improved engine/aircraft model

[Karnak]

I would not want random total engine failure to be programmed into AH and I have been blatantly clear about that...actually I wouldn't want anything random at all...it would have to be based on percentages...and things like cowl and radiator flaps would have to be incorporated.

In other words, you want us to have to baby the engines like they are old, restored warbirds, not front line fighters being used in an actual war.

Also, your comment about cowl and radiator flaps makes it clear you really don't know how these engines worked and just want complexity stuff added, not realism.

[gyrene81]

See Rule #4

[Karnak]

Geez you are full of erroneous information aren't you? Care to try and educate me on how cowl flaps worked and what their purpose was? How about the radiator flaps?



It's very obvious you know less than I do about how piston aircraft engines worked...or any engines for that matter.

You seem to think they magically stopped the extremely fragile engines from breaking, which you think they would do almost immediately on exceeding the limits in the pilots handbook.

Here's a hint for you, Il-2 is not a valid source of data.

[Saxman]

In other words, you want us to have to baby the engines like they are old, restored warbirds, not front line fighters being used in an actual war.

Also, your comment about cowl and radiator flaps makes it clear you really don't know how these engines worked and just want complexity stuff added, not realism.

I'd like to know what he DOES want, then. Without having to hunt through the 20-odd pages of the LAST thread on this subject. Because he's not being very clear OR consistent.

[gyrene81]

You seem to think they magically stopped the extremely fragile engines from breaking, which you think they would do almost immediately on exceeding the limits in the pilots handbook.

Here's a hint for you, Il-2 is not a valid source of data.

LOL...like I suspected.

IL2 doesn't model "magical" engine temperature recovery...I've tried it...perhaps you haven't. And I never once stated WWII aircraft engines were fragile.

So you have the information for future use, cowl flaps were used increase the airflow across the cylinder heads and thus maximizing engine cooling...they were primarily used during take offs, landings, and extended climbs...they did not produce an immediate cooling to normal operating temperatures.

[Traveler]

Geez you are full of erroneous information aren't you? Care to try and educate me on how cowl flaps worked and what their purpose was? How about the radiator flaps?



It's very obvious you know less than I do about how piston aircraft engines worked...or any engines for that matter.

Cowl flaps were used on air cooled engines to help regulate the engine temp.  Actually to maintain the engine temp in the normal operating range.  Remember the air temp at 25K is well below zero.

The radiator flaps were used on the liquid cooled engines also to maintain the temp of the liquid in the radiator.   Again you wouldn’t want 35 degree liquid streaming through a very hot engine, just might crake the block.

[gyrene81]

See Rule #4

[Karnak]

LOL...like I suspected.

IL2 doesn't model "magical" engine temperature recovery...I've tried it...perhaps you haven't. And I never once stated WWII aircraft engines were fragile.

So you have the information for future use, cowl flaps were used increase the airflow across the cylinder heads and thus maximizing engine cooling...they were primarily used during take offs, landings, and extended climbs...they did not produce an immediate cooling to normal operating temperatures.

So your source is Il-2.

You might want to do some actual research on what you are requesting.  Il-2's game mechanisms are, if anything, less realistic than AH.

Yes, unlike you I seem to be at least somewhat familiar with the equipment we are talking about and not just parroting a video game's mechanisms.



Do you really think that pilots of WWII fighters were, in the middle of combat, flipping their cowl/radiator flaps open and shut, watching the engine temperature, constantly and such?  Not one account I have read described that and not one pilot I have talked to even mentioned it.  The only pilot mention I can recall is laughing dismissal of your position by a P-38 pilot. His claim was that in combat you put the throttles through the gate and left them there until the fight was over.

Obviously some aircraft it wasn't an issue as the flaps were sometimes automatic.  The Spitfire Mk XIV's radiator flaps were automatic.  I am not certain of earlier Spitfires, but I'd not be surprised if they were also automatic.

[gyrene81]

So your source is Il-2.

You might want to do some actual research on what you are requesting.  Il-2's game mechanisms are, if anything, less realistic than AH.

Yes, unlike you I seem to be at least somewhat familiar with the equipment we are talking about and not just parroting a video game's mechanisms.

You're not even close. Do you always inject your own meanings to what people say?

Do you really think that pilots of WWII fighters were, in the middle of combat, flipping their cowl/radiator flaps open and shut, watching the engine temperature, constantly and such?  Not one account I have read described that and not one pilot I have talked to even mentioned it.  The only pilot mention I can recall is laughing dismissal of your position by a P-38 pilot. His claim was that in combat you put the throttles through the gate and left them there until the fight was over.

