Complex engine management
 

I am having a hard time with the complex engina management. Not because of the sim, is amazing to control the engine at this detail, is because is not explained deeply in the manual.

At this point, i blow the spitfire engine very easily, and hurricane sometimes, and the BF109E is more easy but i only can get 400 km/h at low level...

The basic controls are throttle, pitch and mixture? I didn't set the mixture not the radiator, just because of the russian menus.

To start the BF109, open the fuel (yellow lever at left part of cockpit), set magnetos to M2 and press I.

The pitch directly change the helix angle with air, but be carefull to don't go too much RPM (> 2500 rpms). The normal RPM to me are 2200 RPMs. In the BF110 i am having a REAL hard time because i killed the engine easily because of my bad pitch control...

Inthe spit there is no something like pitch, i only have two position and i don't really understand, one is to slow and one is too high.

This is what i know at this moment from Complex engina management, i think is AMAZING, but i don't have any information about how to make this work well. I need your help, because it's not written in the manual.

Someone can explain me how this work?

yeah i need help finding the Prop pitch button set ... It sucks ive been having to fly complex engine management off just because i dont know where it is!

Don't have the game yet, but the general rule of thumb should be: look for the propeller pitch command and together with throttle adjust it according to the speed and RPM gauge. Try to keep the RPM in the area (range) where the engine can give you most power.

With the mixture you don't have to hit the mark (probably), but if you over rev = end of story. :)

How much you can push the engine, and squeeze out of it (Ilya himself said that overheating is terrible in those early planes) you will have to find for your self.

Even if you need speed you have to high the pitch -helix angle-? I thought that i need a low pitch to get speed, and a high pitch to climb. But two things at the same time where not possible (like happens in IL2).

It depends on the type of the propeller installed on the plane. I will have to get the game to know more and to tell you exactly.

But if you mess with the pitch & throttle in order to keep the RPM gauge needle in a desired location you shouldn't blow the engine.

There was that nice Spit video from AA for FSX which explained how this works very nicely. It should be a mandatory viewing for all those wanting to fly with complex engine management.

EDIT: Also (I am guessing here) rapid throttle movements are not desired. :)

This game is going to change completely the type of combats in IL2 1946, the king will be the one managing the engine... until FW190 and Komandogerat comes...

It's true, early spits had only two prop positions, like manual shifting in a car. So it's very important to memorize the sound of the ideal rpm range, and act immediately on every expected deviation. So if you're going to dive in that spit, set the prop in coarse and lower throttle. This reduces your acceleration but will keep your engine healthy.

Also note that not only high temperatures are a problem, too low has adverse effects as well. And now we need to check both oil and coolant temperatures.

And don't forget the manifold pressure! If manifold pressure is too high and engine speed too low, detonation/pinging/engine knock will occur, temperature will start to rise sharply and you run the risk of burning holes in your pistons, destroying the big-end bearings or worse.

I've written a huge amount of info on these subjects, I'll look it up and post it here.

Hi I believe you are reffering this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psYL7...layer_embedded
Other helpfull info can befound at http://www.a2asimulations.com/
Now I need to get my hands on the game lol.

cheers,

Niels

That's exactly what I was waiting for. People will start to realise, that a good plane must have more than just speed and turn performance. Until now it was possible to fly these old WWII birds like modern jet fighters. But the days of care free handling are over :)
Now we will fight like real men ;)

Thats the one NLS61, thanks.

If you could copy it all together in few posts, a well deserved and needed sticky IMO.

As far as I know this Komandogerate was a ricg pain in the %^&*!@ when they started with them and they never got it completely right.
source Focke wulf at war published by ian allan ltd.

Niels

If La-5 makes it into CoD, I will not fly it with complex engine management on :rolleyes:.
"For example, rapid acceleration required moving no less than six levers." Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-5

you most propably selected a Spit version with the two speed propeller ??
At least the Manual confirms that the Mk.IIa has a CSP.

a lot of planes are missing in the manual , actually i expected this :(
After worldwide release the community should open here in the forum for every plane (and version) a own topic with pilotnotes - pilotnotes by selfexperience...

I once had a Citroën DS 21 Pallas semi-automatic 1968, running on LPG. The engine is a 2.1 liter 4 cylinder. I asked too much of that engine, so one day I started to lose power at high speed. Looking in the mirror I saw big plumes of blue smoke appearing, and extra intermittent power drops started to appear. After that I lost cylinder number 2. Examination proved the ignition timing was wrong, I burned a hole in the top of that piston. Those intermittent power drops were the result of engine oil being pushed out of the oilpan and into the intake manifold through the breather, at some moments choking the engine. Coolant temperature was always OK. Even on 3 cylinders the car was quite quick though, and a joy to drive. Even if the engine sounded a bit rough.

