Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Saxman on September 04, 2013, 08:51:32 AM
-
Ok, so my other thread has derailed into a slap fight over icons, so I'm separating this out into a new one.
A thought for complex engine management:
Most of the "Nays" come from people who believe that this would be a significant turn-off to new players, which probably isn't an inaccurate assessment. More to manage means more to worry about outside of just shooting stuff down. However if you think about it, there's already a couple aspects where AH provides similar assistance for players by simplifying the game:
Auto Takeoffs, Stall Limiter, Combat Trim, and Engine Governor.
Players who can't quite manage getting their machine off the ground can turn on auto-takeoffs, while Stall Limiter protect them from spins they might not be able to get out of. Combat Trim makes it easier to quickly adjust aircraft trim to keep it level for gunnery purposes, while the Engine Governor stops the engines on WWI machines from over-revving in a dive and blowing out.
All of them (well, except Auto Takeoff) also give players who DON'T use them a slight advantage, whether by giving them better control over their aircraft's flight characteristics, letting them push deeper into a stall to get a few extra DPS or shave a few extra feet off the turn, or pushing a little extra speed out of a dive.
So why not make complex engine management the same way: A clipboard option that can be turned on or off. Players who want to use it can, and those who don't won't have to worry about it. Maybe a player might want to risk running his cowl flaps or radiator closed at high power settings to reduce drag for a couple extra mph. Or maybe squeeze a little extra range or power out of their engine by tweaking their fuel mixture at the risk of starving it or detonation.
-
Sounds fun. I like it as an option.
-
i dunno Saxman, at one point in time i thought it might be a fun idea as well but, do you really want to set yourself up for engine failure due to not making the proper adjustment during a dogfight or in a furball? and if it's implemented as a player option, then you're essentially setting yourself up to be at a disadvantage against someone who chose not to implement it. something as simple as cowl flaps or fuel mixture can cause an engine failure in a relatively short period of time and time can go by fast in a dogfight (not talking about cherry picking or anything like that).
-
In the 1991 Dos game "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe" Engine management was pretty complex. Engines took damage over the target and if left running on top settings, would die. Oil temperature, oil pressure were important and you could cool engines down, lose some height and apply more power when needed to reach base. Also if you upped and headed to target on full throttle, the engine would overheat and performance would reduce, pilots needed to travel on cruise settings or damage their engines, if applied for long. I liked that idea of using skill to save or configure multiple engines that otherwise wouldn't have done the job all the way back from Berlin.
-
i dunno Saxman, at one point in time i thought it might be a fun idea as well but, do you really want to set yourself up for engine failure due to not making the proper adjustment during a dogfight or in a furball? and if it's implemented as a player option, then you're essentially setting yourself up to be at a disadvantage against someone who chose not to implement it. something as simple as cowl flaps or fuel mixture can cause an engine failure in a relatively short period of time and time can go by fast in a dogfight (not talking about cherry picking or anything like that).
The idea would also be that turning it on has its own advantages as well. IE the Engine Governor in WWI: Sure, you may risk blowing your engine in a full-power dive by over-revving it, but that might also give you just enough of an edge over an opponent to either escape or turn the tables.
This would be the same thing. You might risk burning out your engine by running your cowl flaps closed, but if it gives you a few extra mph that could mean the difference between a victory or getting shot down, wouldn't you like the option to exploit it?
-
Someone will be along shortly to point out that HiTech once told them he doesn't want engine management to be a lame sequential button pushing.
But really, what does he know? Contra was cool has hell!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Konami_Code.svg/800px-Konami_Code.svg.png)
-
As long as its easy to use ala Rise of Flight, then I'm all for it. Il-2 went for the straight up realism and it was a pain to manually manage the engine so I never turned it on. Rise of Flight also had complex engine management but they made extremely easy to use and therefore, it was always more entertaining to fly with complex engine management on. If AH can pull off the same method from RoF, then I would love to see this added.
-
I'm all for more realism. (I abhor the use of auto-takeoff or landing gear up)
Engine management however is so many times blown out of proportion. Here's how the B-17 and B-24 are handled....