Considering most air battles lasted less than 30 minutes and the P-38 used turbos instead of an injection based WEP system, keeping the throttle pushed through the gate during an air battle would pretty much be SOP...but I guarantee you that pilot you're using as a reference did not keep it firewalled all the way back to base...he wanted to survive. Obviously a pilot isn't going to watch his engine temperature in the heat of battle, but as soon as he was clear of the situation, he was definately checking his gauges...and if the gauges told him there was a problem he was calculating whether he could make it back to his base or looking for a safe place to land.

[RASTER]

Yes human error would be at the root of any failure...

When you engineer something you establish its usable life. Think warranty. Engineering uses tables and formula to establish certain ratios and one is price and quality. Stuff breaks because the materials that make it low priced make it affordable and the engineers know it will last a certain length of time. NOW LISTEN. That certain length of time is based on average material properties. It is not based on super materials, it is not based on bad tooling. Its based on STANDARDS. When you purchase raw polymer from one compounder to another you ask for its specifications sheet and its price. The engineer sees one has a better secant modulus than the other with the same price and that's what goes on the drawings. Now each part in a machine is handled the same way. Each has a STANDARD. When it comes to engines the standards are much tougher as the performance goes up the price goes up according to the better materials. Some of these materials have very little chance of human error. That's why they cost so much more.

There is no reason why simulation failure should venture off the engineering sheets. These specifications dictate how something will be made and its expected durability and usable life. This is all point for point, number for number. When the metal reaches the yield point, a specific point where stress and strain are worked out to the decimal, then the metal deforms. There is no human error involved it is strictly mathematics. There is a hypothetical point established by tests ASTM in example where things fail, including oil, all kinds of oil under all kinds of conditions. The point where it will not lubricate is known and when you take surface area and pressure and you know these things on a crankshaft and then you calculate how long the babits would last without lubricant, that is when the lubricant is squashed away, then you can establish at what force, the maximum force these things wear down and that establishes how long you can push them. I keep getting this feeling you think there is some kind of guess work involved in engineering. There isn't. I keep telling you , it is possible to make 4000hp but the materials are not affordable and the time to manufacture unreasonable.

BTW these formula are the same for Germany as they are for anyone else.

 

[RASTER]

Do you really think that pilots of WWII fighters were, in the middle of combat, flipping their cowl/radiator flaps open and shut, watching the engine temperature, constantly and such?

@Karnak....Is it important for aircombat simulations to emulate this if it was?

[Saxman]

You should try reading with some level of comprehension rather than just react and interject what you perceive to be factual...and if you're not going to make an attempt to comprehend, then don't bother replying.


Trying to add anything more in depth than picking a toon plane, taking off and stirring the stick is like Galileo convincing the Catholic church that the earth revolves around the sun.

You should try responding with a degree of maturity instead of resorting to the same lame personal attacks ad nauseum. Let's see where we started with all this, shall we?

Quote from: Saxman on Today at 10:47:27 AM
Krusty,

The problem is that imposing this sort of restriction to force aircraft to reduce power is probably even LESS realistic and totally artificial. The only ACTUAL effect real pilots saw after exceeding the manual's safety restrictions was it took the engine out of operation as it was disassembled and checked for damage. Something that is NOT reflected in our .ef and get a new plane environment.
What exactly would you consider within the realm of realistic in forcing toon pile-its to do what real life pilots had to do? You honestly believe airplanes were flown full throttle from the time they took off until they landed hours later? It's not done now with modern airplanes, military or civilian...throttle up to take off, continue until you have attained assigned altitude, level out, throttle back and maintain safe cruising speed.

Safe operation was taught for a reason, because in testing prior to production, and sometimes on the front lines...failures occurred...not 100% of the time but enough to make it into flight instruction manuals as a warning. Aside from the well documented engine failures on the B-29...September 2, 1943, TBD-1 #0353 ditched eight miles off the coast of Miami. Again the cause was engine failure...27 airmen lost in the June 1945 crash of RAF Liberator JT985 flown by a Canadian crew. Bound for the Pacific battlefront, the Liberator went down with engine failure along the Dorset coast...Flight Leader Robert Nelson of the 29th Troop Carrier Squadron who led his flight of three C-47s into combat all alone. They were delayed by an engine failure...(excerpt from a published radio interview with WWII era WASPS - Women Airforce Service Pilots) ETHEL MEYER FINLEY: Thirty-eight women were killed in either training or assignments. Evelyn Sharp out in Oklahoma, that was an engine failure-a P-38. There was one out of Shaw Field. She was out testing a BT-13. They found her; she had crashed. Some of them were pilot error and some were engine problems, and some were collisions. And it was rather a sobering thing, but I don't know that it affected anybody's desire to go out right away again...