This is not comparable with super/turbocharged aircraft engines, car engines have their oil vapors fed back to the engine by law, burning them with the fuel/air mix. Since almost all aircraft engines use dry-sump lubrication, there isn't much oil to lose, except the oil mist in the crankcase that will be pushed past the other pistons due to the supercharged pressure in the intake manifold: the flow passes the intake valve and goes through the hole in the piston, into the crankcase.
The engines that spray a jet of oil against the bottom of the piston for additional cooling will lose oil, through the piston hole, at a disturbing rate. The risk of explosions in the crankcase increases dramatically because of the stoichiometric mix of fuel and air in case of a carburetted engine. In case of fuel injection, where injecting happened right into the combustion chamber after closing of the intake valve, the risk of explosion is negligible.

Cylinder Head Temperature (CHT) is the defining parameter, as this is controlled by manifold pressure, engine RPM, IAS, mixture setting and cowl flaps a well as atmospheric conditions like humidity or rain. This can be measured roughly with coolant/oil temperature, but not always. Fast increases in CHT can happen if the engine RPM is too high, manifold pressure too high for the engine RPM setting, IAS is too low, the mixture is too lean and temperature in the intake manifold is not even at max OR mixture is too rich and manifold pressure and temperature are too high; while the heat capacity of the oil/coolant system takes time to catch up with the true condition in the cylinder head(s) and produces an incorrect reading, depending on the placement of the temperature sensor.

Some planes can use a very rich mixture for cooling the engine. This was the main reason Rolls Royce and Supermarine chose carburetors above fuel injection, because they felt the fuel was an effective charge cooler and it made the supercharger considerably more efficient. Some late war planes like the FW190-A8 used a fuel injector in front of the supercharger to cool the charge but fuel consumption obviously skyrocketed. More on that later, we don't know yet how CoD handles a super rich mixture with high manifold pressures.

The ever present spook that always flies with you is the danger of engine knock. It means that the fuel mixture in the cylinders of your engine spontaneously combusts, before the spark plug fires. When the spark plug fires, there's already a flame front, so when a new front hits the other, a very high pressure spike hammers on all the components in that cylinder. It literally is like using a hammer inside your engine. A very high CHT will increase the risk of knock dramatically.

Forms of damage that can appear from engine knocking:

*Shattered ceramic isolators on the spark plugs/ Melted spark plugs. Since every engine has two spark plugs per cylinder, this will lead to only a slight decrease in power unless both fail, that's a lot of unburned fuel in the exhaust manifold. P47/P38/B17/B24 hate that, can lead to explosions in the exhaust manifold or turbocharger in extreme cases.

*Holes in the cylinder head. In case of a water cooled engine this will lead to excessive loss of oil due to supercharger pressure blowing past the intake valve and through the hole, under the camshaft cover. Will probably produce a lot of oil on the windscreen. In case of a carburetted engine: explosions through the crankcase breather can produce engine fire. Explosions under the camshaft cover may warp or dislocate the camshaft cover, may lead to engine fire and rapid loss of oil, in case of inverted V12's the scavenging pump will not return the oil to the oil tank, worsening the problem.

*Sometimes the explosions rupture hoses between engine and oil tank: instant loss of oil pressure OR the scavenging pump leaks the oil into engine bay instead of refilling the oil tank.
Carburetted radials will blow huge amounts of explosive mixture in the engine bay and the spark plugs will ignite it, engine fire unless enough airflow past the cylinders.
Fuel injected radials will less easily catch fire and less severe due to injection when the piston is already half past it's compression stroke and the intake valve is already closed.

*Damaged bearings of the piston rod (clunking sound until the rod or piston breaks).

*Damaged bearings of the crankshaft (again clunking sound, shaft may break in two or engine block may burst, even explode).

*Damage to the valves/ valve seats. Will lead to backfires, loss of compression and possibly engine fire.

Some of these symptoms are comparable with running too long with high CHT or prolonged over-revving, even without engine knock.
IL2 only drops power, plays a sample and ultimately stops the engine. In real life, engine fires were a big and common problem. IL2 doesn't model engine fire caused by abuse by the pilot. I'm guessing (hoping) CoD does.

In real life but unknown if correctly modeled in CoD:
In case you have a hole in your piston or cylinder head and don't want a burning or exploding engine: lower manifold pressure so it's under ambient air pressure, let the engine suck for it, fresh air from outside will flush the crankcase. And lean the mixture. If you're flying a multiple engined plane: cut off fuel and feather the prop.

