i need some complex engine management tips (spitfire and hurricane)

[zapatista]

the sim just became playable for me since the last beta patch (touch-wood, baring any unforeseen new show-stopping bugz i have yet to encounter), so time to dust of the old HOTAS

i need some complex engine management tips for the spitfire and hurricane, but cant find any in the original pdf manual (? right), what i have figured out so far, to get aircraft started
- open fuel switch
- magneto on (seems to be by default for the hurricane, is this a bug ?)
- radiator open
- mixture to lean
- prop pitch to fine
- throttle set to idle
- fire engine up, and should idle then

then wait to see temp rise to around 30%, and from there start to taxi with low throttle setting (by the time i taxi to the runway the engine is fully warm),
- then turn mixture to rich for takeoff (and then only use lean setting for higher altitude flights).
- keep prop pitch at about 85 for most normal flight (except at 100$ during takeoff)

have i missed anything, or are there any bugs in the spitfire or hurricane that prevent this correct use ?

[salmo]

My Hurricane startup procedure:

- fuel-cock switch on
- magneto1 on, magnito 2 on
- radiator closed (until engine warms up sufficiently)
- prop pitch to 0%
- throttle to 10%
- fire engine up, and should idle

- While warming up:
- Set mirror off (doesn't work anyway)
- Set gun sight distance & width 109's (42ft)
- Set compass (optional)
- turn gun sight illumination on
- turn on instrument ilumination (primary & secondary) if needed

- throttle up to 20% when engine temp > 40 degrees
- Keep radiator closed until temp > 60 degrees, then open rad's (warms up quicker)
- Prop pitch to 100%
- set rudder trim for takeoff

- ready to roll when engine temp > 70 degrees
- throttle up > 40%, (engine dies if throttle 20-35%, new game bug)

[klem]

the sim just became playable for me since the last beta patch (touch-wood, baring any unforeseen new show-stopping bugz i have yet to encounter), so time to dust of the old HOTAS

i need some complex engine management tips for the spitfire and hurricane, but cant find any in the original pdf manual (? right), what i have figured out so far, to get aircraft started
- open fuel switch
- magneto on (seems to be by default for the hurricane, is this a bug ?)
- radiator open
- mixture to lean
- prop pitch to fine
- throttle set to idle
- fire engine up, and should idle then

then wait to see temp rise to around 30%, and from there start to taxi with low throttle setting (by the time i taxi to the runway the engine is fully warm),
- then turn mixture to rich for takeoff (and then only use lean setting for higher altitude flights).
- keep prop pitch at about 85 for most normal flight (except at 100$ during takeoff)

have i missed anything, or are there any bugs in the spitfire or hurricane that prevent this correct use ?

Mixture to Rich (lever to the rear) but the pre-patch Spitfires had the control and cockpit graphic reversed so you had to put it fully forward for Rich. They may have fixed that though, I haven't tried the Spit post-patch yet.

btw, pre-patch the magnetos switched themselves to 'On' when you pressed start, they shouldn't but they did (do?).

A salmo says you can leave the radiator closed until it warms up - but its surprising how often we forget to open it before take-off :(

Currently you can taxi safely at RAD temp 40 but don't take off or apply any real power until 60C.

[FS~Phat]

You guys are too gentle! ;)

The procedures are pretty much spot on but I leave rad closed and just taxi and slam the throttle on once the water temps about 20c. :cool:

As soon as im airborne/gear up i open rad and go to 80% pitch to get some acceleration.

[banned]

You guys are too gentle! ;)

The procedures are pretty much spot on but I leave rad closed and just taxi and slam the throttle on once the water temps about 20c. :cool:

As soon as im airborne/gear up i open rad and go to 80% pitch to get some acceleration.
Lol, same here mate. Got to get the bird up. Sitting there for too long makes one a great target. :)

[IvanK]

The CLOD Merlin is overly critical in the climb with Oil and Rad Temps especially in the Spit MKII IMO.

This works for me:

Before start Prop pitch 3 blips back from full fine ... will give you 2850 in the climb.

