Oleg, SOW engine abuse by pilot?

[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.

[Azimech]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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

Well, thank you

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.

Which also would be affecting a crew.

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.

Yes, all true. I wouldn't mind if it's in the sim but it could be left out, since checking the mags & engine RPM is only done on the airfield prior to a mission or any flight. If one of the ignition systems fail due to battle damage, there would be no reason to test during flight whether it's the first or second. Well maybe if you don't know one has failed but have a hunch and wish to lower manifold pressure to prevent engine knock.

Offtopic:
On fire and explosions, I wonder if SOW will have the properties of Elektron modeled as used in some aircraft types of the Luftwaffe and used for their incendiary bombs and cannons, also during the BOB. You know the stuff, once ignited it would burn a plane in half with bright white flames.

From the Heinkel He 70 wiki:
"The main weakness of the He 70 design soon became obvious. The He 70 airframe was made out of so-called "electron metal", a very light, yet strong alloy of magnesium, which burns spontaneously in air when heated, and is only exhausted when covered in sand. A single hit from a light machine gun usually set the entire plane ablaze, killing the crew. "

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

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/show...neguns./page10

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by Azimech

...
Especially the FW190 has all primary flight controls operated electrically, even flaps and undercarriage.

I think you will find that the FW190 "primary controls" ( Elevator, Ailerons, Rudder) are actuated by conventional push rods.

The Elevator Trim, flaps and undercarrage ( classed as a "secondary controls") were however electrically actuated. Rudder and Aileron trim were only adjustable on the ground.

Cheers!

[Azimech]

I stand corrected

[AKA_Tenn]

ok so this debate about realism vs. playability... should actually be more on the lines of... a counter-strike type first person shooter (but in the sky), or a simulator.

trying to be as close to real life as u can get while sitting in your computer chair... the debate weather its redundant or quicker or useless doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is... super high manifold pressure killing ur engine in a few seconds is realistic, so it should happen... if u don't follow procedures and dont managing your engine properly you should be punished for it... if those kinds of things don't happen, it can't really be considered a simulation nowadays, can it?

so for all you "one button does all" dudes, sorry i couldn't find a flying game like that, but i found one thats "two buttons do all"

right here

[Azimech]

What a great game! I love it!

It really brings me back in Commodore 64 mode!

Screw SOW, I'm gonna play this the rest of my days!

My highscore after two runs: 11681

XD

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by AKA_Tenn

ok so this debate about realism vs. playability... should actually be more on the lines of... a counter-strike type first person shooter (but in the sky), or a simulator.

trying to be as close to real life as u can get while sitting in your computer chair... the debate weather its redundant or quicker or useless doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is... super high manifold pressure killing ur engine in a few seconds is realistic, so it should happen... if u don't follow procedures and dont managing your engine properly you should be punished for it... if those kinds of things don't happen, it can't really be considered a simulation nowadays, can it?

so for all you "one button does all" dudes, sorry i couldn't find a flying game like that, but i found one thats "two buttons do all"

right here

I too like to have as much realism as possible, but there's no need to think ill of the preferred gameplay experience of others.

In fact the best scenario would be super high realism for the old timers, but with a lot of difficulty options for the people who want it easy, so that we can bring more people into flight sims. Better yet would be the option of not just turning off realistic features, but have help tools that assist the user in managing them. This way the realistic features are still working, but at the same time the software itself shows you how to do it and helps you learn it. It's a bit better than going from no torque and simplified engine management straight to full FM options and realistic systems modelling, as it smoothens out the learning curve.

It's not in our best interest as a community and a hobby to pose as the "smart guys" who know it all and drive away any potential newcomers. What's in our best interest is to have our gaming software be highly realistic and challenging, but also highly accessible and scalable, so that newcomers can come in, enjoy themselves and learn as they go in stages, without quitting because of a steep learning curve and frustration.

I have a lot of friends who are interested in WWII and i'm trying to tide them over to flight sims. You know what they tell me? "It's too hard to just jump right in, plus it takes lots of time to learn and make the experience worthwhile". If these people could be assured a smoother learning curve, i alone could help make an extra 3-4 sales for SoW and possibly for future flight sims, and that's people who have never ever used a flight sim in their lives.

So yes, let's have it as ultra-realistic as it gets, but also have enough help options that will help us win over new blood

[Azimech]

Exactly.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I have a lot of friends who are interested in WWII and i'm trying to tide them over to flight sims. You know what they tell me? "It's too hard to just jump right in, plus it takes lots of time to learn and make the experience worthwhile". If these people could be assured a smoother learning curve, i alone could help make an extra 3-4 sales for SoW and possibly for future flight sims, and that's people who have never ever used a flight sim in their lives.

No, they just dont really really care, and you cant make them learn.
Being interested in WW2 and being willing to learn how to fly are two different things.
We are nerds, and no no, we cannot pull 'em over to the dark side.
It's a fact, live with it.

This passion arises with the age of ~10 - if not, it never will.