Summary:

Keep the manifold pressure in tune with your engine RPM, check original manuals or training video's on YouTube for your engine. There are different settings for take-off, climbing, climbing on combat power, cruise (important!), pursuit and descent. It's important you know all of them. Same for radiator settings.

Check the colour of the flames from your exhaust stack and correct the mixture accordingly, during climb and during dive. CoD manual has more on this.

Always choose the correct supercharger setting at the right altitude. Throttle back a bit before you switch, the pressure or RPM increase may overshoot the max.

For WEP, Never exceed manifold pressure and RPM settings for longer than stated in the manual.

Keep your coolant and oil temperatures steady.

Adjust throttle slowly so you don't run the risk of overshooting your max manifold pressure or engine RPM.

Never use sharp throttle increases when flying planes with turbochargers (none in CoD).

Thank you so much Azimech!!!

As already posted early Spits only have 2 pitches - coarse and fine.

Also, the manual suggests turning 'overheating' option off when you are getting to grips with CEM - apparently Luthier still does!

I surely hope correct operating procedures are released. Would love to see some printable checklists too. and maps!
I want to use my kneeboard ;)

This is going to be tough, and great.That's easy when crusing/climbing/shallow diving etc, but when in a dogfight and doing loops etc, where your speed will be dramtically changing all the time, it must be a nightmare.

The boost gauge is your friend. There will be no more slamming the throttle to the firewall and flying 'till you run out of fuel. CEM is certainly a different world now.

Really goes to show just how important pilot training and time on the type were in aerial combat. Most average pilots would have their hands very full just flying the bloody plane at a high performance level without blowing up the engine, never mind shooting and maneuvering at the same time. It also probably sheds some light on why losses in training and operational accidents were almost always higher than losses in combat. I'm sure that over the life of this sim we'll get used to it and be rewarded with a whole new level of realism!

Damn Skippy! The 109 is a bear, after a 15-20 minute dogfight last night in which I shot down nothing, I needed to teak a break and rest, because the mental workload was so high! (I'm sure that this situation will improve with familiarity)

P.S. The above is not a complaint: I love it!

Absolutely and if memory serves the maximum amount of time allowed with the boost plug pulled was 5 minutes with Rolls Royce engines. During the Battle of Britain, the pilot also had to record if he pulled the plug in his combat report.

That's the great thing about there only being a small choice of aircraft in this initial release. We can stick to a couple of planes and learn how to fly.

And i bet in the "full real" online-wars there will be many, many, many "expensive" gliders. :-D

Well, you gotta start somewhere first. In order to drive an F1 car, first you need to learn how to drive. ;)

For everything else, Azimech is here. :) I don't have the time to write about all this stuff.

Check out some official stats and see how fast that 109 went on the deck. It won't be as fast as it went at altitude. I found some Emil stats. Remember you don't get true air speed off of your gauges witch pick it up from air passing threw your pitot head.

http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/0013.html

Hahahah, so true. Although to tell you the truth, i can't wait for the "190 is uber" posts once we get that fully automatic bird :-P


It's the same thing with all USAF fighters. To execute a simple boom and zoom bounce with the P-47 you need to:

lower the turbocharger RPM (this is like a throttle for high altitudes, but it takes time for the turbo to spool up/down and this makes it difficult to judge the fine-tuning of it all)

set the pitch/RPM for the dive

possibly lower the throttle too (if it's a long dive and you want to accelerate slowly)

close the cowl flaps (they can get damaged at high speeds, these control the cylinder temperatures)

adjust the intercoolers for the temperature you expect to meet at the lower altitudes as you dive (these control carburetor temperature: too low and it freezes and stops fuel to the engine, too high and the mixture is too lean to produce power and causes overheat in the cylinders)

adjust the oil coolers in a similar manner to intercoolers (low oil temp means the oil is thick and doesn't flow or lubricate well plus oil pressure gets high and you might burst a pipeline, high oil temp means the oil breaks apart/dissolves, lubrication is bad because the oil runs through the parts too fast and it may even catch fire)

The only help in all this is that oil temps change slower than carburetor temps and cylinder temps so you can afford to make a mistake, plus late war US aircraft usually had automatic oil cooler control.

After you do all this and dive, you can attack your target. When you pull back up from the dive to climb away you need to do all this in reverse.


Dynamic weather in the future will also make it more difficult. In ISA conditions (international standard atmosphere: an ideal, rare to see in real conditions physics model, but still close to the real thing), the ambient temperature changes 2 degrees Celsius every 1000 ft. You dive 5000ft, the air outside will be roughly 10 degrees hotter, etc, and this also has an effect on how your engine works, imagine diving on a bandit 8000ft below, that's a full 16 degrees Celsius of difference (hence the intercooler, cowl flap and oil cooler adjustments in the example above).