For taxi mixtures are auto-rich (selected at start), prop High RPM, cowl flaps open. For takeoff the cowl flaps are closed to the "trail" position (just barely cracked open). After climb established power is reduced to "climb power". Manifold pressure (throttle) reduced to climb, prop RPM reduced to climb ---- nothing else changes. Once established at cruise altitude manifold pressure and RPM are again reduced to desired setting, mixture set to "auto lean" (if power setting selected permits) and as engine temps start down cowl flaps are fully closed. It might sound like a lot but it's not big deal after you've done it a couple of times. The guy that trained me on the B-17 made me fly the airplane by myself in the pattern -- I had to fly the airplane AND managed gear, flaps and power. It just isn't that big of a deal. And in game folks with have everything mapped to their HOTAS system and be able to configure with the flick of a finger negating any "realism" in the complexity of engine management.
Ok that's for a bomber....
Now someone will come along and say "what if you're in a fighter and bounced". Easy, mixture to auto-rich, prop control forward to high and throttle up as needed. Can pretty much be done without looking. Cooling systems changes can wait a bit, the engine won't instantly fail if you don't change them. With cowl flaps unless you get slow you probably won't need to change them from the cruise setting.
Being able to climb and cruise at 100% power is silly, but I think will be difficult to fix. Real life I've overboosted and overheated engines --- never had one fail because of it. It just isn't an "If A then B" type issue.
Saxman, I too would like more "flight sim" and less "game".
-
I'm all for more realism. (I abhor the use of auto-takeoff or landing gear up)
Engine management however is so many times blown out of proportion. Here's how the B-17 and B-24 are handled....
For taxi mixtures are auto-rich (selected at start), prop High RPM, cowl flaps open. For takeoff the cowl flaps are closed to the "trail" position (just barely cracked open). After climb established power is reduced to "climb power". Manifold pressure (throttle) reduced to climb, prop RPM reduced to climb ---- nothing else changes. Once established at cruise altitude manifold pressure and RPM are again reduced to desired setting, mixture set to "auto lean" (if power setting selected permits) and as engine temps start down cowl flaps are fully closed. It might sound like a lot but it's not big deal after you've done it a couple of times. The guy that trained me on the B-17 made me fly the airplane by myself in the pattern -- I had to fly the airplane AND managed gear, flaps and power. It just isn't that big of a deal. And in game folks with have everything mapped to their HOTAS system and be able to configure with the flick of a finger negating any "realism" in the complexity of engine management.
Ok that's for a bomber....
Now someone will come along and say "what if you're in a fighter and bounced". Easy, mixture to auto-rich, prop control forward to high and throttle up as needed. Can pretty much be done without looking. Cooling systems changes can wait a bit, the engine won't instantly fail if you don't change them. With cowl flaps unless you get slow you probably won't need to change them from the cruise setting.
Being able to climb and cruise at 100% power is silly, but I think will be difficult to fix. Real life I've overboosted and overheated engines --- never had one fail because of it. It just isn't an "If A then B" type issue.
Saxman, I too would like more "flight sim" and less "game".
Same for me. Fighters would be somewhat simpler, less controls and gauges to manipulate and monitor. The P-51 is similar to what you describe, Columbo, except oil and coolant doors are in an auto position and cycle as necessary to maintain temperatures within required ranges.
-
Being able to climb and cruise at 100% power is silly, but I think will be difficult to fix. Real life I've overboosted and overheated engines --- never had one fail because of it.
This is the problem with the "realism" settings in games like Il-2. They make it so that if you do A, then B WILL blow up in your face and call it "realistic." When more accurately it would be if you do A, there's a CHANCE of B or C happening to ruin your day, but you might be able to get away with it and be fine. It's the latter I'm going for with this: Abuse your engine and there's a chance it will explode, but you might be able to tweak a little extra speed or power which could make the difference in a fight and come home without a problem.
Same for me. Fighters would be somewhat simpler, less controls and gauges to manipulate and monitor. The P-51 is similar to what you describe, Columbo, except oil and coolant doors are in an auto position and cycle as necessary to maintain temperatures within required ranges.
