Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: BBinder on July 28, 2003, 07:50:44 AM
-
i think it be cool to have engine stalls
say like when ur on runway u start ur engine and it'll decide to stall
also have egine stalls in flight
-
I'll pass on that one, but you can always just hit "E" when you think it's time for one.:)
-
engine stalls eh? well just get a friend like mine who likes to come over and push random buttons while your flying and then you can have random engine stalls.
-
This is an interesting idea. Yes, it has been mentioned before, but perhaps it could be modified just a bit. I don't think there should be random failures in the Main Arena (MA). The MA is not the slightest bit about realism (in terms of recreating WW2). It is about a no-holds barred team free-for-all. As AH2 is developed, it seems as if the MA will be for the fun and practice of what is to come in the Mission Arena (MisA).
Now, the MisA seems to be about recreating the feel of WW2 and the missions/battles that occurred during the war (i.e. bomber raids on Berlin, carrier battles in the Central Pacific, etc.). If there was an arena setting that would enable random failures in one arena but allow them to be disabled in another, I would be all for it. Failures of non-critical systems would be cool.
To be clear, let me use the F6F-5 as an example (only because I know more about it than other planes in the game). Failures of certain systems that are non-critical, but could affect how you fight could include:
1) Failure of WEP
2) Failure of supercharger to shift into high blower - reduced hi-alt performance
3) Gun jams
4) tail hook failure (may have to add the barracades to the decks of the CV's)
5) gunsight failure (no sight image)
6) instead of engine failures, maybe some kind of reduced performance of the engine or "rough" running engine.
Anything along those lines that will not keep the plane from fighting but could or can change the way it is fought and allow the pilot to return to base. Keep in mind, this is completely seperate from any kind of battle damage (i.e. damage could kill the engine whereas a random event would not)
Again, this could be something that could add to the realism of the MisA without keeping someone from actually flying or taking part (as an outright engine failure would be). When it comes to the MA, though, I think it would be an incredibly bad decision to implement something like this there.
Oh well, just my thoughts on this topic. Take it for what its worth (not much, I'm sure).
-math
-
Does AH model engine damage from extended inverted flight?
ack-ack
-
No.
-
Failure of throttle systems.. <- this one is in FB.
Get hit in the wrong place, and your throttle doesn't respond, jammed and stuck. Makes those emergency landings really interesting..
-
It would be nice to see degradation of engine (or other systems) due to damage. Right now things either work or they are dead - there is no middle ground.
-
Originally posted by Pei
Lord Flasheart:
You should treat your aircraft like you treat your woman!
Captain Blackadder:
So you should take your plane out to dinner and a movie?
Lord Flasheart:
No, get in her 5 times a day and take her to heaven and back!
That was some of the funniest crap I have ever seen. Black Adder was Rowan Atkinson's greatest stuff IMO.
I liked the Queen Elizabeth one too (Black Adder II I believe). Haven't seen any of the first series though.
-
Since it's not modeled in the current AH, I think at the least in AH2 there should be engine damage from prolonged inverted flight.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Since it's not modeled in the current AH, I think at the least in AH2 there should be engine damage from prolonged inverted flight.
ack-ack
Surely not all engines would take damage? (I'm guessing you mean the oil system is less effective?)
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Failure of throttle systems.. <- this one is in FB.
Get hit in the wrong place, and your throttle doesn't respond, jammed and stuck. Makes those emergency landings really interesting..
I already have that !
saitek stick are the suck !
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Surely not all engines would take damage? (I'm guessing you mean the oil system is less effective?)
Only the planes that didn't have any type of inverted oil system. Planes without those would lose oil pressure and damage the engine if inverted too long.
ack-ack
-
Interesting. How would this affect radial engines, and the DB which was an inverted V?
-
Good question and I really don't know the answer.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Failure of throttle systems.. <- this one is in FB.
Get hit in the wrong place, and your throttle doesn't respond, jammed and stuck. Makes those emergency landings really interesting..
Just close the fuel supply.
edit: This should be done at every emergency landing anyway.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Interesting. How would this affect radial engines, and the DB which was an inverted V?