However, with dynamic weather we don't have an ISA atmosphere. We will also have temperature inversion layers, icing layers, cold fronts, etc. Imagine diving and having adjusted for the warmer air and then you hit a patch of cold air and don't notice because you're looking at the banding below and not the needles in the cockpit: shock cooling, carburetor icing and so on.

There's a reason that wartime pilots who got shot down and lived to talk about it usually said "i didn't even see what hit me": they had no HUD and no HOTAS and they had to keep their eyes inside the cockpit for a substantial amount of time to keep the aircraft "healthy" ;)

There four propeller types:

1) Fixed pitch prop: This is like in the Tiger Moth, no pitch control at all. The more throttle you give or the more airspeed the airplane picks up, the higher your RPM gets.

2) Variable pitch prop: The system used by the 109. In this you directly control the prop blade angle. This means that when your speed changes, you have to change pitch too. If you leave the prop at the same pitch, it will go to higher RPM when you are increasing airspeed and lower RPM when you are slowing down.

3) Constant speed prop: In this one you don't control the prop blade angle directly. You control something else (maybe oil pressure inside the spinner or another mechanical system). The way it probably works is that the mechanical system wants to change the angle one way, the airflow on the prop wants to change it the other way. If you balance these two things together, you get an equilibrium. So, when one of these things changes the other changes too.

This gives you constant RPM and it's the easier propeller to use (unless you have a fully automatic system, like the Fw-190 for example). If you want to do 2500 RPM you just move the controls until the gauge shows 2500 RPM and leave it there, it will automatically adjust the angle to give you this RPM.

Of course, the prop blades don't have unlimited angle travel: If you go very fast the automatic system can't change the angle anymore and RPM goes up. If you use too low throttle, there is not enough power to turn the prop and RPM goes down. But most of the time, RPM stays where you set it to stay.

4) Two-stage prop: This is probably what happens to you in the Spit. Some early Spits and Hurricanes didn't have a constant speed prop. They had a prop that only had two positions, a high RPM position for take-off and climb and a lower RPM position for cruise and dive. This is like having the 1st kind of prop (the Tiger Moth prop) but for two positions.


Apart from that, there are things you can't do in a real engine but i don't have CoD yet and i don't know if it models all of them. The most important one is don't use high throttle with low RPM.

The reason RPM gets low is because the blade hits the air with a bigger angle of attack: resistance is bigger and that's why the RPM drops, but also the propeller pushes more air and generates more power.

This is what you do for fuel economy, reduce throttle to burn less fuel and increase propeller angle of attack to make up the lost power from the lower throttle setting.

If you keep the prop angle of attack high (aka low RPM) and increase the throttle too much the engine wants to turn faster. Since the engine is connected to the prop and the prop can't turn faster due to air resistance, the engine can't accelerate either: all this pressure has nowhere else to go except on the engine and damage occurs. I think that in real airplanes, if you lower the RPM too much you can see the engine manifold pressure increasing fast without moving the throttles, this is how you realize that your RPM is too low for your throttle setting.

Now, as to how to use all this, think about propeller RPM like you do for gears in a car.

If you want to start from a stop, accelerate from a slow speed or drive uphill what do you do? You use 1st or 2nd gear. You use the gear that gives you the most RPM. This is the same for the airplane: use high RPM for take-off,climb and fast acceleration from a slow starting speed.

There is also one more case that's similar to cars. You can down-shift gears when driving downhill and you don't want to accelerate too much. You can do the same with the airplane, if you want to go slower in a dive you can lower the propeller angle of attack which will increase the RPM. This means that the propeller is facing the incoming air almost head-on: if this happens with enough throttle you will accelerate, but if you do it with low or idle throttle the propeller disk turns from the airflow's energy and not from the energy and acts like an airbrake. Just like cars however, if you go fast your RPM will increase too much and you will have to reduce it or risk damaging the engine.

The opposite happens with low RPM. In cars higher gears give you lower RPM for the same speed/throttle. If you want to go fast without burning too much fuel or if you want to accelerate better when driving downhill, you use a higher gear (lower RPM). It's the same with aircraft too, use high propeller angle of attack (low RPM) for cruise and accelerating in dives.

This is also why landings are also made at full RPM: if you close the throttle the plane slows down rapidly, if you open the throttle if accelerates rapidly. Try to fly a takeoff and landing at full RPM, then at half RPM and you'll see the difference. It's like trying to accelerate a car from 0-120 km/h and then stop at the shortest possible space without using the low gears at all but only 4th gear: it will take ages to get to the speeds where that gear is effective and when you need to stop it will also not provide any gearbox braking.