And this would work into the advantages and disadvantages of flying one aircraft type over another. Early aircraft might lack constant speed propellers requiring closer management of pitch/rpm when you adjust the throttle. Some might have automatic radiators or cowl flaps while others have to be managed manually. Some aircraft couldn't set their fuel to auto-rich and had to adjust the mixture manually.
-
Would it result in increased performance over what we have now? I don't think so. I think performance would need to be reduced for those not using it rather than increased for using it.
And then you get to the point that not all aircraft are created equally in terms of needing to be fiddled with. The BMW Fw190s had a mechanical computer that changed the engine settings to match throttle settings, very sophisticated and helpful in reducing pilot workload. I've heard the Spit XIV failed as a race plane at Reno because while it is fast initially the radiators automatically open up as the engine gets hot and that creates drag, but it is automatic.
In terms of Mossie management the fuel had to be changed manually and if you didn't change to a new tank the engines would starve.
FWIW, I also eschew the automated stuff in AH, but I think that this isn't as viable as you make it to be.
-
And this would work into the advantages and disadvantages of flying one aircraft type over another. Early aircraft might lack constant speed propellers requiring closer management of pitch/rpm when you adjust the throttle. Some might have automatic radiators or cowl flaps while others have to be managed manually. Some aircraft couldn't set their fuel to auto-rich and had to adjust the mixture manually.
Very true. Complex is the key word. My guess is HT keeps it in the less complex mode for what is most attractive for the majority of players.
-
Would it result in increased performance over what we have now? I don't think so. I think performance would need to be reduced for those not using it rather than increased for using it.
And then you get to the point that not all aircraft are created equally in terms of needing to be fiddled with. The BMW Fw190s had a mechanical computer that changed the engine settings to match throttle settings, very sophisticated and helpful in reducing pilot workload. I've heard the Spit XIV failed as a race plane at Reno because while it is fast initially the radiators automatically open up as the engine gets hot and that creates drag, but it is automatic.
In terms of Mossie management the fuel had to be changed manually and if you didn't change to a new tank the engines would starve.
FWIW, I also eschew the automated stuff in AH, but I think that this isn't as viable as you make it to be.
True points all around, but it would certainly add to the individual character of the aircraft if more of these minutiae are modeled (I still keep hoping to see the Corsair's blow-up/spring-operated flaps modeled).
Maybe there's a way they can introduce those features more slowly rather than doing them all at once? Say, start by modeling fuel mixture at first. Then after players get accustomed to that, add the cooling systems.
Very true. Complex is the key word. My guess is HT keeps it in the less complex mode for what is most attractive for the majority of players.
That's why I'd still make it a clipboard option to turn off or on. Players who want it can use it, those who don't won't have to, but have the same sort of advantage to using it for those who take on the extra work (depending on the plane as Karnak points out).
-
Well there is a way to do this without making it to hard on the nonpilots, that dont understand about manifold pressure, mixture, and RPM. I doubt that it will be viable but it would be simpler than having to run with complex settings. Jut make it so that if a pilot runs his engine at 100% for more than 7 minutes there is either a loss of power, or the engine craters, if he or she is in WEP for more than 3 minutes, the engine has a catastrophic failure. I do like the idea of complex engine management but I also believe it would run some of the noobs off.
-
Well there is a way to do this without making it to hard on the nonpilots, that dont understand about manifold pressure, mixture, and RPM. I doubt that it will be viable but it would be simpler than having to run with complex settings. Jut make it so that if a pilot runs his engine at 100% for more than 7 minutes there is either a loss of power, or the engine craters, if he or she is in WEP for more than 3 minutes, the engine has a catastrophic failure. I do like the idea of complex engine management but I also believe it would run some of the noobs off.
And this won't? It would be even LESS realistic than what we already have.
I'm reinforcing this because I think some people are missing this part of it: MAKE IT A CLIPBOARD OPTION. It comes with a risk if you don't follow the procedures, but you may get a small advantage out of it as well. Think of it like overclocking your CPU: You can forget about it and leave it be with no risk (Complex Management Off). Or you can fiddle with the settings (Complex Management On). If you do it right you get a bit of extra power. Or you can completely screw up and melt it and your motherboard.
