Oleg, SOW engine abuse by pilot?

[kimosabi]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

Don't get too excited about the Bits-n-Pieces.
If you've been around long enough, you'll remember Oleg giving the exact reasons why he did not put the whole engine startup stuff into IL2.

If he puts this into SOW I'll be surprised, but if you want that stuff, there are other sims that have it.

Yep, remember that post. The DCS:Blackshark and upcoming DCS:A-10 is a good alternative but they lack in teh graphics department IMO. That's why I'd love to see it in a good looking game like SoW is going to be. And those aren't warbird sims. *sigh*

[Flanker35M]

S!

I recall Oleg mentioned a clickable cockpit in a post not too long ago so that could indicate we get procedures. But I would guess this feature is tied to difficulty settings, that at lower settings it works like in IL-2 by pressing a single button engine starts etc. For me having to start up the engine and warm it etc. is part of the immersion and a way to emulate what these lads did back then. But tastes are different..

[robtek]

One should not forget that those "procedures" have a great influence in the air combat!!!!
If one doesn't follow the procedures in i.e. the engine handling one will pay for it big time in power loss!
What is a spit or a 109 with 500hp? right, a sitting duck waiting to be shot at.
The engine start up is a procedure that always is the same, with very minor modifications.
There is no reason not to put it on 1 key and the switches and handles are moved automatically, but manually one should be just a bit faster doing it
Also the procedures in the stuka for the dive attack, cooler closed (engine stays warm!), prop pitch to "feather"(no over rpm), trim to neutral (straight dive), "Hoehenlader" to "Bodenlader" (no manifold overpressure), release altitude set, dive brakes out.
Just one thing missed and one won't be on target or gets problems getting away.

[Azimech]

On closing the cooler when diving the Stuka, nowadays "shock cooling" is proven to be a myth. I don't say the procedure when diving shouldn't be included, I just hope it won't affect the engine.

And however I like the concept of clickable cockpits and startup procedures, it is a departure from the original topic.

What are the thoughts of you guys? Should exceeding maximum manifold pressure lead to engine damage or not? I think I know the answer already.

Besides, there are elements in startup procedure that aren't necessary. Checking magneto's for one, is done to check both the ignition systems. During flight, there is no reason to switch off one of the systems. What would happen if you start a mission, you check the mags only to find out one of them is failing? You'd cancel the mission and restart. It might enhance immersion but it won't prevent the engine from starting, there totally is no skill required. It's the same like attaching the relief tube to your private part.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

I recall Oleg mentioned a clickable cockpit in a post not too long ago so that could indicate we get procedures. But I would guess this feature is tied to difficulty settings, that at lower settings it works like in IL-2 by pressing a single button engine starts etc. For me having to start up the engine and warm it etc. is part of the immersion and a way to emulate what these lads did back then. But tastes are different..

That was on the check-six interview. It was confirmed that everything was modelled, from start-up sequences to turning on the de-icers when climbing through clouds in order to clear the canopy of the mist.

Plus,

Originally Posted by robtek

One should not forget that those "procedures" have a great influence in the air combat!!!!
If one doesn't follow the procedures in i.e. the engine handling one will pay for it big time in power loss!
What is a spit or a 109 with 500hp? right, a sitting duck waiting to be shot at.
The engine start up is a procedure that always is the same, with very minor modifications.
There is no reason not to put it on 1 key and the switches and handles are moved automatically, but manually one should be just a bit faster doing it
Also the procedures in the stuka for the dive attack, cooler closed (engine stays warm!), prop pitch to "feather"(no over rpm), trim to neutral (straight dive), "Hoehenlader" to "Bodenlader" (no manifold overpressure), release altitude set, dive brakes out.
Just one thing missed and one won't be on target or gets problems getting away.

Robtek is right on the money here. Why do you think that most of the pilots who got shot down and survived to talk about it shared a common phrase among them? "I didn't even see him coming".
Because these birds are not supposed to be easy to fly, "turn the nose around and have at it" affairs, which requires people to keep their heads in the cockpit for extended periods of time, even taking quick looks at the instruments during combat. If this wasn't the case then aircraft designers wouldn't bother inventing the head up display as it would not be needed, but history and practical application suggest otherwise.

Bottom line is that up to now, we've been having it way too easy in combat simulators that focus on prop-driven warbirds. This is neither realistic nor conducive to extra gameplay possibilities, as it takes out a huge chunk of tactical considerations and decision making process from combat. It is also not easy to model, because in many cases we lack the interface to do it properly. We either have to use the entire keyboard plus a HOTAS with profiler software (more realistic but more expensive too), or resort to using the mouse and clicking on things (a bit clunky at times but as cheap as the price of your mouse).

Of course, some people might want it easy and that's their choice on how they want to fly the sim. No worries at all, use the difficulty settings and tone it down a notch, fly in the appropriate relaxed difficulty servers and everyone is happy

As for the topic at hand, i agree that exceeding manifold pressure limits (or specified time limits during which over-boosting is briefly allowed,eg WEP) should damage the engine. Maybe not outright seizing it, but resulting in a more subtle and gradual degradation of performance which, if left unattended, would result in the engine seizing, starting a fire or blowing a cylinder or two. Also, using high MP with low RPM should result in damage from exceeding the torque limits as well.

