Engine cooling question

[IceFire]

Alright... so for some time now I've known to basically never operate the radiator controls for any plane equipped with a R-2800 engine (Corsair, Hellcat and Thunderbolt). The word a few patches back was that the radiator cooling system was buggered up and it caused a lot of drag and didn't prevent overheating. I've tested a tiny bit but I was never able to be really conclusive about it.

Does anyone know if that problem was ever resolved and I'm just relying on old information?

[JtD]

Thunderbolt's radiator still creates drag. The cooling works regarding the oil temperature, however, the overheat warning seems to come from the cylinder / water temperature, which is not affected by opening the radiator. So basically you're opening the radiator just to create extra drag.

[Blackdog_kt]

I've found out that simply lowering the RPM in most radial engined birds in the sim can circumvent most problems, in fact it's usually the main defining factor.

This can't be done in RL because the engine assembly goes into over-torque if your throttle is too high for your given RPM setting but we don't have that in IL2 yet, so you can cruise at 100-110%+WEP in most birds if you keep the prop pitch down. Of course that's not practical in combat, as you need the "pull" of high pitch settings in many cases, but it's fine for cruising fast around the map or even cruise climbing and having 2-3 minutes of peak performance plus the 5 minute resettable overheat timer. That's about 5 minutes of peak power and 2-3 minutes left to spare for cooling the engine.

What's interesting is that if what JtD says it's true, then it's modelled backwards. In reality, the cylinder head temperature (CHT) is the one that changes faster and is mainly a function of your power settings. This is controlled by the cowl flaps. Of course cooling too fast can crack or break things, so most of the tricks we do in IL2 also don't apply to real engine use (like opening the cowl flaps in a full out dive for example, in reality either the flaps will jam/get torn off or a few cylinders will crack due to shock cooling).

The oil is used to cool the engine by absorbing the heat and further lowering components' temperature like CHT, while the radiators are in turn used to cool the oil again. Some aircraft like the P47 or the big heavies (like the B17 and B24) actually have intercoolers that don't only cool the oil, but can also be used to deny oil cooling. When the oil is too hot it dissolves, engine lubrication suffers and you get overheats and maybe even fires, but when it's too low it's also a problem, as it somewhat coagulates and the oil pressure increases too much. You could break oil lines or even blow engine components off if the oil is too cold, hence the intercoolers. Oil temperature doesn't change as fast as CHT, which means it's harder to get into trouble but also harder to get out of it.

Maybe in IL2 the cowl flaps and the intercoolers are modelled in tandem under a single function? So for example, when you open the cowl flaps the intercoolers also open and cool the oil? Just a thought.

I don't use the P47 but the FW190 A series is quite similar. I find that later variants take longer to overheat, plus they overheat faster at high altitudes because i use higher RPM settings to keep afloat in the thin air. However, you can still cruise all day long at 100%+WEP and 70%-80% pitch in most cases, which still gives an RPM setting singificantly higher than the one the auto-pitch system keeps.

I think a lot of the perceived imbalances in IL2 aircraft match ups come from the limitations of the engine model. I don't have the numbers handy, but by going through procedural manuals i get the feeling that as far as the auto-management system goes the 190 is pretty accurate, 2700 RPM or thereabouts is the max continuous setting and that's what the auto-pitch tries to keep, it just takes some time for it to get there which could be crucial.
Also, it's the fact that most planes in the sim can exceed their normal operating parameters to gain extra performance that upsets things, which is also why a lot of 190 drivers fly with manual pitch. Similarly, the 47 has top performance but it lacks the complicated controls that the real one had. A 47 has intercoolers, cowl flaps and a supercharger to monitor and keep within acceptable limits. Effectively this means that even when BnZing, you have to be aware of what you're going to do and set everything up before the dive, then set everything up for the climb back to altitude after your attack. It's quite the workload actually, as simply adjusting the throttle and going into a climb or dive affects 2-3 extra things in sequence, so unless someone knows how to work the engine by ear they have to actually look at the gauges in the midst of combat.