OK, I asked a resident Big Weeker and former WW2 pilot, Earl, about this and this is what he said about his own experience. I think by his answer you can come to the conclusion that not many US aircraft had such an oil system to support prolonged inverted flight. Earl not only flew the P-47 but also had combat experience in the P-38G, P-39N/Q in the MTO so he's speaking from experience in a broad range of aircraft.
The only fighter I know that had a provision for supplying oil to the engine while in continuos inverted flight (although, for the life of me, I don't know why), was the P-47N. One of the check list items for the maintenance test flights that I conducted was to check the oil pressure while the aircraft was inverted with negative G's. The P-47N had an oil sump that would rotate with regard to G forces. I would check to make sure the oil pressure came back up to normal after commencing inverted flight.
earl
ack-ack
-
Interesting, so the problem would be in the oilpump design and it's corresponding system, not in the engine itself. (Normal engines like those in cars cannot be run inverted because of the oilpan would flood the engine with oil, or so a mechanic friend of mine says. He was allso very sceptical to how the 4-stroke DB could work with inverted cylinders, most radials were 2-stroke so that was ok.)
-
From Earl's comments I'd say you're correct. I do find it strange though that more fighters didn't have an inverted oil system to provide oil while in inverted flight. You would think it would have been standard because of the nature of the planes and what was required of them. I know that the P-38 had no such system in place.
ack-ack
-
you guys shoulda been @ the con... HiTech talked a lot about the inverted oil sump for his plane that he wants :D
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
From Earl's comments I'd say you're correct. I do find it strange though that more fighters didn't have an inverted oil system to provide oil while in inverted flight. You would think it would have been standard because of the nature of the planes and what was required of them. I know that the P-38 had no such system in place.
ack-ack
Perhaps ,because you don't fly long inverted in combat ?
How long can resist an engine when working inverted ?
If it's (for example) 5 minutes there is no need for a special equipement
-
scholz...
radial engines are 2 strokes!!!????
-
From what I read, the P-38 will sustain 10 seconds of inverted flight safely. After that, you're pushing your luck. I'll try and find the link, but it was awhile ago. Could be anywhere. :confused:
-
Hmm and how many pilots in ww2 wanted to fly extended periods under negative G?
Its not inverted thats the issue.. as much as negative G surely...?
SKurj
-
Originally posted by SKurj
Hmm and how many pilots in ww2 wanted to fly extended periods under negative G?
Its not inverted thats the issue.. as much as negative G surely...?
SKurj
This is from the war story of Charles Hoffman. In this part he's talking about the fly-bys of the "Black Cat" squadron of the 155th Autonomous Fighter Group and how they were able to fly inverted for prolonged periods and why the P-38 couldn't.
A co-occupant of the airdrome was the famous Italian Air Force “Black Cat” squadron of the 155th Autonomous Fighter Group. They were touted to be on par with the German “Yellow-Nose” squadron. The rumor was that only fighter aces could fly with them. Later we found that this was not true, but I will say they were good pilots. Since their Macchi 202s, 205s, and Reggiane 2001s could fly inverted, the Italians would buzz the field in a tight formation with half of the planes inverted. Our planes were limited to a very short time in the inverted position. The P-38 did not have a fuel injection system and the oil system needed gravity to work properly. In the inverted position, the engines quickly became starved for lubrication and fuel. All the Italian planes were exceptional aircraft. We were glad the Germans insisted on flying their own aircraft.
From this guy's comments and from Earl's earlier, it sounds more like flying inverted is the problem rather than pulling negative Gs, as would be the problem with the Spitfire I.
Originally posted by straffo
Perhaps ,because you don't fly long inverted in combat ?
How long can resist an engine when working inverted ?
If it's (for example) 5 minutes there is no need for a special equipement
If the P-38 was unable to fly the length of a field inverted without the engine becoming starved for lubrication or fuel or that when Earl test flew a P-47N, he had to make sure the oil pressure returned to normal after commencing inverted flight. And that was in a plane that was equipped with an inverted oil system. So the time probably wasn't all that long before you started seeing problems with the engine.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
scholz...
radial engines are 2 strokes!!!????
