Flaps/Gear/engine toggling and other "fidgety" penalty....

[Eagler]

I thought they killed engine to kill the torque so they can come over the top easier...

That's what it sounds like when it is done to me in DA

That should not be possible as engine start wouldn't be that easy and smooth if possible at all in a tnb

All for an engine overheating to keep from running at max throttle without any penalty

Eagler

[whiteman]

i think a realistic engine start penalty would be okay, about what the average time to restart an engine would be.

[GasTeddy]

i think a realistic engine start penalty would be okay, about what the average time to restart an engine would be.

That would add some realism. Been also listening engines going on-off regularly, when bad boys been searching my GV. I doubt it was done in WW2 as already noise of wind would cover the noises made by GVs.

[Puma44]

I thought they killed engine to kill the torque so they can come over the top easier...

That's what it sounds like when it is done to me in DA

That should not be possible as engine start wouldn't be that easy and smooth if possible at all in a tnb

All for an engine overheating to keep from running at max throttle without any penalty

Eagler

……if the engine restarted at all.  Can’t hardly believe any WWII fighter jock shut his engine down in a dog fight.  I’ve always thought HT should make a successful engine restart in flight, an intermittent event to mirror reality.  Starting a WWII fighter (Mustang for example) involves several steps and takes longer than just pushing an “E” button, especially when the engine has been run hard and hot.  Then there’s the distraction from reacting to an opponent trying to kill you while heads down attempting a complicated engine restart.   Need to kill torque?  Use the rudder pedals and engine power adjustment.

Then, there’s intentionally landing gear up but, I digress…….

i think a realistic engine start penalty would be okay, about what the average time to restart an engine would be.

Agree.   But, most every engine of the same type has its own “personality”,  if you will.  So, average can be a wide variety but, anything other than an “E” button push would be more realistic.

[GasTeddy]

I've been flying now and then in IL-2, and there engine start procedure takes significant amount of time. Must next time try how long it takes when airborne and no cons breathing on my neck.

[Puma44]

That would add some realism. Been also listening engines going on-off regularly, when bad boys been searching my GV. I doubt it was done in WW2 as already noise of wind would cover the noises made by GVs.

Always entertaining when a player shuts the engine off at low altitude, coasts over within range, and gets “whirbliszed”.

[GasTeddy]

I've been flying now and then in IL-2, and there engine start procedure takes significant amount of time. Must next time try how long it takes when airborne and no cons breathing on my neck.

Tested. When starting engines on a runway, it is long process with inertia wheel speeding up, but when airborne, it's just couple of seconds to restart as long as there is some proper air speed and propeller turns. Excluding Me262, which takes a minute or so, whether airborne or not. But wind noise covers possible GV sounds when engine off.

[Puma44]

Tested. When starting engines on a runway, it is long process with inertia wheel speeding up, but when airborne, it's just couple of seconds to restart as long as there is some proper air speed and propeller turns. Excluding Me262, which takes a minute or so, whether airborne or not. But wind noise covers possible GV sounds when engine off.

Jets are much easier to start; turn it, throw fuel in, and burn it. 

[GasTeddy]

Jets are much easier to start; turn it, throw fuel in, and burn it.

In Me262 it was not just a button push.