Of course, cars have 4-6 preset gears that are tested to work best with the car and you can't select the "useless" positions.
In aircraft on the other hand, you can move the pitch controls over a wide range of very small adjustments. It's like the aircraft has hundreds of gears (one of every fraction of a degree of propeller angle of attack), but not all of them are useful.

That's why operating manuals tell pilots what is the proper RPM for each phase of flight: the engine might give best acceleration at 2700 RPM, best cruise at 2500 RPM and a bit of both but not very good at 2600 RPM. The difference is that in a car you know that you can only go from 3rd to 4th gear, in the airplane you can't skip 2600 RPM and somebody has to tell you that it's not the best setting ;)


Sorry for the long post, i hope it helps a bit.

Thanks for your long replys, very interesting, looking forward to learn more about this.

According to the pilots notes in the Collectors edition, the spitfire has a mechanical linkage between the mixture leaver and Throttle. The mixture leaver is on the lefthand side of the throttle I think (I'll check when I get home).

"Throttle an mixture controls - The throttle an mixture leaver (10 and 11) are fitted in a quadrant on the port side of the cockpit. A gate is provided for the throttle leaver in the take-off position and an interlocking device between the two leavers prevents the engine from being run on an unsuitable mixture" from the MK II book but from memory it looked fairly similar!)

Cheers!

Won't be much use for the 109 and the two-speed props on the spit & hurri, but the way I was taught to use a CSU was "rev up, throttle back"

i.e.:

When increasing power - set the rpm first, then increase the throttle.
When decreasing power - throttle back, then adjust the prop.

Also consider that the CSU's on these big props will have a considerable amount of lag & consequent overshoot - increase throttle gradually. Also, for the spit, you'll want to make absolutely certain that the mixture is in 'Auto rich' before using very high power settings.

Hope that's of some help, I don't have the game yet so I'm just posting from previous experience.

W.

I am totally new to CEM so i really hope someone makes a guide from start up, general use and combat :P

This should give me something to do while I save up for a new throttle quadrant and graphics card

The Tiger Moth (the real one, don't know about the sim) has something similar. The idea is that when descending on lower power settings the lean mixture could lead to the engine running rough. So, the throttle lever handle extends sideways in order to "drag" the mixture handle along with it when the throttle is pulled back.

The only disadvantage in this is that the mixture lever is backwards compared to most other aircraft: rich is with the lever back and lean is at the forward position. That wouldn't be a problem in regards to gameplay though, since the sim will probably animate it that way of its own accord. It works that way already in IL2 with some if not all Italian fighters, they have all levers backwards as well.


Also correct. I don't know how much of that the game models, but the part in bold is true for every real aircraft. An easier way to remember it is that the pitch must always "lead" the throttle.

I have read this article and was trying to figure out what the six levers were.
My guess is
Throttle
Pitch
Mixture
Supercharger?
Boost?
Cowl flaps?
Nose-down trim?
Anyone have any input on this one?

"All of the engine controls (throttle, mixture, propeller pitch, radiator and cowl flaps, and supercharger gearbox) had separate levers which served to distract the pilot during combat to make constant adjustments or risk suboptimal performance. For example, rapid acceleration required moving no less than six levers."

Good thread. Some usefull interesting info so thanks to all contributors!

I really hope, that the full real community will like this new level of complexity. In IL2 1946 there are only a few online server with full real settings and as we know now, full real in 1946 = arcade in COD. It would be a shame if this new system would scare people away from it.
I keep my fingers crossed and I hope that online pilots will learn to appreciate this new level of realism.

It's not compulsory to fly fullreal... Easier modes are there.

It's not what I meant. My concern is that people won't fly on full real because it's so much more complex now. Even in IL2 1946 most df server have arcade settings.
I love full realism and I was looking forward to see more in COD. But if only a hand full of people fly online on full real... well... So hopefully there will be a lot of interest in full real settings on DF and coop server online.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I hope there are enough full real players too.

+1 for the realness.:grin:

Personally, when CEM arrived in Forgotten Battles, I switched it on and never have been satisfied with the lack of complexity. That was ... 2003?

When I get my hands on my copy of CoD, not only will I keep CEM switched on, the "Complex Overheating" as well. I'll just train myself more before I engage in combat.

I always enjoyed playing Scotty on the Enterprise in games like Klingon Academy, now I'll imagine myself again yelling over the radio "Can't help it captain, she can't go any faster or the engine will blow!"

Hey Blackdog, excellent posts!

When we at The Syndicate get a server up and running (dont ask when, i dont know... but as soon as we can!) it will be as full real as we can make it most probably. Thats how we have run IL2 and RoF servers in the past. However until we see the actual server settings available I cannot of course say what they will be.

