Oleg, SOW engine abuse by pilot?

Originally Posted by Azimech

Military procedure yes, and we're talking about a military flight sim.

Here's a nice read for you, dual ignition really is meant for a better burn in those big-bore engines. It even lessens the risk of engine knock!
http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182132-1.html

double ignition gives an overall better burn performance, but it's more relevant on small engines than on large bore ones. A 100RPM drop on a 1650HP engine is negligible compared to the same drop on a 150HP. Besides don't give credit to stuff just because you read it on the internet dude, there are several inaccuracies in that "report", which by the way is on the detonation issue..
In a high performance military aeroplane redundancy has priority, especially considering the huge amount of power available.

That's not what I read in electrical schematics of aircraft.

it's probably because you don't know how to read them. And that's also why many planes now have backup generators.

Batteries warm up while charging, and during flight, they are continuously charged unless charging is shut off manually.

...so how can they freeze? And even if they did, batteries are not used during flight, it's all fed through the generator. Another thing, they're not continuously charged since they could overcharge. The circuit overload is controlled by means of breakers that... hang on a minute, have a read for yourself: this is the P-51 Pilot's manual, not some random guy's dissertation on detonation
P-51 Mustang Pilot's Manual

browse words like "battery" and read about how the electrical circuit works.. also read the engine turn off procedure and see how you want to switch the plane off. Magnetos go OFF.

That's why I started the topic in the first place! The battery won't keep it for long is something else than immediately dead systems.

It's all down to the kind of aeroplane we're talking about.

Kommandogerät is one example, prop pitch governor on the P38 is another. The mags will work anyway and if the rest fails, you still have a chance to get home.

again, it's all down to the plane. See what a Pilatus Porter pilot thinks of generator failures

...and again, I don't mean to sound harsh guys, it's just that I'm writing this stuff mostly on the run, no hard feelings, just get your facts right please, again it's for the sake of the sim.

[Azimech]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

double ignition gives an overall better burn performance, but it's more relevant on small engines than on large bore ones. A 100RPM drop on a 1650HP engine is negligible compared to the same drop on a 150HP. Besides don't give credit to stuff just because you read it on the internet dude, there are several inaccuracies in that "report", which by the way is on the detonation issue..
In a high performance military aeroplane redundancy has priority, especially considering the huge amount of power available.

Why don't you point out exactly which inaccuracies you've seen in that report?

it's probably because you don't know how to read them. And that's also why many planes now have backup generators.

Backup generator, APU's etc... not much room to put them in a fighter back then. I know of multi-engined planes having multiple generators.

Why don't you send me an electric schematic of an aircraft of that period with the request to explain it to you? I haven't learned modern high-voltage AC systems but that old stuff is pretty transparent.

...so how can they freeze? And even if they did, batteries are not used during flight, it's all fed through the generator. Another thing, they're not continuously charged since they could overcharge. The circuit overload is controlled by means of breakers that... hang on a minute, have a read for yourself: this is the P-51 Pilot's manual, not some random guy's dissertation on detonation
P-51 Mustang Pilot's Manual

browse words like "battery" and read about how the electrical circuit works.. also read the engine turn off procedure and see how you want to switch the plane off. Magnetos go OFF.

First of all, of course you switch mags off, but the sequence differs per engine or situation. I never suggested leaving the plane with mags still on.

I read nothing new in that P51 manual. Very standard tech for that period. I hoped to find something new but that small portion about the electrical system is not interesting. The only thing I like is the automatic manifold pressure regulator, That means in the future P51 drivers in IL2 or SOW will have less risk of wrecking their virtual engine. Maybe the Rolls Royce Merlins have it as well...

Overcharging happens when a voltage regulator fails, not before. A voltage regulator back then was an electromechanical device which dynamically relayed overvoltage into one or more resistors, changing the power into heat. Now i've seen a lot of those old things broken and even nowadays the electronic versions often break before the alternator itself does. Usually those old flight systems operated at 14V or 28V while the battery provided 12V or 24V. The extra 2V or 4V was, and is still used, to charge the battery. A battery won't charge to it's full capacity if input voltage is the same as battery rated voltage.
Now if the voltage regulator fails, you might wreck your battery very soon because electrolysis increases in an enormous rate, producing a lot of heat. But, the battery is a buffer, it usually keeps the increase in voltage within around 50% but it's capacity starts to drop rapidly. Some batteries can burst. If a battery bursts or when it cooks dry, it's capaciting effect stops and the peak voltage can grow with 200% or even 400%! I've seen it happen. One guy touched the lead of a running alternator which normally produced 6 volts, he got a jolt and jumped in the air. I've also seen a very hot and deformed battery which got us all nervous, the alternator provided 18 volts instead of 14 regardless if the mechanical voltage regulator was connected or not. I had to pick four regulators off the shelf, the first three were broken.