[BadAim]

All this reminds me why even "complex" engine management is quite simplified in IL2. These birds were bloody difficult to fly! If we had to learn all of the intricacies of every plane, I bet the papers would be full of mysterious head explosions as simmers everywhere simply overloaded and self-destructed. Seriously though, I've read of pilots getting killed by the workload in these planes, whether by crashing through a procedural error or getting shot down because they were just overwhelmed by all the work.

I too hope to see SOW do a better job of handling engine management, but I'm not sure I'd want to have to break out the manual every time I switched planes. It may be that some simplification is good for all.

[Blackdog_kt]

I don't necessarily disagree, i just thing that for a 2010 simulator simplification should be an option in the realism settings and not the default.

Workload translates into extra peripherals and cost for the simmer, however there's already quite a few people with TrackIR and HOTAS sets that would be able to use complex engine management. I guess many of them would. Heck, i know i would and i only have a MS Sidewinder Precision 2 and a TrackIR.

Most people fly a handful of planes anyway, maybe a couple of types per side and their sub-variants and these for the most part have quite similar operating limits.
Also, the fact that someone is a trained real life pilot with a lot more feedback from his senses about what the plane is doing is usually balanced out by the fact that he could actually lose his life in combat while we don't. That's why even real life pilots wanted to spend as less time as possible remembering such things and that's why most planes of the time have their power settings clearly marked on a small table on the dashboard, the operating limits marked with colored arcs on the instruments or both.

I have been flying WWII era warbirds on a friend's PC in FSX to get an idea about it in preparation for SoW and to be honest, when i started thinking about the tactical implications of such things i quite liked the possibilities. It's difficult the first 2-3 times, after that you feel right at home. What can really make it difficult is not taking care of the systems per se, but the lack of a proper interface, adequately high resolution cockpits,well defined 3D virtual cockpit and movement zones for TrackIR or a combination of these things. For example, if i need to activate the water injection in the P47 i need to be able to bind it to a key of my liking, or be sure that that i can look there with TrackIR so that i can click it, etc.

Generally speaking however i don't fly with the manual on my lap, i just take a look through the in-game checklist before takeoff and memorize 3 things: Maximum continuous power, climb power and cruise. The rest is marked on the instruments.

The reason i like it is that it doesn't really overwork you, while still adding a layer of complexity that makes for interesting tactical decisions. It balances out the planes for the majority of the players due to workload, yet it doesn't prevent the ones who stand out from doing their thing.

For example, US cockpits of the time have a lot of information clearly presented for the pilots so that they don't need to memorize everything. Colored arcs on the instruments (green=good,yellow=caution, red=danger), flap and gear extension speeds, power settings, even a power curve graph on the side console if you really want to maximize fuel economy. It's a good thing, since the US birds are maybe the ones with the largest number of engine controls that a rookie could misuse on a long escort mission.
A 47 has cowl flaps to control cylinder temperature, oil cooler flaps, intercoolers to control carbuteror temp, mixture, prop pitch, throttle, the turbo-supercharger lever and the water injection switch, it's 8 separate engine controls so the pilot needs proper feedback.

After all, the last thing you need when Boom and Zooming someone is forgetting to close the intercoolers before a long high-speed dive at idle, freezing your carburetors and stalling your engine as a result. A quick glance at the gauges quickly reveals any problems and allows you to take immediate action. If the instruments are good you don't need to remember numbers, all you need to remember is "keep the needle in the green arc". After a while and with experience, you realise that keeping it in the middle of the green arc is even better, since it gives you ample margin for error on either side, you feel a sense of accomplishment and you gradually become a better pilot through small things like these.

German cockpits on the other hand use different coloring and most of the times only feature colored tick-marks instead of colored arcs, but it's sufficient as they mostly have automatic systems. Most of the later war German rides will usually have automatic prop pitch, mixture and superchargers, so the pilot only has to work his throttle with the Ata gauge and the temperatures with radiators, cowl flaps, etc.

This creates a well balanced environment full of interesting tactical possibilities, even if it's purely coincidental. Do you want to fly the high performing late war allied birds at the risk of screwing up, or will you settle for an axis ride with lower performance that's cruising on full auto?
I can't wait for the time when we'll be able to get kills because the other guy really screwed up in a myriad of ways and not just due to maneuvering or bad SA. He might be a master marksman, have the eyes of a hawk and dance around the sky like a ballerina, but stall his engine during a crucial time.