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by Azimech

Besides, there are elements in startup procedure that aren't necessary. Checking magneto's for one, is done to check both the ignition systems. During flight, there is no reason to switch off one of the systems. What would happen if you start a mission, you check the mags only to find out one of them is failing? You'd cancel the mission and restart. It might enhance immersion but it won't prevent the engine from starting, there totally is no skill required. It's the same like attaching the relief tube to your private part.

AFAIR magnetos are modelled in IL2.. I vaguely remember fiddling with them sometime ago.

Ahem.. there's no skill in procedural startups and checks - one tends to naturally do this 'at speed' in IL2 anyway - skill in emergency procedures, yes!.

And of course, 99.999999% of us have keyboard CPits which limits proper pit realities. Things like fuel pumps, and changing tanks and their effects would add a nice touch.

[Blackdog_kt]

That's exactly why we're advocating it. For example, a lot of the smaller aircraft back then had separate fuel feed mechanisms, if you forgot to periodically change from one tank to the next you would find yourself with a seriously unbalanced aircraft.

The thing is the procedures are not the main goal here, the aim is to have the mechanical intricacies and inner workings of an aircraft properly modelled. Procedures come in handy only because they are a means of making sure you don't forget important things. I don't care about having to follow a checklist to the letter, but i do care about the lack of consequences when we abuse our aircraft because that detracts from fidelity. Simply pressing "I", slamming the throttle forward and keeping it there for the duration of the mission just doesn't do it for a lot of people anymore.

[bolox]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

And of course, 99.999999% of us have keyboard CPits which limits proper pit . .

perhaps a slight exageration
there's more pit builders than you think(imho)
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...5/m/5271012437

[Azimech]

Yes, magneto's are modeled in the IL2 series but setting magneto's is good for nothing. Running with both mags produces a dual flamefront in the combustion chamber which reduces the risk of engine knock, very important in the big bore engines of WW2, so switching them has no purpose at all.
Not even for shutting down the engine like we do with our car, in aircraft we let the engine running above 1000 rpm or more, en set mixture to Idle/Cutoff.

Selecting fuel tanks has a real function and should be there. Not only balance is a factor, battle damage too if a tank is damaged beyond the self-sealing capacity. Plus, every tank has a feed and a return line. The return line is for fuel that has not been used by the engine. Such a waste if that bleeds into a shredded tank.

Same as booster pumps. If the mechanical fuel pump on the engine fails (battle damage?), most if not all planes have electrical pumps that can be enabled. You have a sudden drop or total loss in power, you check the fuel pressure gauge, see that it's low or gone, and switch on a backup. That's immersive.

Damage to the cooling system: If a plane has radiators in/under the wing or fuselage which are damaged, you close them to prevent loss of all cooling fluid and adjust power for the loss of the cooling capacity.

Something else that can be considered: generator failure. You check the ammeter and see it's showing zero so you're running on battery power only. So decide quickly: withdraw from combat and try to get to base, and/or switch off all electrical systems you don't need so the ones you really need will work longer. That could mean switching off your flight instruments, lights, trimming, guns, revi, radio's/navigation... maybe even the hydraulic pump if it's electric and there is a pressurized buffer in the system. You check the voltmeter. The more systems are online, the lower the voltmeter will show, and the faster it will drop. Electrical motors will turn slower but they will work. On the other hand delicate equipment like navigation or radio's, which use a lot of power, drop dead below a certain value. You switch some systems off and see the voltmeter rising.
Since you have no idea without instruments what the temperature of the engine will be: open cowl, intercooler and oilcooler flaps to the max, switch to lower supercharger stage or lower turbocharger RPM.

Especially the FW190 has all primary flight controls operated electrically, even flaps and undercarriage. And also the Kommandogerät, which operates hydraulically, mechanically and electrically. With the generator gone, the voltage already drops and response to input by the pilot will be slower and the motors may even have trouble fighting the effect of compressibility. If the battery is almost empty, landing gear and flaps might not lower correctly, and using more motors at the same time, for instance using all control surfaces at once, might stall one or all motors.

What's even worse is that a battery, using a chemical process, loses a lot of it's capacity at low temperatures. So if you lose the generator and are at high altitude, descend before your battery cools down and you lose even more power.

[Blackdog_kt]

Brilliant post Azimech. Just goes to show how much enhanced systems modelling would open up new tactical possibilities and situations.

Another one, consider the effects of hypoxia with a damaged oxygen delivery system, as well as the risk of fire because of leaking oxygen. If your aircraft doesn't suffer some kind of immediate fire or explosion (in the event that the pressurized tank suffers a direct hit by a cannon shell or an incendiary round), you would still be limited to 10000-12000 feet or thereabouts for the remainder of the mission.

As for magnetos, the main reason to switch between them is not to run on a single one but to determine if one of the two has failed. Initially dual magnetos were provided as a means of redundacy/safety, but then it was discovered that the engine works better with both of them on just like you pointed out.

It then became standard practice to run the engine on both, unless a failure of one system forced the pilot to switch to the other. The way the magneto check works is that when running on both the engine runs at a slightly higher RPM than when running on one. Usually, the drop in RPM is miniscule (50-100 in many cases) but it still registers on the instrument needles.

Knowing the correct drop, it's easy to cross check and see it it's "by the numbers" supplied by the manufacturer or not. In fact, pilot operating handbooks usually state permissible values as "a drop of no more than X RPM when switching from both to a single magneto AND no more than Z RPM difference when comparing left and right magnetos". In this way, if the RPM drops more than X RPM when running on the left magneto, and/or running on the left magneto is more than Z RPM lower than when running on the right one, it's easy to see that the left magneto is faulty.