That's what those switches are for, Battery on/off is for switching power when you park or want to start, generator off for the safety of your electrical system. The generator provides the power to the plane's systems when running enough RPM, the battery is the buffer which compensates for peaks & jolts which cannot be compensated for by a failing voltage regulator, and heavy undervoltage situations. These can distort the functions or be harmful or even fatal to delicate systems like radio, navigation, instruments or radar.

Remember that generators provide DC and they start to provide a meaningful voltage at higher RPM's than the later DC rectified alternators. The fact that the P51's generator only starts at 1500 RPM while a modern alternator does that at 850, is the perfect proof. It also means that an engine that runs too slow while a lot of electrical systems are running can create a system's wide voltage drop, possibly more than the 2V or 4V, which is more than the margin the electronic equipment was designed for. The battery compensates for those moments, adding up where the generator fails to provide.
Another problem which generators have is the fact they can be used as an electric motor, with the battery providing it's power. A problem alternators don't have. This was the time before the invention of the high-power diode. The voltage regulator had a built-in function to disconnect the generator from the system when generator voltage output dropped below that of the battery.

again, it's all down to the plane. See what a Pilatus Porter pilot thinks of generator failures

I think ANY pilot would get nervous if his generator fails

[Azimech]

Pilatus Porter manual from 1972:

http://avsimrus.com/f/documents-16/f...n=download&hl=

Page 1-17.

Have fun!

[Flanker35M]

S!

Good stuff here. At work when the guys flying the propellor planes(trainers/liasion), they do cut the engine by using mixture IMMEDIATELY followed by turning off ignition and hanging the key. Then they consider the engine OFF.

[Azimech]

Here a link to the startup & shutdown procedure of the Allison:

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/pursuit/section2.htm

And here procedures for the P51, Only the D variant is mentioned so it must be the Packard Merlin variant.

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/pursuit/section7.htm

However, I'm starting a new topic to try and combine as much official manuals of WW2 aircraft we can find.

Originally Posted by Azimech

Why don't you point out exactly which inaccuracies you've seen in that report?

As much as I would love to, I have no time or interest to go into the finest details really. To sum it up let's say that when you lay down such researches on such extensive subjects you might want to take into account more variables, but then you'll end up generating a whole manual on the subject (and probably a set of manuals for different engines as well). A lot of self proclaimed experts like passing their times posting diagrams and what not on the internet, they're the kinda loners that spend a lot of their time with the heads in the engine bay of their aeroplane more than in the air.. But then again, each to their own really..

Backup generator, APU's etc... not much room to put them in a fighter back then. I know of multi-engined planes having multiple generators.

oh u'd be surprised to see what they managed to cram in an aeroplane back then. People have a simplistic and somehow naive view of WW2 era fighters, but the complexity of the systems is surprising, especially on aeroplanes which used a lot of radio or electronic navigation devices in WW2. It wasnt all about fighter boys and bombers, electronic warfare had an impressive development in very few years.

Why don't you send me an electric schematic of an aircraft of that period with the request to explain it to you? I haven't learned modern high-voltage AC systems but that old stuff is pretty transparent.

because they're very hard do scan, considering that most of them come in folding sheets as long as the plane! I tried to google for some basic ones, but couldn't find much, only ancillaries (which are quite complex per se).
You need to find maintenance manuals to get some wiring diagrams, I'm sure that the ones of a FW190 would keep you busy for a bit

First of all, of course you switch mags off, but the sequence differs per engine or situation. I never suggested leaving the plane with mags still on.

I think this is where the misunderstanding started.
but you might want to reconsider some of your sentences on the importance of magnetos in the early posts you made and I referred to. Again I'm just trying to explain where I think you expressed yourself improperly.

I read nothing new in that P51 manual. Very standard tech for that period. I hoped to find something new but that small portion about the electrical system is not interesting. The only thing I like is the automatic manifold pressure regulator, That means in the future P51 drivers in IL2 or SOW will have less risk of wrecking their virtual engine. Maybe the Rolls Royce Merlins have it as well...

Very standard tech for that period? Seriously?
A high energy performance, laminar flow, low consumption, propeller fighter which could deliver punch and fight hard at all levels all the way over Germany and back is a bit more than very standard to me man..
Just the aerodynamic research in the development of the radiator scoop and wings is a good 10 years ahead of its contemporaries.

The electrical portion was to explain quickly how it works on a real aeroplane, that's it.