-
Well there is a way to do this without making it to hard on the nonpilots, that dont understand about manifold pressure, mixture, and RPM. I doubt that it will be viable but it would be simpler than having to run with complex settings. Jut make it so that if a pilot runs his engine at 100% for more than 7 minutes there is either a loss of power, or the engine craters, if he or she is in WEP for more than 3 minutes, the engine has a catastrophic failure. I do like the idea of complex engine management but I also believe it would run some of the noobs off.
:airplane: I to would like to see more complex engine management, but I understand why it is not a requirement in order to enjoy this game. I have included a videro by "Climber", flying a P-51D and the terrain is set in China. It is a good video, but Climber is not a pilot in real life, so a couple of comments you might raise your eyebrows at, but overall, he did a great job in showing what has to been accomplished in order to fly the P-51! He also has a video on two different Spitfires and a Boeing 377 "Stratocruiser".
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6CZeaqz7ae0bVMwVWRGZkt2UGM/edit?usp=sharing
There is a lot to be said for "immersion" in the game and while a lot of people in here only want to dogfight, shoot down airplanes and just generally satisfy their desire to someday become a real pilot, there are also a lot people who would like to see more "realism" in flying the aircraft in this game.
-
the AVA should be turned into a full "realism" arena....
full engine management...no icons.....friendly collisions....and fire....(once air born)
changes in radar.....no dots on map.....rolling plane sets that change every 2/3 days
objectives that need to be complete....missions that have AI that fill the spots that a person would fill if not enough people are in mission....
have missions that can be chosen that will get what is required done....if the missions fail, you don't get any points or perks at all.
sounds like fun, but I think it would be a ghost town.
-
And this won't? It would be even LESS realistic than what we already have.
I'm reinforcing this because I think some people are missing this part of it: MAKE IT A CLIPBOARD OPTION. It comes with a risk if you don't follow the procedures, but you may get a small advantage out of it as well. Think of it like overclocking your CPU: You can forget about it and leave it be with no risk (Complex Management Off). Or you can fiddle with the settings (Complex Management On). If you do it right you get a bit of extra power. Or you can completely screw up and melt it and your motherboard.
that would be cool for those who want it, however with one exception. you cant change it in mid flight. have it set in the hangar. if you decide to use it you better know that you cant change it 1/2 a fight just to avoid damaging an engine you over "managed".
semp
-
While I would love to turn my 109E-4 essentially into an E-7, it seems like an awful lot of work for an optional feature.
They would have to code fuel mixtures, cowl flaps, etc as variables dependent on altitude, manifold pressure, etc. Then they would have to code tolerances (probably different for each engine), which would probably be arbitrary values, since theres no real data on this type of thing, etc.
All that for an optional feature?
-
that would be cool for those who want it, however with one exception. you cant change it in mid flight. have it set in the hangar. if you decide to use it you better know that you cant change it 1/2 a fight just to avoid damaging an engine you over "managed".
semp
Yeah. I think most of the other clipboard options (tracers, stall limiter, gunsights, etc.) already do that. If you change the option mid-flight it doesn't go into effect until you tower out and launch a fresh sortie.
While I would love to turn my 109E-4 essentially into an E-7, it seems like an awful lot of work for an optional feature.
They would have to code fuel mixtures, cowl flaps, etc as variables dependent on altitude, manifold pressure, etc. Then they would have to code tolerances (probably different for each engine), which would probably be arbitrary values, since theres no real data on this type of thing, etc.
All that for an optional feature?
You could say the exact same thing about it in almost ANY combat sim where it's available.
-
Ok, so my other thread has derailed into a slap fight over icons, so I'm separating this out into a new one.
A thought for complex engine management:
Most of the "Nays" come from people who believe that this would be a significant turn-off to new players, which probably isn't an inaccurate assessment. More to manage means more to worry about outside of just shooting stuff down. However if you think about it, there's already a couple aspects where AH provides similar assistance for players by simplifying the game:
Auto Takeoffs, Stall Limiter, Combat Trim, and Engine Governor.
Players who can't quite manage getting their machine off the ground can turn on auto-takeoffs, while Stall Limiter protect them from spins they might not be able to get out of. Combat Trim makes it easier to quickly adjust aircraft trim to keep it level for gunnery purposes, while the Engine Governor stops the engines on WWI machines from over-revving in a dive and blowing out.