I believe most of them were yeah. Ever noticed that blue-grey smoke pouring out of the exhaust as they start up, you don't see that on the V's. The blue-grey smoke would be from the oil they had to mix with the fuel to lubricate the piston-heads. Didn't the B-17 have huge oil tanks in the inner wing section?
-
wow.....yes they do smoke..and b-17s have veryy large oil reserves...but....
i really thought they had valves...like a 4 stroke...
strange..
BiGB
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
wow.....yes they do smoke..and b-17s have veryy large oil reserves...but....
i really thought they had valves...like a 4 stroke...
strange..
BiGB
LOL alltho a radial could be a 2 stroke just as any other engine configuration could be a 2 stroke. The b17 radials are not. They are 4 stroke. Engine configuration has little to do with inverted flight and has everthing to do with wether the engine is as DRY SUMP or not. A wet sump engine stores oil in the crankcase when inverted the oil would flow down the oil passages into the valve cover and or lifter valley on V configured engines. Not to mention all the drag of the oil on the crank rods and pistons. A dry sump engine can run at any angle. The engine in the bf109s are inverted V ie the crank is on the top and the heads are on the bottom it is dry sump. I wont pretend to know startup procedures of radial engine but it would seem to me part of the cause of blue smoke at startup is from oil film leaking past the rings and pooling in the lower cylinders. I seem to recall that radial must be turned thru several revolutions to clear oil from lower cylinders.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I believe most of them were yeah. Ever noticed that blue-grey smoke pouring out of the exhaust as they start up, you don't see that on the V's. The blue-grey smoke would be from the oil they had to mix with the fuel to lubricate the piston-heads. Didn't the B-17 have huge oil tanks in the inner wing section?
gscholz, this is from the oil that deposits in the upside down cylinder heads on radials. They are 4stroke and not 2stroke. Common practice was to hand turn the propeller a few times to clear the pistons of oil before starting.
;)
-
I can't think of a plane (other than utrlights) ever built with a 2 stroke.
HiTech
-
BD5 had a 2 stroke engine, and it wasn't any type of ultralight.
just to be contrary
-
And now I know that! :)
-
So HiTech,
You saying if that GPS Unit, say, shows up in your mailbox, that the 'donor' might be able to name his/her airplane of choice to be in AH2?
-
Originally posted by HavocTM
You saying if that GPS Unit, say, shows up in your mailbox, that the 'donor' might be able to name his/her airplane of choice to be in AH2?
I think you need Pyro's bribe link for that.
-
Havoc: I "said" nothing of the sort, but a 430 would put me in such a great mood that I might forget how we never take players suggestions, and let a certain suggestion get into the game.
HiTech :)
-
What the heck... it's only $10K. :D
-
Sopwith Camel! :D
-
thank you ice..i knew that did not seem right...
i just flew 50 min in a b-24(ragons Tail)....the b-17 "909" was next to us in formation flight....
the b-17 was experincing leak in the valve sleeve returns..somthen like that..it was pouring out smoke...so i was talkn to the b-17 crew and they did say "valves",,,,so when i hear 2-stroke and "valves" didnt think that was right...
btw..HELL NO DO NOT MODEL RANDOM ENGINE FAILURE....
i would be so pissed to grab to 15k,,and have my ftr eng die,....
Salute
BiGB
-
If we could model engine failures to happen *only* to the MAWs I would be all for it! :-)
Hell, it might even be worth a 25 year old MacAllan!
-
B24 and B17 flying in formation!!!
So where are the pics BGB get some posted.
BTW some 2 strokes do have valve atho not in the sense of a 4 stroke valve. Most modern 2 strokes use a reed valve. Then there is the old rotory valve system.
HT how much to induce a random eng failure on havoc every time he took off? Since its not a new plane would a case of scotch do or do I have to buck up with the 420?
TTTHHHPPPTTTT Havoc
-
filmed it ice..its on dvd now..will try to post pics,,,was frikn great!!!!!
amnd ya i got "power valves " in exhaUSt ports on my yz 125 eng.
and my 1975 rd 125 twin got some brand new reeds:)