I can find this stuff all day long...  neener

Quote from: Saxman on Today at 10:47:27 AM
Unless you want HTC to impose a "you ignored your safety restrictions, so must sit in the tower for an hour while we check your engine" restriction, there's no way to accurately reflect the real consequences of doing so.

Now, I WOULD like to see some more complex engine management: Fuel mixture, changing the supercharger speeds, and WEP that can permanently run out if appropriate, but overheats cannot be done in a way that's in any way realistic.

Yes there is, and I've posted it enough times that I'm not going to repeat it again...and I agree, some small changes in engine management would be nice.

My comment wasn't even in RESPONSE to anything you said, and right away you start off with smart-assed comments and ing like a 2-year-old.

Now, how about you explain it for me just EXACTLY where in that diatribe about crashes caused by engine failure with absolutely no sources indicating the CAUSES of said engine failure what you believe is an appropriate means of forcing players to limit their engine power. You might need to explain it to me very slowly, because OBVIOUSLY I lack your reading comprehension.

Oh wait. You DIDN'T. Apparently your theories on how to enforce engine management are SO mind-bogglingly profound that there was no need to repost them.

All you've done in this thread is rant about how no one here knows NEARLY as much about piston-engines as you do, so everything anyone else says is wrong.

[RASTER]

So Saxman....you have made your point and don't forget what your point is. Make sure you let everyone know, you were one of the people who were against what? Saxman was one of the vocal minority/majority who were firmly against to the point of going into a rage that fligth sims, at least fligth sims that he pays to use shall not have....What...fill in the blank here so I can right it down. And don't think in 10 / 20 years in the future I won't drag it up and show everyone what your point is. However, at this time....I am not going to put words in your mouth but I think you are saying you don't want flight sims to have more than a "P" for WEP lasting according to a timer. IS THAT CORRECT. Don't try changing your handle as we have ways of finding out. Goes for the rest of you.

Tell you about a guy named Yak. Years ago was no way on earth his sims were going to have work done by players. So guess what. There is a guy named Yak working over at TW getting paid because he is the expert on getting players work into the game. After bullying and foul mouthing the people trying to bring it forward. I've seen all this crap before. Like I said. You say what you want...just don't expect me to forget it. I have posts from bulletin boards going back years.

Now lets start again about what you want in the sim and what you think can't be done by Hitech et al.

[Guppy35]

Raster you seem to be not getting it.  Some of us don't have the time nor the energy to want to spend on trivial aspects of what in the end is a cartoon game of pretend fighter pilots.

You want talk the history, the pilots, the planes, the ground crews etc, I'll go all day and beyond, but when I get an hour here or there to go fly with the guys who share a like interest in that WW2 aviation history, I don't want to spend it on what would add nothing to the immersion and fun I get from the 'game'.

I'm not a WW2 fighter pilot.  I have no interest in getting up in the middle of the night, eating powdered eggs, lousy bacon and coffee, before going to briefing, then out to my bird, going through all the preflight stuff, then waiting for the signal from the tower to taxi, then the form up time with my squadron, followed by fighting weather, sucking oxygen, worrying that my engine might act up, that my guns might fail, that my bladder might overflow, that my backside goes numb, that frost covers my windscreen, that my pitot head might fail, radio might fail, instruments might fail, that the mission might be recalled, that my oxygen might fail, that my control cables might give, that I might spend 7 hours in flight and never see a bandit, that any of the above might force me down in enemy territory or worse yet that I'll really die......etc etc etc.

Oh, and I don't want someone else deciding that I have no choice on what I fly, for which side, and what my mission is.

You get the idea?


I'd suggest that HTC has done a good job letting my imaginary fighter pilot, pretend to fly my cartoon P38G and somehow survive to fly and fight another day.

[Krusty]

Raster's also not getting the point on the failure issue...

There are standards for the parts, as you suggest. All the uses for which these parts were built, even in the worst of conditions, fall far far short of the failing points. The constant every-day inspections, every-day repairs, maintenance, constant strip-down, overhauls, engine replacements (with new factory fresh engines) means that at almost no point will a sub-par part/piece/component be put into an engine like we're talking about, unless some HUMAN somewhere made an ERROR.

We're not talking "the chemical bonds broke down after 50 years of use" we're talking "we put a new rod in every couple weeks" and the like.

The 4000hp example only further illustrates my point: The failure points are so retardedly above anything any of these engines will or did do in WW2 that by running them within the rules and limitations of Aces High's power levels, you will NEVER reach any of the failing points you're talking about.

It's like I said in another thread, you're worrying about modeling the landing situation on the moon when the highest you can get is 50,000 feet. It doesn't add up to a hill of beans.