Damaged engine quits near airfield.

[SCG_motoadve]

This happens waay too often, is it programmed that way for a reason, or a mere coincidenece? (too many times tough)

[216th_Jordan]

Does it happen when you reduce throttle?

[Ribbon]

i would love that it happends to me sometimes, emergency landing feel, will you make it or not! maybe it is a bug, but immersion increasing bug hehe

[SCG_motoadve]

Yes reducing throttle for landing.

Now it means the damaged engine quits when reducing throttle then, no matter where you are?

[Elem]

Had that happen to me in Juri's Ivan's War just last night. Coming back from a dogfight having scored 1 kill, I had engine damage and a fuel leak. I eased it right back to 50% and nursed it home. The engine quit from fuel starvation on the down wind leg. Yikes! Nose down, drop everything and hope I had enough height to squeeze in. Had to make a sharp Spitfire turn to get onto the runway heading, leveled her up, flared and bingo! A perfect 3 pointer! That got my adrenaline flowing. One thing I was taught when learning to fly in RL was always be prepared to have an engine quit on approach. Keep enough height to do just that.

[Finkeren]

A damaged engine will sometimes quit due to rapid throttle changes, so yes: It does happen more often during landing, but AFAIK it's perfectly realistic.

 

Always be careful with the throttle when the engine is damaged.

[SCG_motoadve]

Engine failures in real aircraft happens many times after a power reduction.

 

In Il2 ,This is an already damaged engine, it can quit sometimes when power reduction is made is true, sometimes, but most of the time? maybe not as often?

[LukeFF]

It quits because obviously either (1) you've suffered battle damage or (2) you ran it past its operating limits. It's not some magical coincidence that it quits nearly every time you approach your home airfield. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

This happens waay too often, is it programmed that way for a reason, or a mere coincidenece? (too many times tough)

 

It's not a game where they script events in. It's a simulator... the damage sustained is going to kill the engine. The rest is called Murphy's Law.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Not much RNG here..

it will be
Power adjustments on final (some poeple will cut to much power get to slow then hit high power to speed up again instead of just lowering the nose)
Purely bad timing (luck some might call it)
 

[IckyATLAS]

Excellent remark SShadow14. I used to fly some not well powered and heavy wingload airplane, with a lot of drag due to a large front surface section, and yes, never cut too much and manage the speed by "lowering the nose". If you are nose high, much too slow near stall, and push brutally on power you can have some adverse effects. If your plane has lots of power and torque you can even get into a dynamic wing stall, and crash. Do not forget that when landing you have not much airspace under your wings, so always keep enough speed in a good descent profile. And if you really are too fast, even after cutting the power to minimum, then two possibilities:

 

1) you are really too fast then, abort, first push gently the throttle first and start moving your nose to flat horizontal, gear up etc., do again a downwind circuit and start it all over again.

 

2) if you are just a little too fast depending on the plane you can use the fuselage of your plane as a windbrake by putting your plane into a lateral slide (ex. stick to the right and pedal to the left). I am not sure this is well modeled in IL2, but in reality this is very effective and cuts the  speed keeping the descent angle to your touchpoint unchanged.

 

The WW2 fighters with all the onboard equipment, machineguns, ammunition, fuel, all the pilot gear, radios  etc. were generally very high wingloaded, and so critical to land and also to take off. Lots of power on the engine but also terrible torque, so at low speeds when wing surfaces are less effective (landing or takoff) its danger zone.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Crabbing and side slipping indeed works in IL2 and i use it all the time.

Come in high and hot in 111 on slam dunk final Full Crab with a side slip and Take up a Decent rate close to 15m/s without gaining Airspeed (about 180kph landing config)
Then about 200ft off threshold i come out of the crab and stabalize for final

Also use crabbing in 111 while dive bombing in order to allow for -70* nose dive and barely speeding up

 

[216th_Jordan]

This happens waay too often, is it programmed that way for a reason, or a mere coincidenece? (too many times tough)

 

I had not had it happen to me in a long time. So maybe it is really bad luck for you :O

[Haza]

Gents,

 

The thing I find most annoying about either the engine stopping or running out of fuel in flight, is that when this happens it credits somebody with your destruction (kill).  I have landed at active airfields many times with either the engine(s) dead or no fuel, having limped back to base only for the message to appear on finals, as discussed above.  Although the aircraft would need to be sorted, surely it would not be a "write-off" and thus landing back at your airfield shouldn't cause the other player etc to be given your frame as a "kill"!?

 

There are many times when this has happened to me, when I have taken the time to limp home.  I sometimes think that it is just easier now to bail when losing fuel or having damaged engines over friendly territory.

 

Regards

Crabbing and side slipping indeed works in IL2 and i use it all the time.

Come in high and hot in 111 on slam dunk final Full Crab with a side slip and Take up a Decent rate close to 15m/s without gaining Airspeed (about 180kph landing config)
Then about 200ft off threshold i come out of the crab and stabalize for final

Also use crabbing in 111 while dive bombing in order to allow for -70* nose dive and barely speeding up

 

 

Dive bombing in an HE-111?

[Blitzen]

I thought it was just happening to me...nursed my 110 all the way home & then practically fell out of the sky on final...