Overcharging happens when a voltage regulator fails, not before. A voltage regulator back then was an electromechanical device which dynamically relayed overvoltage into one or more resistors, changing the power into heat. Now i've seen a lot of those old things broken and even nowadays the electronic versions often break before the alternator itself does. Usually those old flight systems operated at 14V or 28V while the battery provided 12V or 24V. The extra 2V or 4V was, and is still used, to charge the battery. A battery won't charge to it's full capacity if input voltage is the same as battery rated voltage.
Now if the voltage regulator fails, you might wreck your battery very soon because electrolysis increases in an enormous rate, producing a lot of heat. But, the battery is a buffer, it usually keeps the increase in voltage within around 50% but it's capacity starts to drop rapidly. Some batteries can burst. If a battery bursts or when it cooks dry, it's capaciting effect stops and the peak voltage can grow with 200% or even 400%! I've seen it happen. One guy touched the lead of a running alternator which normally produced 6 volts, he got a jolt and jumped in the air. I've also seen a very hot and deformed battery which got us all nervous, the alternator provided 18 volts instead of 14 regardless if the mechanical voltage regulator was connected or not. I had to pick four regulators off the shelf, the first three were broken.

...aaaand that's why there are breakers on aviation circuits..

That's what those switches are for, Battery on/off is for switching power when you park or want to start, generator off for the safety of your electrical system. The generator provides the power to the plane's systems when running enough RPM, the battery is the buffer which compensates for peaks & jolts which cannot be compensated for by a failing voltage regulator, and heavy undervoltage situations. These can distort the functions or be harmful or even fatal to delicate systems like radio, navigation, instruments or radar.

Remember that generators provide DC and they start to provide a meaningful voltage at higher RPM's than the later DC rectified alternators. The fact that the P51's generator only starts at 1500 RPM while a modern alternator does that at 850, is the perfect proof. It also means that an engine that runs too slow while a lot of electrical systems are running can create a system's wide voltage drop, possibly more than the 2V or 4V, which is more than the margin the electronic equipment was designed for. The battery compensates for those moments, adding up where the generator fails to provide.
Another problem which generators have is the fact they can be used as an electric motor, with the battery providing it's power. A problem alternators don't have. This was the time before the invention of the high-power diode. The voltage regulator had a built-in function to disconnect the generator from the system when generator voltage output dropped below that of the battery.

I'm sorry man, but the impression I got here is that you are doing a lot of copy/paste to show that you know on the subject, while I'm addressing other points that you don't seem (or want?) to see..

I think ANY pilot would get nervous if his generator fails

glider pilots??

[Azimech]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

As much as I would love to, I have no time or interest to go into the finest details really. To sum it up let's say that when you lay down such researches on such extensive subjects you might want to take into account more variables, but then you'll end up generating a whole manual on the subject (and probably a set of manuals for different engines as well). A lot of self proclaimed experts like passing their times posting diagrams and what not on the internet, they're the kinda loners that spend a lot of their time with the heads in the engine bay of their aeroplane more than in the air.. But then again, each to their own really..

Did you even read the whole article? I strongly doubt that! It involves LOGIC, and that's the glue in that whole damn reading. Using my own brain, I found it perfectly plausible.

oh u'd be surprised to see what they managed to cram in an aeroplane back then. People have a simplistic and somehow naive view of WW2 era fighters, but the complexity of the systems is surprising, especially on aeroplanes which used a lot of radio or electronic navigation devices in WW2. It wasnt all about fighter boys and bombers, electronic warfare had an impressive development in very few years.

B17 is a very good example, but that's no fighter. Anyway, the way A2A simulations has implemented the features into FSX is a nice guide how the complexity of military simulation could become.

because they're very hard do scan, considering that most of them come in folding sheets as long as the plane! I tried to google for some basic ones, but couldn't find much, only ancillaries (which are quite complex per se).
You need to find maintenance manuals to get some wiring diagrams, I'm sure that the ones of a FW190 would keep you busy for a bit

I read them at breakfast for my entertainment. Don't bother, i've got enough lying around.

The FW190 itself is not very interesting. The only thing that's worth to me is the internal operation and structure of the Kommandogerät, although I've got a very good hunch how it operates.

I think this is where the misunderstanding started.
but you might want to reconsider some of your sentences on the importance of magnetos in the early posts you made and I referred to. Again I'm just trying to explain where I think you expressed yourself improperly.

You seem to be the only one having a problem with how i'm expressing myself.

Very standard tech for that period? Seriously?
A high energy performance, laminar flow, low consumption, propeller fighter which could deliver punch and fight hard at all levels all the way over Germany and back is a bit more than very standard to me man..
Just the aerodynamic research in the development of the radiator scoop and wings is a good 10 years ahead of its contemporaries.