All of them (well, except Auto Takeoff) also give players who DON'T use them a slight advantage, whether by giving them better control over their aircraft's flight characteristics, letting them push deeper into a stall to get a few extra DPS or shave a few extra feet off the turn, or pushing a little extra speed out of a dive.
So why not make complex engine management the same way: A clipboard option that can be turned on or off. Players who want to use it can, and those who don't won't have to worry about it. Maybe a player might want to risk running his cowl flaps or radiator closed at high power settings to reduce drag for a couple extra mph. Or maybe squeeze a little extra range or power out of their engine by tweaking their fuel mixture at the risk of starving it or detonation.
Pop-quiz:
Throttle lever does?
Prop lever does?
Mixture lever does?
Boost pumps do?
Engine primer?
Starter switch?
Mags switch?
Preoiler?
And you want these systems (adn more) included in your casual entertainment? Not that manual starting and engine management isn't fun, but after doing it 20-30 times a night... not to mention if we shut down on the rearm pad for a piss break and try to hotstart some engines only a minute or two later, just lol.
No. Not only is it a hazard to new players, it's dangerous in that the more experienced will have a huge advantage over everyone else. Currently without it and the WEP-timer system helps keep a more even playing field while also making it noob-friendly. Not to mention hardware support/availability issues. I don't have a 3-slider throttle quadrant or joystick, everyone will need to buy or make one of these eventualy to have the best control. Then all the planes will need some remodeling in the cockpit so more than just the throttle lever moves when you change that setting.
-
Pop-quiz:
Throttle lever does? Throttles
Prop lever does? Pitches
Mixture lever does? Riches or leans.
Boost pumps do? Boosts - vroom.
Engine primer? Primes to start.
Starter switch? Starts - contact.
Mags switch? Magnetos. Not the X-man villian.
Preoiler? Lubricates. The wife and I ... oh ... nevermind.
You're right. I'd like to think all this mundane engine-sitting is what my virtual cartoon pilot does on instinct while I, as a player, drink a beer.
-
I think any consideration of engine management should start with a recognition that the only things for consideration should be the things that are changed in flight. Anything that is done as part of the start up should be off the table as it is just needless button pushing and can reasonably be thought of as being rolled into the pressing of the E key to start the engine.
-
No. Not only is it a hazard to new players, it's dangerous in that the more experienced will have a huge advantage over everyone else. Currently without it and the WEP-timer system helps keep a more even playing field while also making it noob-friendly.
Why does everyone keep skipping the "optional" part? Don't want to use it, don't turn it on. Just expect to not quite get as much out of your aircraft as those who use it in the same manner of Stall Limiter and the Engine Governor. :P
-
Why does everyone keep skipping the "optional" part? Don't want to use it, don't turn it on. Just expect to not quite get as much out of your aircraft as those who use it in the same manner of Stall Limiter and the Engine Governor. :P
Keep in mind that for this to work the current performance would need to be the result of "complex engine management" being enabled. By default everything would need to perform a little worse than it does now when automatic engine management is selected.
Why?
Because the gains to be had are not even. I can't really think of anything that a Mossie pilot could do, enginewise, to eek out a bit more performance. All you can do is set higher boost, but that is controlled by the WEP system. The Mossie driver doesn't have cowl flaps to fiddle with. I don't even think its radiators open and close.
I don't care to have F4U's gain performance on me just because they have a checkbox for complex engine management that actually does something for them. Hence, F4Us with complex engine management should perform as they do now and the ones without it checked should lose a few MPH and a little climb.
-
Keep in mind that for this to work the current performance would need to be the result of "complex engine management" being enabled. By default everything would need to perform a little worse than it does now when automatic engine management is selected.
Why?
Because the gains to be had are not even. I can't really think of anything that a Mossie pilot could do, enginewise, to eek out a bit more performance. All you can do is set higher boost, but that is controlled by the WEP system. The Mossie driver doesn't have cowl flaps to fiddle with. I don't even think its radiators open and close.