Of course, SoW:BoB is early war and we won't have that much to play with initially because of the simpler aircraft modelled, but we'll get there in time.
Most of it evens out in the end either between allies and axis as a whole due to different engineering and design choices, or between individual kills and losses (you might die because of it, but you'll also get kills thanks to it), most of the information needed is in front of the pilot and with today's high resolution textures it's a breeze to use in a flight sim.

[BadAim]

Excellent points, all.

I have been thinking that a pop-up, much like the in-game map with vital statistics like cruise and climb speeds, flap settings, critical temps, etc. would be an excellent addition to SOW (or even IL2). Especially for those who like me tend to fly a wide variety of aircraft in a wide variety of situations. Then you'd have the info at hand quickly in a familiar format regardless of any language or eyesight barriers.

Sorry for hijacking your thread Ice.......

[Blackdog_kt]

Interestingly enough BadAim, what you say is one of the things FSX does well, despite its other shortcomings (apparently there's some funkiness in the FMs, especially in helicopters).

The default aircraft are usually sparse, but even if you download a freeware add-on that doesn't have the ingame checklists, you can add them yourself. All it takes is typing up a .txt or .html file, name it under the convention recognised by the sim and drop it in the aircraft's folder and you have ingame checklists.
On payware add-ons it goes way beyond that. There are pop-up panels that not only give you checklists, but in some cases include commands for hard to reach switches, permit you to interract with the crew in bigger aircraft and so on. Take a look at some videos of the A2A simulations B17 and you'll know what i mean.

Generally speaking if the sim has html/txt/xml compatibility, people can create all sorts of interesting documentation and interface options on their own.

Yeah, i guess we did get derailed, but it's for a good cause (or because we're so keen on talking flight sims). So, back to cooling.

[IceFire]

Thanks for the answers and discussion all

(Keep going if you'd like)

I find lowering the throttle a bit usually resolves most overheat issues and I try to manage the rest of the issues that poses tactically. I'd love some more complexity and detail in the engine modeling system but I'm not sure how much more I want to handle up front. I do like being able to jump from warbird to warbird without too much trouble. I love the simulation aspects and the realism but sometimes there can be a bit too much realism. This isn't my job... it's supposed to be a fun thing to do

But that all said... options are brilliant so settings can be what they need to be. I like the level of complexity we're currently at but I'd love to see more complex modeling behind the scenes if that would have an impact on the game.

[AndyJWest]

I do like being able to jump from warbird to warbird

Yes, this is one of the problems with 'ultra-realistic' engine modelling. Learning how to get the best of a complex aircraft in a dogfight situation takes more time than many of us can realistically spare, unless we want to dedicate ourselves to one type. Flying in the Ubizoo Saturday coops, TeamSpeak conversations like this are a regular ocurrence:

'My gear won't retract!'

'It's an I-16 - it 's manual...'

'Where's the fuel gauge?'

'Should I have brought bombs?'

'Did anyone read the brief?'

Probably the most precise depiction of the realities of aerial warfare you will ever see...

Well, perhaps not, but entertaining - we do this for fun, remember...

[Blackdog_kt]

I think it's not that hard to jump from one AC to the next once you know how a piston engine works.
The learning curve is all about understanding what control affects what. After that, it's simply a case of following these guidelines in every aircraft you fly.

I'm not sure if i'd be able to 100% cope with it in a combat scenario, but as Icefire says i want to see it just because it has the potential to radically change the way people fly and fight online. It would make a lot of encounters more realistic and closer to what we read in the history books for one.

The hard part here is documentation. I don't know if the developers will take the time required to come up with a guide for each aircraft or even provide a general primer, in printed or pdf form in the manual. It's a possibility that we'll have to go all trial and error on it.

Never the less, we could just use manuals from other simulators, if the modelling is correct they will work just fine. If anyone wants to understand more about it, i suggest downloading and browsing through the accusim manuals by A2A simulations (i think the manuals can be downloaded for free from their website). They are the same guys who made BoB:wings of victory and they have a few very high quality warbird add-ons for FSX. Taking a glimpse through the P47 and the B17 manuals would clear up a lot of things.