1. After start Smooth idle Rad Closed till 60C Coolant. (no increase in throttle at all till 60C RAD ... thanks Klem))
2. At 60C Rad Full open.
3. Get airborne ASAP get to Climb IAS (160 ASAP)
4. Climb +9/2850 (Spit II) +6/2850 Spit MKI at 160MPH
5. Eyes on Oil Temp and Rad
6. Dont exceed 95C Oil, 120 Rad
7. If Oil temp at 95C Set RPM 2400 (or less) till Oil temp under control (94C is ok)
8. If Rad temp 120 set Boost +6(Spit MKII) +4 Spit MKI immediately (Aim for max 110C in the climb)

If >120C Rad you WILL get engine damage almost instantly.
if > 95C Oil Temp you most likely will get engine damage.
Oil temp main variable is RPM
Rad Temp main variable is Boost.
Dont exceed 2850RPM at any time.

Using these techniques in a spit MKII you can climb all the way to 17,000ft without issue. With perhaps a single
adjustment to RPM and Boost.

[klem]

The CLOD Merlin is overly critical in the climb with Oil and Rad Temps especially in the Spit MKII IMO.

This works for me:

Before start Prop pitch 3 blips back from full fine ... will give you 2850 in the climb.

1. After start Smooth idle Rad Closed till 60C Coolant. (no increase in throttle at all till 60C RAD ... thanks Klem))
2. At 60C Rad Full open.
3. Get airborne ASAP get to Climb IAS (160 ASAP)
4. Climb +9/2850 (Spit II) +6/2850 Spit MKI at 160MPH
5. Eyes on Oil Temp and Rad
6. Dont exceed 95C Oil, 120 Rad
7. If Oil temp at 95C Set RPM 2400 (or less) till Oil temp under control (94C is ok)
8. If Rad temp 120 set Boost +6(Spit MKII) +4 Spit MKI immediately (Aim for max 110C in the climb)

If >120C Rad you WILL get engine damage almost instantly.
if > 95C Oil Temp you most likely will get engine damage.
Oil temp main variable is RPM
Rad Temp main variable is Boost.
Dont exceed 2850RPM at any time.

Using these techniques in a spit MKII you can climb all the way to 17,000ft without issue. With perhaps a single
adjustment to RPM and Boost.

+1

Also interesting as we're talking Merlin III which is in the Hurricane MkI 100octane, my Level Speed tests showed that full throttle and full rpm, with and without BCO, will cause engine failure within the following:

30-60 seconds
OIL Temp 89-95
RAD temp 118-131

in various combinations

Combinations with temps below IvanK's limits were ~58 seconds 92 OIL and 118 RAD and another was ~60 seconds 89 OIL and 121 RAD so although I agree with IvanK's temperature limits there may be other issues modelled at fully fine pitch/max rpm (mechanical failure over time? ~60 Seconds if temp limits not reached?) so I suggest you don't use max rpm and max throttle for more than around 30 seconds. Sometimes you may want to just to stay with the 109s long enough to get the shot.

Another confusion is that I flew the Spitfire MkIa 100 octane for the first time (this patch) last night at around 15,000 feet with high throttle (boost 4 - 6) and 2550rpm in a long attack on a bomber group and the Oil temp was nailed to 100C without failure. (?!).

I have found 2550 rpm to be a 'safe' rpm under almost all conditions in the Hurricane. Last night was the first time in a SpitIa-oct so I can't be so confident on that but 100C Oil? Wow!

[zapatista]

thanks for the feedback guy's :)

good to see a few things i can correct and improve !

[trademe900]

Another thing worth adding is that Hurricane rotol is actually better than the 100 octane for general fighting. 100 octane just blows the engine too easily with overheating whereas you can keep it nailed all the time in the rotol with rpm at 2800.

[ramstein]

i don't want to be booted, but the engines are garbage above 16,000 feet.. it's like the the developers purposely thought of screwing the Brit planes at high altitude (I can't believe it actually slipped by, and they said ooops !,, too lame, for us to believe..)... as soon as they stop screwing up the Brit planes, they really should post the patch as official... on Steam... stop screwing the pooch, stop the excuses,,, finish the last few remaining show stoppers,, then move on to BOM. I would never consider any type of expansion, with a flight sim that has a core model set that is totally fraked up...

