throttle, point nose up
* turn hard, cut throttle
* slip the rudder, cut throttle
* snap roll by forcing a wingtip stall
* drop flaps and/or gear
-
1) to sneak up on some one..
come in below and behind them
Agreed on the other points, but they can hear you at that point, which is IMO equally absurd.
Maybe I wasn't clear in what I was saying. I could see there being an advantage as the bouncer to come in with smash, get low six, and 800-1000 out kill the engine and put RPMs to 0 so I can glide in silently to shoot him.
Gamey as hell, but so is his ability to hear the guy on his low six.
Wiley.
-
icepac, listen to ack, hes a g33k about his P38 :D he knows more about the P38 than most of us here. the P38 was just one of the planes that had just a smaller resistance to drag, its like saying cutting the engine in a P47 will slow it down in a dive instead of cutting throttle. either way, your still going to pick up some insane speed if you dive too quickly.
-
The fastest qualifying lap ever for a p38 is 390mph in air racing.
That's 100mph slower than the mustangs.
http://aerofiles.com/nar.html
Some familiar names in those early postwar races at cleveland.
http://www.airrace.com/
It's performance in an air race does not support your argument that the Lightning was not aerodynamically clean aircraft and wasn't able to retain energy very well. The top speed of the P-38L was 443mph and the only thing that really limited the Lightning from able to achieve greater power were limited by the wing leading edge intercoolers until the J model arrived.
This is pretty good article on the evolution of the speed and climb of the P-38 and goes into considerable detail about it's aerodynamic and energy retention properties over at the WWII Aircraft Performance site.
The P-38 Lightning - Evolution of Speed and Climb Performance (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-wayne.html)
ack-ack
-
The Mossie also lacks the ability to slow down rapidly just by throttling back. You have to slam the rudder hard over to get as much fuselage into the wind as possible.
De Haviland was initially going to include a frill airbrake on the Mossie due to concerns from Fighter Command that it would not slow down fast enough to get good firing solutions. The frill airbrake was abandoned when it was found that lowering the landing gear had the same effect. This doesn't work in AH because the landing gear cannot be lowered at high speeds without ripping them off.
-
On a few occasions the last little while, I've been tooling along and spied somebody all by his lonesome on climbout. Having alt on them, I came in for the bounce, getting low six as I approached. I don't like to fire outside 600 on such an attack, I usually wait for the icon to go to 400 and then open up. What I've noticed in a lot of cases lately is right around the time the icon goes to 600, a guy that most likely can't see me from his canopy suddenly does a panic break. Again, we're the only two in icon range.
After considering it a bit, it occurred to me that we can hear other peoples' engine noise between 800 and 600 over your internal engine sounds.
It might be they are those who turn off their own internal engine sounds to be able to hear someone on their six. I think internal and external engine sounds should be tied together to negate that bit of gaminess.
-
It might be they are those who turn off their own internal engine sounds to be able to hear someone on their six. I think internal and external engine sounds should be tied together to negate that bit of gaminess.
That I can remember, I've never touched my sound levels beyond vox, and I can hear a guy coming up behind me at about icon 800. A jet at 1000.
Wiley.
-
It's performance in an air race does not support your argument that the Lightning was not aerodynamically clean aircraft and wasn't able to retain energy very well. The top speed of the P-38L was 443mph and the only thing that really limited the Lightning from able to achieve greater power were limited by the wing leading edge intercoolers until the J model arrived.
This is pretty good article on the evolution of the speed and climb of the P-38 and goes into considerable detail about it's aerodynamic and energy retention properties over at the WWII Aircraft Performance site.
The P-38 Lightning - Evolution of Speed and Climb Performance (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-wayne.html)
ack-ack
I think you're wrong and invite you to come over to the AAFO forums and discuss the p38 aerodynamics with the guys who actually race planes at Reno.
A few of them actually raced P38s so you can get the opinions of someone with real life experience.
Just throw up a post and we'll see how well your unproven theory works out there.
I'll bring the popcorn.
http://www.aafo.com/hangartalk/forumdisplay.php?f=2
I wish I could go to reno this year but I'll be at NASA's kennedy space center doing high speed aerodynamic testing that weekend.
-
It might be they are those who turn off their own internal engine sounds to be able to hear someone on their six. I think internal and external engine sounds should be tied together to negate that bit of gaminess.
It was already tried, IIRC. remember when the new sound system first came out and there were only like 4 sliders and no advanced tab, people cried and cried about not being able to turn down their own engine sound to 0 anymore so they could hear external engines. :rolleyes: htc added back the advanced tab and they were again able to tweak it.
-
I think you're wrong and invite you to come over to the AAFO forums and discuss the p38 aerodynamics with the guys who actually race planes at Reno.
A few of them actually raced P38s so you can get the opinions of someone with real life experience.
Just throw up a post and we'll see how well your unproven theory works out there.
I'll bring the popcorn.
http://www.aafo.com/hangartalk/forumdisplay.php?f=2
I wish I could go to reno this year but I'll be at NASA's kennedy space center doing high speed aerodynamic testing that weekend.
:O Everyone get into the bunker!
-
Yes, it is realistic. Happened many times in the war... a pilot forgot to switch tanks and the engine dies. He switches tanks, turns it back on. One P-38 pilot was the first recorded to score a kill with engines off because this happened while he was just about to fire. He calmly coasted in for the shot then started up afterwards.
Even Hitech himself flies, and has mentioned on the forums how he's had his sputter out on him before, switched tanks and started up again.
Robin Olds had that happen when he was whacking a 109, claimed to be the only glider kill for the war.