I don't care to have F4U's gain performance on me just because they have a checkbox for complex engine management that actually does something for them. Hence, F4Us with complex engine management should perform as they do now and the ones without it checked should lose a few MPH and a little climb.
Oh sure, considerations for how to actually implement the system would should be made. I'm just not sure where people keep seeing that I want this to be made mandatory and not a player choice like the Stall Limiter and Engine Governor.
-
the reason engine management is not in AH, is Hitech wanted a "game" that was about "Combat" above all else...
he said something along those lines :old:
this says it all.
Aces High takes the art and science of vintage WW1 and WW2 air combat and sets it in a high intensity online multiplayer environment. Hundreds of players simultaneously battle it out against each other in massive aerial dogfights and bomber raids.
High fidelity flight simulation is the heart of Aces High but it doesn't end there. A war rages on the ground and at sea. Engage enemy armor in tank combat. Protect your fleet as a gunner or make a torpedo run in a PT boat. Lead an assault in an amphibious vehicle. With over 100 warbirds, vehicles, and boats available, you have access to a vast virtual arsenal.
Take part in special events such as historical scenarios where famous battles are recreated and reimagined or try your hand at air racing at tree top level against skilled competitors.
In the air, on land, and at sea, the battle rages 24 hours a day with participants from around the world. Take our free two week trial and find out why Aces High is the online game for you.
-
Do people not read the "optional" part or something?
-
Oh sure, considerations for how to actually implement the system would should be made. I'm just not sure where people keep seeing that I want this to be made mandatory and not a player choice like the Stall Limiter and Engine Governor.
If it nets even 1mph of speed over not having it selected it would be mandatory for me.
Not saying it would be mandatory for everybody, but it would be for me.
-
Do people not read the "optional" part or something?
Maybe I should just usebig letters like ink is to get my point across that the wish is to make it optional.
-
Do people not read the "optional" part or something?
I dont think hitech does. as much as I would like to see some dweeb try to micromanage his engine in a furball.
semp
-
You're right. I'd like to think all this mundane engine-sitting is what my virtual cartoon pilot does on instinct while I, as a player, drink a beer.
boost pump is wrong.
-
boost pump is wrong.
Imagine that. Think I'll have another beer. :D
-
Do people not read the "optional" part or something?
You haven't read HiTechs old responces along the lines of not allowing an option to give players an advantage over others. Exception being the stall limiter, to assist new players with overcoming the challenges of learning to fly while participating in combat. I've also remembered he has also directly responded to an older wish for a more complex engine management feature.
Imagine that. Think I'll have another beer. :D
A gas powered engine starts with its gear-driven fuel pump how?... /mind blown
As you contemplate being one of the many unable to get your plane started on the ground - save a cold on for me. Night classes ftw!
-
A gas powered engine starts with its gear-driven fuel pump how?... /mind blown
As you contemplate being one of the many unable to get your plane started on the ground - save a cold on for me. Night classes ftw!
I've never had a problem so far. I don't anticipate one. There's an illustration here. Beer? :D
-
Keep in mind that for this to work the current performance would need to be the result of "complex engine management" being enabled. By default everything would need to perform a little worse than it does now when automatic engine management is selected.
Why?
Because the gains to be had are not even. I can't really think of anything that a Mossie pilot could do, enginewise, to eek out a bit more performance. All you can do is set higher boost, but that is controlled by the WEP system. The Mossie driver doesn't have cowl flaps to fiddle with. I don't even think its radiators open and close.
I don't care to have F4U's gain performance on me just because they have a checkbox for complex engine management that actually does something for them. Hence, F4Us with complex engine management should perform as they do now and the ones without it checked should lose a few MPH and a little climb.
I do not like the idea of having a complex engine management, but if it is implemented then in my opinion it should give better performance for a short time only. Automatic mode should keep the engine at it`s optimum performance at all times without overheating. Shutting cowl flaps manually or leaning the mixture would give short term speed or climb rate increase, but this should also overheat the engine when used for too long.
-
I do not like the idea of having a complex engine management, but if it is implemented then in my opinion it should give better performance for a short time only. Automatic mode should keep the engine at it`s optimum performance at all times without overheating. Shutting cowl flaps manually or leaning the mixture would give short term speed or climb rate increase, but this should also overheat the engine when used for too long.