IMHO

You guys that are making COD could accomplish so much if you tried..... but it seems you are sabotaging your own work...

[FS~Phat]

i don't want to be booted, but the engines are garbage above 16,000 feet.. it's like the the developers purposely thought of screwing the Brit planes at high altitude (I can't believe it actually slipped by, and they said ooops !,, too lame, for us to believe..)... as soon as they stop screwing up the Brit planes, they really should post the patch as official... on Steam... stop screwing the pooch, stop the excuses,,, finish the last few remaining show stoppers,, then move on to BOM. I would never consider any type of expansion, with a flight sim that has a core model set that is totally fraked up...

IMHO

You guys that are making COD could accomplish so much if you tried..... but it seems you are sabotaging your own work...

The devs have acknowledged that MOST aircraft do not have correct performance above about 21k feet. This is a limitation of the current atmospheric model. I have noticed too that above about 17k feet they feel a bit sluggish.

I'll see if I can find the post for you.

Here you go.. this was from the last Alpha DX10 patch notes. As you can see its a known limitation of the current atmospheric model that requires a major rewrite, which may appear with the sequel at some point.


We've performed a tremendous amount of work testing and improving flight models in the game, as well as improving various aircraft engines. We used actual pilot's notes and flight testing data during the process (thank you Sean!). Unfortunately some deeply-set limitations in the engine code do not allow us to minimize the margin of error at altitudes about 7 km (21,000 ft) where most aircraft begin to perform worse than their real-life counterparts. Fixing this requires more extensive code rework and will therefore only appear with the upcoming sequel. However at lower altitudes most flyables will perform much closer to real life. We also have to note that some aircraft, most notably Spitfire Mk.II, had better performance than the real thing. Others, especially their engines, had reduced performance. We've addressed these serious issues and made our planes fly much closer to the real thing.

[AKA_Tenn]

it kinda makes sense... if you go back and play the original IL2, compare it to IL2FB, then compare AEP to 1946 and you'll see they changed the FMs many times, and usually after expansions... this time is no different...

[TomcatViP]

Does "100%" not means that the prop is on full fine pitch (long time I didn't play the game)? If so, pitch HAVE to be on fine pitch at start-up.

Rads have to be closed and eng run at a stable regime (low) until the temp as raised (rad closed). It take usually 3 to 5 min to do so. Then you can apply power gradually to move the plane (no chocks).

If you don't warm up your engine, you will suffer engine damage applying power too early and won't be able to get full perf out of your engine during flight.

I hve witnessed a lot a players chocking their engine on the ground in order to get-off early. Those generally also complains that they can't get the perfs as in the manual ;)

~S

[TomcatViP]

... if you go back and play the original IL2, compare it to IL2FB, then compare AEP to 1946 and you'll see they changed the FMs many times,...

For the worst on many occasion !!!

[Osprey]

Current Hurricane I 12lb* in 1946 with HSFX makes barely 250mph @SL. Can't get it faster than that. This is worse than COD after years and years of development. Why is it like this? Who did the FM?

[Kwiatek]

IRL Hurricane MK1 at 12lbs emergency boost reached ab. 280-285 mph at sea level. At nominal power - +6 1/4 lbs reached 260 mph at the deck. CLOD FM is also far away from these.

[Osprey]

Yes that's correct, although the test speeds show 291mph IIRC, not sure of the loadout for that though.

I don't understand how people supposedly interested in flight history can get this so wrong.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I can not say that I am surprised by this..

Over the past 10 years of flight simming I have noticed this tread of not caring about how accurate the flight model is in simulating the aircraft performance..

Which is not surprising what with all the arcade style (xbox) types of flights simmers that have come along in the past 10 years..

Where they are more concerned with eye-candy than the flight models ability to accurately simulate the aircraft performance..

The good news is..

With time..

Some of these xbox type evolve (grow up?) into what we use to call a 'hard core flight simmer'.