Hopefully there will be enough techno-geeks out there who enjoy moving numerous levers, switches and like to spending most of their time looking at gauges! I have a feeling taking off, flying a simple patrol and then landing without ruining your kite will be a major achievement, never mind the combat!

I have the FSX Spitfire by A2A with the accu sim pack. Believe me, you spend a lot of time looking at the engine gauges just to keep the blighter from overheating! That also models the three different propellor types in use in early Spits (and Hurris). Each does operate differently and watching A2As video about the propellor types will help you out.

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/view...p?f=77&t=23539

And as for the P47.....I have accusim version of that as well. If we ever get that in game... 3 different radiators, 4 lever throttle quadrant... its a beast!

If CoD is anything like that it will make combat that much harder. Im looking forward to it.

http://syndicatesquadron.com/

Oh man the info in here is gold. That A2A video has explained more to me than anything I've ever read.

Thanks heaps guys. :)

It will only put even more people in the fully automated Luftwaffe planes, IMO.

A bit more info on Manifold Pressure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkGEWZo2lsM

at least the manual say that the 109 has manual pitch only... that can be tough !
true , you havent to care about mixture in it :D

My question is:
all this work load in CEM does it affects only human pilot or even AI?
What I look for in a Flight simulation is certainly the realism. Some of you rightly said that CEM exige a disciplined management for each inflight situation (take-off, climbing, climbing on combat power, cruise, pursuit and descent). Will we the sole to face this load in combat or AI enemy as well will experience major difficulties in shot us down?
Cheers

Good question.

Maybe there's a simple way to simulate such things?

Rookie: adjusts all settings but much too slow but precise. This one has almost no SA. The ones with too much eye for detail for their own good.
Overheating doesn't happen very quick but forgets to look out his window and sometimes becomes one with his instruments when he digs a hole half way to New Zealand.

Or, the ADHD type: adjusts all settings much faster than an ace but overshoots his chosen values and engine limits all the time, and once in every 3 times forgets one (oil radiator, coolant radiator, supercharger or prop pitch). Forgets to check temperature 50% of the time and when overheating, tends to overreact so performance drops much more than needed. When being chased (stressed) tends to overheat 90% of the time within one minute. Loss of engine power during combat 10% every 5 minutes. Chance of destroying the engine 75% within 15 minutes during combat.

Average: Forgets a setting once every 6 times, quicker to respond to overheating, Loss of engine power 10% every 15 minutes ...

Veteran: Forgets a setting once every 12 times ...

You get the idea.

And the nice thing is, just using counters and timers you don't really need AI routines, because in forgetting stuff there is no intelligence involved :mrgreen:

And if the AI wants to set anything, it chooses a value, say 65% throttle, what the game could do is deviate from this setting with a fixed percentage as defined by the skill of the pilot. So the rookie sets 65% but it turns out to be 50% or 80% until the AI chooses a new value. A veteran would get 68% or 62%,

An Ace would be one with his machine (and this way they really become deadly!!)

Imagine formation flying with a bunch of rookies :mrgreen:

So there's hardly additional CPU load and such a system could be implemented within a few days, if not present.

Not really IRL if your EGT are to high you run the risk of detonation or off burning off an exhaust valve. So to high EGT are a no no...

My 2c

According to one of Luthier's posts, the AI uses a simplified routine in order to not degrade performance too much but in a way that doesn't let them "cheat" like they did in IL2. So, maybe the AI doesn't have the full CEM routine but they are realistically limited in flying with the settings specified in the pilot's handbook and not on 100%+wep without overheat like they did in IL2.

Azimech's idea seems pretty close to that, no complex AI routines to slow the game down but a set of AI rules depending on their "experience":

For now, true, but with the war going on the Allies are still mostly stuck with manual labor, while the German planes are fully automated.

omg, this is gunna be so dam cool, only one more day to go and it should be through my front door. CEM what seperates the boys from the men, (just hope i can be that man :D)

I think most people are going to have to do a lot of practice flying to become proficient with their aircraft. There's a good reason why military pilots are trained on aircraft with gradually increasing complexity, as managing a WW2 era fighter effectively takes an awful lot of pilot skill and training! All this being modeled in the sim is an extremely good thing IMO.

Let's hope TD will incorporate this for 4.11.

Should have added: 100% correct mixture. I my opinion a rookie pilot will more likely over rev than miss the proper mixture. That is why I wrote it as it is.

Here are a couple things i found on the bf109E
http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...chreibung.html Use google translate if you dont speak german.

and this for the D.B. 601A and 601N engine:
http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/Boost..._increase.html

Thx for the links.
Apparently these figures don't match the ones in the COD manual. In COD the 109 is 40km/h slower at o m and has a 5 sec worse turn time... Are these infos from Kurfurst reliable?