That's why if you read the whole thread I pretty much said from the start it should come with a bit of risk.
You haven't read HiTechs old responces along the lines of not allowing an option to give players an advantage over others. Exception being the stall limiter, to assist new players with overcoming the challenges of learning to fly while participating in combat.
Engine Governor.
Doesn't assist new players with overcoming the challenges of learning to fly while participating in combat at all, just does something to stop the player from making a power-on dive to prevent over-revving and blowing out the engine. And flying with it off DEFINITELY provides a clear advantage.
-
Saxman: I understand your desire. But you seem to not have the real view of what the controls do in real life.
On most planes prop,mixture, and throttle can all be set to their fighting position with 1 hand simultaneously.
Btw I assume you already use the prop control on every flight?
P.S.
Prop,mixture, boost pump, gear down and bolted, tank on the fullest. Speeds coming down, flaps cracked.
HiTech
-
Btw I assume you already use the prop control on every flight?
Yes. Soon as I hit alt in the Corsairs I'm on 36 MAP at 2150 RPM. If it's not a scramble I'll drop to Normal power for climb to altitude once I'm wheels up. Always have E6B open once I spawn to check power settings, especially in rides I don't use as often.
-
Yes. Soon as I hit alt in the Corsairs I'm on 36 MAP at 2150 RPM. If it's not a scramble I'll drop to Normal power for climb to altitude once I'm wheels up. Always have E6B open once I spawn to check power settings, especially in rides I don't use as often.
Kind of related, kind of an aside... I'd heard mention from more than one RW pilot in these games that climbing out, you're better to run full throttle until you reach your desired altitude, then drop back to your normal or cruise settings. The impression I had gotten was the increased fuel burn due to the higher settings was offset by spending less time at low altitude. Is that wrong?
Wiley.
-
Kind of related, kind of an aside... I'd heard mention from more than one RW pilot in these games that climbing out, you're better to run full throttle until you reach your desired altitude, then drop back to your normal or cruise settings. The impression I had gotten was the increased fuel burn due to the higher settings was offset by spending less time at low altitude. Is that wrong?
Wiley.
Correct. Generally it is more efficient to climb at best rate airspeed and power until reaching cruise speed. The idea is the fuel burned is offset by the savings you get from the higher rate of climb (less time at climb power) and better economy once at altitude.
-
Kind of related, kind of an aside... I'd heard mention from more than one RW pilot in these games that climbing out, you're better to run full throttle until you reach your desired altitude, then drop back to your normal or cruise settings. The impression I had gotten was the increased fuel burn due to the higher settings was offset by spending less time at low altitude. Is that wrong?
Wiley.
:airplane: I found over the years, my objective dictated my climb procedures. Do I want to travel as far as I can while climbing? (Cruise Climb settings). Do I want to gain as much altitude as quickly as possible?. (Best RATE of climb, in feet per minute). Do I want to go as far as I can and gain as much altitude as I can at the same time? (Best sustainable power setting, without incurring cooling problems).
While we are not confronted with cooling problems in AH when climbing out, in some RL aircraft, it is a problem which has to be monitored closely as you climb, such as the Cessna 421, an executive twin-engine aircraft, with IGSO-540 engines, the P & W R-985 in Model 18's, a radial engine, sometimes you have to climb at a higher airspeed because of cooling requirements. While if you have a mission profile which requires maximum fuel endurance, you have to first keep the CHT's in limits, it is best in those two aircraft to climb at "full-rich" mixture settings because fuel helps cool the engine. I think AH has it about right for the majority of players in this game.
-
If it's modeled correctly, it would give me an advantage since I design engine management systems for a living.
Bring it on and don't whine when you burn a piston.
-
If it's modeled correctly, it would give me an advantage since I design engine management systems for a living.
Bring it on and don't whine when you burn a piston.
:airplane: If you have a EGT gauge, then you could adjust mixtures for best fuel management and best climb power setting. I think that would be the extreme engine management requirement for the new guys! Of course you would have to have working mixture controls and that we are not going to have in this game! (At least I don't think so)