Where getting the performance right is not an option but a 'basic' requirement.

The evolution of the xbox mind set typically goes like this..

They start off not caring at all about the accuracy of the flight model to simulate the aircraft performance, to caring about the 'relative' performance of the aircraft, to finally caring about the flight model being able to simulate the aircraft performance within 5% of the real world data.

Sadly some never make the full transition and are happy enough with something less than accurate..

Which is why flight sim makers always have to provide enough options to convert the accurate flight simulation into an xbox arcade type of game. ;)

[Osprey]

But the trouble is that this is a '*' new slot aircraft. Therefore it should've been done by somebody properly, a fan. I'm left wondering if it is the mod pack which make their own changes to the new slot type because they aren't happy with it. 40mph is a lot, it's not hard to find out speed tests.

Can somebody verify the performance in UP? or another pack? Wrong forum really, just frustrating.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

But the trouble is that this is a '*' new slot aircraft. Therefore it should've been done by somebody properly, a fan. I'm left wondering if it is the mod pack which make their own changes to the new slot type because they aren't happy with it. 40mph is a lot, it's not hard to find out speed tests.

Can somebody verify the performance in UP? or another pack? Wrong forum really, just frustrating.
Well a lot of mods start off with someone who 'loves' the plane enough to create the 3D model of it..

You can find a lot of 'artiest' that love planes and know how to use 3DMAX to create a new plane, or tweak and existing one

But it is not as easy to find someone like that who also knows about flight modeling.. Which means most mods end up using a flight model from another plane with maybe a few tweaks too it.

Which is NOT a ding on mod makers!

Even the folks who should know (1C, Oleg) can make mistakes

Take the Bf109K4 vs. Spitfire 25lb in IL-2

Ask your average IL-2 fan which plane is 'uber' and you will probably find that most say the Spit 25lb is the uber plane..

Yet the Spit 25lb ROC performance is less than it should be at most alts, and only over by 11% or so at other alts..

Where as the Bf109K4's ROC performance is better than it should be at all alts, up to 25% more than it should be at some alts..

Which is a good example of why 'relative performance' concept can be such a joke at times..

For example, Pick an altitude, and you can find that one plane's ROC is 20% better than it should be, while another plane's ROC is 10% less than it should be and you end up with a 'relative performance' difference of 30%! That is a lot for the pilot to make up in skill! ;)

So, if 1C (Oleg) can not even get it right at times, I am not surprised that some 3DMAX artiest get it wrong sometimes! ;)

[JtD]

the Spit 25lb ROC performance is less than it should be at most alts, and only over by 11% or so at other alts.. Huh? How old is that info?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Huh? How old is that info?
Are you saying it was fixxed?

Maybe, In that I have not played IL-2 in.. Hmmm.. I can not even remember the last time I played IL-2! Thus I have not done any IL-2 testing in some time either.. Most of my work is now on making the tools to test CoD

In eithercase, the point here is even the likes of 1C (Oleg) can make mistakes that result in the relative performance being way off.. In short, the goal should be to get the performacne within 5% of the real world performance, otherwise you can end up with these BIG relative performance errors.

[TomcatViP]

what abt the pilot behind the ctrls ? Do yu think tht a sleepy or lazzy gamer shld reach tht 5% ? ;)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

That depends..

That is to say the 'performance' should be there for all players to make use of..

But that does not necessary mean all players will be able to obtain the peak performance..

For example, something as simple as having the mixture wrong, or climbing at the wrong climb speed, or just flying like cr@p can keep many pilots from obtaining the peak performance values. On the flip side, flying ilke cr@p can cause some pilots to exceed the peak performace values.. Not becuase they found a new way to squease out more performance, but because the perfored the test wrong. For example, some pilots report they are able to fly faster than the max rating.. That can happen if the pilots is not flying a level as he should or as level as he thinks.. That is to say, a shallow dive during a 'level' speed test can result in you flying faster than the rated performace value, but not because there is an error in the flight model, once again this is a sim pilot error in that we was in a shallow dive and didn't even realise it. In either case, this is not and should not be attributed to a flight modeling error as much as a sim pilot error