Yup, then the Spit was taken out of service for an overhaul and the pilot had to justify it. I'm really looking forward to this engine control, no more instant moves and blasting the wep :)

We already use HUD off in our campaigns so we're used to RPM and boost control but it's not really modelled in '46

In the series 'Hunters Of The Sky' there is a PTO '47 pilot interviewed and he said how he was escorting B-17's back home. They were on the home run but still away from base, but not too far. He said he's setup his machine for a comfortable cruise at which point he began to start crying during the interview as he told that his personal complacency had cost the lives of 10 men when a Zero burst out of the sky and shoot down one of the 17's. He recalled being unable to prepare his machine for the dive in time to stop it. It was very sad because clearly he'd carried this guilt with him forever afterwards.

Lots of Original Bf 109 documents (if somebody would not know it):

http://www.germanluftwaffe.com/archi...cmitt%20AG.htm

Looks so, they will be needed :)

I just had my first flight on 100% realism. Everything on and had a ball flying the Bf109.
Managed to keep the prop and temp. Took some engine damage in the end by a tailgunner from a Wellington but made it back to base and belly landed and survived. But i shot down 2 Wellingtons. Jesus what a thrill :D
It really gets busy when you constantly have to keep an eye on the instruments, trim and pitch. This experience opened a whole new world for me with WWII planes. This game fekkin rock.

And i made it thanks to this brilliant thread and the A2A video :)

It's funny how many people were against such stuff when a few of us discussed such possibilities. They would tell us that this is not the realm of a combat sim to delve into, but more appropriate for civilian sims like FSX, that it's impractical in combat, etc, so it really means something to me to see so many people not only enjoying it but picking it up and learning it "on the fly" so to speak with relative ease.

I'm not saying maddox games did it because we asked for it (they probably would have evolved anyway), i'm just glad they did and people appreciate it. And ironically enough, it's true that most of what i learned about CEM and navigation was learned by flying 3rd party FSX add-ons for a few hours on a friend's PC, especially the A2A ones and the aerosoft catalina (god, what a lovely bird that one, even if she's probably slower than a current day family car) :-P


This would be very interesting because it would turn the late war high altitude fights into a rock-paper-scissors game. It would be balanced while still being historically accurate and different: allied hot-rods got the better performance but you have to work for it, while the axis fighters have lower but fully automatic performance.

This is in total contrast to what we had in the IL2 series, where the stock 190s actually performed better on manual mode while P47s could cruise around on wep and full pitch all day long.

It's going to be interesting to try both sides of the coin, for sure.


Wow, that's definitely a hair-raising account.

On the other hand, i'll be extremely happy to have similar things happen to me while i'm pretend-flying my pretend-planes on my PC and also do the same thing to others. It appears that the element of surprise will be paramount when flying CoD in full real (especially since it's apparently harder to spot aircraft than it was in IL2 according to Luthier), as well as planning ahead to avoid it.

You might call me a masochist but after all we all are to an extent, so let me be honest. That's what i most expect from CoD, to be scared shi*tless, rendered helpless and get blasted out of the sky knowing that i really had no chance at all to prevent it no matter what i would do. This doesn't only give a better glimpse to the experiences of a real pilot, reinforces the awe factor and heightens the sense of achievement when you start improving, it also creates moments in your gaming history that stay with you for ages.

I still remember the first time i heard the flak on B-17 II: The mighty 8th, or the first time i came up against a huge bomber formation in European Air War. I eagerly expect the same to happen with CoD :grin:

Maybe I'm over-estimating the extra complexity, but I think it'll be interesting to see how this all pans out, in tactical terms.

It almost sounds like, initially (and perhaps forever when dealing with inexperienced fliers), half the 'kills' people are going to be getting while flying 'full real' will be engine kills, forcing the other guy to bite bullets or blow his engines (or both:grin: ).

It could be though that as people become more proficient at recognizing and dealing with the extra level of variables, which is to say, as people learn how to fly with this more complex engine management, new ways of managing the combat aspects of the sim emerge too. It would make sense if there emerged new forms of commonly used tactics and 'game-play'. I'm not thinking of anything radically different to what can happen now using IL-2:1946, but just in terms of people operating within new sets of limits, and finding and taking advantage of new tactical exploits.

For example I can imagine cases of opponents just deciding not to engage in combat at all, knowing under the circumstances it just wouldn't be worth the risk or that they just wouldn't be able to get away with it like they once might have. What would have previously been an opportunity for a quick or easy kill might no longer be. Another example would be as I mentioned above, where you earn your victory by using tactics that force the other guy to wreck his engine, before disengaging, maybe without any shots being fired at all.