I've never cared for aerodynamics. I've always been interested in hydraulics, electrics and internal reciprocating engines. In those ways the Mustang is a very standard beast. Give a stone brick a big enough engine and it will fly. Do I like the engine? Then I'll like the brick. I don't really like the carburetted V12, it's all injected radials for me.

...aaaand that's why there are breakers on aviation circuits..

Yes, and the point was/is YOU DON'T DISCONNECT YOUR BATTERY FROM YOUR SYSTEM WHILE FLYING UNLESS YOU REALLY NEED TO!

I'm sorry man, but the impression I got here is that you are doing a lot of copy/paste to show that you know on the subject, while I'm addressing other points that you don't seem (or want?) to see..

Man, you're a joke. I've confronted you with a lot of errors in your statements, often with material from the era, and you twist & turn the whole time and ultimately insult me with copy & paste work, while I write using my own friggin' brain.

I don't give a Flying F*$^ whatever plane you've driven, that doesn't make you a technical expert all of a sudden and it shows. You think you're smart while you ignore evidence I place under your nose and suggest that I am trying to avoid the subject? Get lost.

Now go fly your plane and don't waste any more of my time.

Originally Posted by Azimech

Did you even read the whole article? I strongly doubt that! It involves LOGIC, and that's the glue in that whole damn reading. Using my own brain, I found it perfectly plausible.

I did, it's not the first time I've been pointed to it. I assume I am entitled to my opinion as much as you are, live with it dude. I am not saying you shouldn't believe it, but please don't come around telling me what is right or wrong.

B17 is a very good example, but that's no fighter. Anyway, the way A2A simulations has implemented the features into FSX is a nice guide how the complexity of military simulation could become.

There are fighters that have very complicated electronics like the Me110 night fighters and successors.. anyway I agree about the A2A stuff, it seems really interesting!

I read them at breakfast for my entertainment. Don't bother, i've got enough lying around.

The FW190 itself is not very interesting. The only thing that's worth to me is the internal operation and structure of the Kommandogerät, although I've got a very good hunch how it operates.

lol I read only newspapers and email in the morning, but each to their own

You seem to be the only one having a problem with how i'm expressing myself.

dude, I'm just saying that the way you put things originally sounded a bit wrong, then you got all wound up and started enumerating a lot of babble that had nothing to do with what I said, don't take it personally..

I've never cared for aerodynamics. I've always been interested in hydraulics, electrics and internal reciprocating engines. In those ways the Mustang is a very standard beast. Give a stone brick a big enough engine and it will fly. Do I like the engine? Then I'll like the brick. I don't really like the carburetted V12, it's all injected radials for me.

I say that you can't look only at certain aspects of an aeroplane and say "I don't care about the rest". The Mustang and Spit Mk.IX had pretty much the same powerplant, but the Mustang had the edge on performance because of its extremely clean aerodynamics and build. Uh and only the early marks of Merlin engines weren't fuel injected. Having dealt with radials and inline engines I tend to agree with you: radials have a different fashion appeal and they're VERY sturdy, but the performance and technology of a Merlin (or a DB605) is something superior.

Yes, and the point was/is YOU DON'T DISCONNECT YOUR BATTERY FROM YOUR SYSTEM WHILE FLYING UNLESS YOU REALLY NEED TO!

I never said you do, the electrical plant does it for you automatically.

Man, you're a joke. I've confronted you with a lot of errors in your statements, often with material from the era, and you twist & turn the whole time and ultimately insult me with copy & paste work, while I write using my own friggin' brain.

I'm sorry, but where are my "lots of errors"? I don't need to insult you man, you're just going off topic talking about stuff that had nothing to do with the original point. Relax, we're all adults here (or are we?)..

I don't give a Flying F*$^ whatever plane you've driven, that doesn't make you a technical expert all of a sudden and it shows. You think you're smart while you ignore evidence I place under your nose and suggest that I am trying to avoid the subject? Get lost.

Now go fly your plane and don't waste any more of my time.

whoa, that's harsh.. I'm not a technical expert, but I spend a lot of time with our mechanics in the hangar and I think I have enough on hand experience to be confident enough about what I'm saying.

I don't mean to waste anyone's time, and if anything you should show some respect to people that you don't know and are trying to have a civilised conversation. Uh and another thing, accept the fact that despite all of your breakfasts with manuals and internet knowledge you might still be wrong man. Now relax and go back to your manuals while I'll get my hands dirty on a real aeroplane...

Peace out..