Modelling engine wear and WEP limitations

[Liz Lemon]

Have you looked at how this game is modelling engine? Physical wear is already there.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Liz Lemon

Have you looked at how this game is modelling engine? Physical wear is already there.

I am aware it was promised. I speak of multiplayer, where some may be concerned about players running WEP all the time.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Janes USNF had a similar arrangement for campaigns. Where the carrier had it complement of aircraft. After a mission each aircraft was presented with a list of damage/work that needed done.

You had limited maintenance resources that you had to allocate to fix up the problems. Sometimes you had to take out the less capable aircraft so that the good ones could be used in more important missions later.

Every so often new aircraft were brought added.

Ordinance also had to be managed in case you ran out special purpose weapons like LGB for pin point targets.

Now with the scripting language used in the COD mission builder I wonder if you can write information to a file, so that it can be read for subsequent missions?

Cheers

[Crumpp]

Using overboost doesn't really put much wear on the engine

It certainly does Seadog.

Ask any mechanic, if you want to save the engine, pull the throttle back......

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It certainly does Seadog.

Ask any mechanic, if you want to save the engine, pull the throttle back......

see:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...3&postcount=71

During the BofB RAFFC lost about 1000 Hurricanes and Spitfires from 10 July to 30 October 1940. The average fighter didn't last long enough for engine wear to become a major factor, even if 12lb boost caused major wear, and it didn't. These aircraft were expended at a furious pace and engine wear due to 12lb boost was a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things and I would suspect, that statistically speaking, pilots who "pulled the plug" were more likely to bring their aircraft home than ones who didn't simply because "pulling the plug" denotes situational awareness and the average pilot shot down, never sees his attacker.

[Crumpp]

engine wear

What you don't seem to understand is that engine is overloaded just as FC says. That means it can fail.

If it does not fail the first time, it's life is dramatically shortened in comparison to just running the engine at its rated maximum continuous power of +7lbs.

That is why FC dictates the engine is dead-lined, the use of +12lbs entered into the maintenance logs, and the engine must be inspected by a mechanic before it can be returned to service.

If your engine fails in an airplane, their is no re-fly button. It is the pilot life on the line and he only has ONE.

In accidents resulting from engine failure in flight, if the pilot deviated from published operating standards for the engine, it is a factor in the engine failure in EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT of the engine failures recorded by the FAA.

Let that sink in for a moment.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

What you don't seem to understand is that engine is overloaded just as FC says. That means it can fail.

If it does not fail the first time, it's life is dramatically shortened in comparison to just running the engine at its rated maximum continuous power of +7lbs.

That is why FC dictates the engine is dead-lined, the use of +12lbs entered into the maintenance logs, and the engine must be inspected by a mechanic before it can be returned to service.

If your engine fails in an airplane, their is no re-fly button. It is the pilot life on the line and he only has ONE.

In accidents resulting from engine failure in flight, if the pilot deviated from published operating standards for the engine, it is a factor in the engine failure in EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT of the engine failures recorded by the FAA.

Let that sink in for a moment.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...bs-14nov39.jpg
The trials here:

state:

This test was terminated at 49.5 hours (8.5 hours at 12lb boost) by a cylinder head glycol leak in one cylinder, the joint being of an early unshrouded type which has given similar trouble under normal flying conditions.

So the failure was of a gasket which was known to be prone to failure for reasons unrelated to 12lb/3000rpm operation, but as is reported; "...the life of the Merlin engines under the emergency 12lbs boost conditions should be very little reduced from the normal..."

[B] Dowding states:

6. It is in the interests of pilots themselves, when operations with the enemy may have resulted in engine limitations being exceeded, to acquaint the maintenance personnel with the facts, so that oil filters may be inspected at the first convenient opportunity to investigate whether damage to the bearings has result.

so this is not anything like a requirement for an enforced engine check after using 12lb/3000rpm for more than 5 mins.

The Merlin in Perspective, p.39, states that, at 3000 rpm, a bearing could run with the oil cut off for 15 seconds before the temp started to rise. Bearing failures in the early Merlins (p.36)were most likely to be caused by excessive rpm (3600rpm+) during prolonged dives at reduced power leading to oil starvation and due to improper design features which were corrected in later versions. 12lb/3000rpm operation was not a factor.

Engine failures in flight are almost always due to fuel starvation due to improper engine management.

It would be nice if you could provide some sources.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

.

In accidents resulting from engine failure in flight, if the pilot deviated from published operating standards for the engine, it is a factor in the engine failure in EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT of the engine failures recorded by the FAA.

.

Most people reading this thread would have assume that you were referring to the Fleet Air Arm, which was a operator of Merlin engines.

Of course it turns out that you are referring to the USA's Federal Aviation Agency... and trying to roll out civil aviation accident stats to support some kind of argument regarding the Battle of Britain and the use of supercharged engines in combat...!!!!

Simply unbelievable...

Maybe you have this confused with a MFS forum?

[Strike]

You know what I'd like to see? That would be really "original" and probably attract more "full-real" guys and let the rookies practice taking care of their planes?

I'd like a system where each fighter base has a set selection of planes.

As a player spawns the plane he selects is withdrawn from the pool and sent into action. (we already have server software that does this for IL-2)

If the player returns to base, this plane will be stored in it's current state (with all damage and wear) and put into maintenance or rearm/refuel rotation to bring it up to 100% again.

So now imagine you are pounding a base in an "all-out huge air-campaign online" server. The players that spawn from that base will eventually wear out their planes and decrease the operational effectivity of it.

In a base-capture scenario this would be essential so that the attackers won't feel that the defenders constantly spawn in 100% airplanes when so many have been "wounded" and limped back to base..

So back on topic to the original poster, this would create a chance that when you select your plane, it could be partially repaired or have significant wear on certain components due to damage and repairs/field-repairs giving it altered performance during the next missions.


It's just a piece of the larger idea of having more things play a role in the large ongoing campaign. Imagine airfields depending on factories to replenish them with brand new aircraft, ammo, fuel, spare parts etc so that it would be essential to protect these factories in order to keep the war going! Raiding trains/shipping would also cause the amount of supplies that make it to the frontline to decrease.

World war II online anybody? Yes, but in theory it could be applied with success here too