It could change people's willingness/reluctance to bail out too. You could conceivably fire a single short burst at someone and it could hit a critical component not previously modelled, and next thing you know your opponent's bailed for no apparent reason...

Anyway, in short, it could be a real game-changer in a lot of ways, predictable and not.

I personally welcome the extra complexity and would like to reach a level of proficiency where I'd be competitive online in a full-real server. But if it's all too much I'd also settle for just being able to take uneventful, scenic, full-real joy-flights off-line too. Am looking forward to trying at least.

Les, what you describe is certainly very possible. It's also much closer to the stories we've all read in memoirs by real pilots of the time.

The inability to keep up with the workload in a combat situation is a big part of why real pilots preferred to play it safe whenever they had the chance, protracted engagements were usually the exception and not the rule as the chance of making a mistake grew the longer the engagement would last.

It will be an absolute blast ;)

I'm currently going through "Bud" Fortier's book while he was a pilot in the USAAF in WWII, and from his accounts the missions where none had to turn back at some point because of some malfunction in their P47 or P51 (not even combat related) seem to be the minority. Of course, he reports mostly on the missions where something interesting happened... like someone having to go back at some point, even though the rest was a "milk run".

I already suck at Il2... this is going to make me suck even more! I can barely wait :)

I still suck at gunnery after all these years but I'm a more technical type so there's still hope for me.

I've noticed that there is only one lever for fuel tanks in Spitfire II whereas there should be two for each tank. Is the model inaccurate or am I wrong??

I can't get the game running properly yet, but I am VERY greatful for this thread. Looking forward to the challenge.

Cheers.:grin:

I thought the Spit Mk II had one Fuel Gauge and if memory serves it should be at the bottom right. I could be wrong though...

Here are some great columns that will teach you a lot about how airplane engines work.

They apply to non-boosted general aviation engines, but the principle is the important thing. (he also has 5 columns on turbos, see full index http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/list.html )

Manifold pressure: http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182081-1.html
Propellers: http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182082-1.html
Fuel mixture: http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182084-1.html

They are very well written and extremely informative. Keep in mind they are written for the general aviation community and their flat four 360 cid or flat six 540 cid engines - so he addresses the availability of instruments to them and some "old wive's tales" and misconceptions within that community related to those engines, but the fundamental principles shine through bright and clear.

Thanks for links throughout the thread, very helpful. Certainly is a whole other level compared to IL-2 - just great!

I can't use the CEM in the Stuka without getting oil leak and killing the engine.

I tryed everything: low RPM's, low throttle, high RPM's, and so on.

After 5 minutes always get oil leak and cockpit full of oil.

Any idea what i am doing wrong?

Could you upload a video with it, with a lot of info from the instruments? Maybe the "wonder woman view" with the instruments overlay?

You have the supercharger ( yellow pull handle left of the revi ) on automatic.
Other then emergency situations and the dive it has to be on Bodenlader.
Also leave the WEP throttle on "Sturz-Reise".

Max continuous is 2100 @ 1.1 ATA.

Don't forget to check water temp constantly since you only have the two buttons and can't check how opened or closed the rads are.

When I fly in British fighters, the exhaust spits out black smoke and the plane shakes a little occasionally. The only way I know to reduce this is by making the mixture leaner, however I can't seem to totally prevent it.
Well, at least I managed to stop the engine from exploding immediately :P

Fullreal servers are going to be a laugh for a few months! Red vs. blue debates should be more entertaining than ever given that automatic vs. manual is more important than ever.

I think I'll spend the time until over-land performance is patched just learning how to fly...

When you get the shake and the smoke it's a sign of too rich a mixture, true. On the other hand you can't completely avoid it because it's also caused by maneuvering, you can get this effect easily during a stall after a high angle climb.

To be more precise, it happens whenever you push negative Gs (nose down), either by yourself or as a result of departure from controlled flight (stalls, spins, etc). The carburetor floater is pushed up due to the negative acceleration, allowing excess fuel to go through the pipe and that chokes the engine of air: it's like you are suddenly running with super-rich mixture for a few seconds.

This is reflected by the black smoke coming off the exhausts, a sign of incomplete combustion.

I only got my copy of the sim yesterday and flown just one sortie with the hurricane, but i'm very surprised and pleased to see how well they got this. If you've watched the "battle of Britain, the true story" BBC documentary (a member of this community has uploaded it on youtube in 6 parts, it's worth watching), this is exactly how a veteran pilot describes it in the interview.

I've dicovered that this is not true... on the right side of the revi is an indicator where can read the actual setting of the radiator...

Horrido!