[F/JG300_Gruber]

I don't know...

I have nursed back a fair share of planes with a damaged engine. Some quit on the way back, some close to the airfield, some in short final, some just died after touchdown and some didn't die at all.
I never observed that engines were quitting more often when you are just short of the runway, but as they are the most frustrating of all cases, it feels like I'm remembering each one of them. To me it is most likely a combination of bad luck and selective memory. 

[curiousGamblerr]

Gents,

 

The thing I find most annoying about either the engine stopping or running out of fuel in flight, is that when this happens it credits somebody with your destruction (kill).  I have landed at active airfields many times with either the engine(s) dead or no fuel, having limped back to base only for the message to appear on finals, as discussed above.  Although the aircraft would need to be sorted, surely it would not be a "write-off" and thus landing back at your airfield shouldn't cause the other player etc to be given your frame as a "kill"!?

 

There are many times when this has happened to me, when I have taken the time to limp home.  I sometimes think that it is just easier now to bail when losing fuel or having damaged engines over friendly territory.

 

Regards

 

Dive bombing in an HE-111?

 

Agreed this is insanely frustrating. Would be nice if there was a time limit, e.g. your plane is still running 3-5min after the last time an enemy hit you, nobody gets a kill.

[Fern]

This happens waay too often, is it programmed that way for a reason, or a mere coincidenece? (too many times tough)

 

haha i'm just gonna keep my opinion to myself.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Agreed this is insanely frustrating. Would be nice if there was a time limit, e.g. your plane is still running 3-5min after the last time an enemy hit you, nobody gets a kill.

 

I actually think this is a good feature. After years of dealing with the kill system in the old IL-2... this is better. It means that you can shoot a plane, damage it so that its engine dies and the aircraft is effectively out of the fight and get the kill credit for it. It means at least a little less of people fighting over kills and wasting ammo on dead planes just to game the system and ensure they get credited.

[FuriousMeow]

So your engine went out and someone got credit for a kill? Multiple times. I can't see any other reason for this silly thread.

 

If your engine dies when it is perfectly good, you are at fault - has nothing to do with being near an airfield.

[BlitzPig_EL]

This happened all the time in the original sim, more than enough for it to be anything but a programmed "feature".

 

You could fly your damaged kite all the way across the map, but get within a short distance from you home field and Poof!, dead engine, every freaking time.

 

Too coincidental for it to be anything but a distance bubble from home base where a damaged aircraft would be detected and have it's engine die.

 

Programmer's revenge.

[unreasonable]

If it is fuel loss it should be clear from your gauges whether you are at risk of the engine quitting near to final approach.

 

If there is a significant risk of this, an alternate approach is simply to turn the engine off near the airfield and glide it in.

 

This works very well with some of the planes at least: Yaks and 109s, certainly, I do it occasionally just for fun.  Fw190 and the two engined types, perhaps not - have not tried it.  

[FuriousMeow]

Unbelievable, some people find conspiracies in everything.

[curiousGamblerr]

I actually think this is a good feature. After years of dealing with the kill system in the old IL-2... this is better. It means that you can shoot a plane, damage it so that its engine dies and the aircraft is effectively out of the fight and get the kill credit for it. It means at least a little less of people fighting over kills and wasting ammo on dead planes just to game the system and ensure they get credited.

 

Unfortunately this discussion is a somewhat off topic and deserves it's own thread, which I might make someday, but for now, I wholeheartedly disagree. There is no reason someone should get a kill for damaging an engine that dies 10 minutes later over friendly territory. It wouldn't be counted historically and it shouldn't be counted here. Another variation of this is getting a kill message when elevators are destroyed- you're still flying, if you've got pitch trim you still have a chance of making it home if you can escape your opponent. In short, the requirements for a kill message could use some revision IMHO. (but this will be less of a problem when TAW starts tomorrow, woo!)

 

Forcing myself back on topic...

 

 

 

the original sim

 

What does that have to do with BoX? Do you think this has been propagated to the new version? I do not- I think it's selective memory. I did have this impression for a time but after playing a while I don't think so anymore. 

 

Of course, we could just ask Han and that would be that...

Edited February 12, 2017 by 19//curiousGamblerr

[Haza]

So your engine went out and someone got credit for a kill? Multiple times. I can't see any other reason for this silly thread.

 

If your engine dies when it is perfectly good, you are at fault - has nothing to do with being near an airfield.

 

FuriousMeow,

 

If I have been hit by an enemy or friendly aircraft and my engines are damaged or I have a hole(s) in my fuel tank(s), I usually try and head home,

Once on finals, I have experienced on numerous occasions that either my engines have stopped because they have seized or because I have run out of fuel.

However, owing to the fact that I'm on finals I still manage to land the aircraft, even though it appears in the chat that X has destroyed me.  The post flight information always informs me that I have crash landed!  

If I had landed the same aircraft with damaged engines and with fuel remaining, the aircraft would remain serviceable post flight, even with large holes in the structure and engines that would require fixing/replacing.  The post flight information informs me that I landed and the aircraft is serviceable and no kill is awarded!

 

Therefore, being an aircraft engineer, I'm well aware that an aircraft landing successfully on a main runway that has run out of fuel or has engine damage, does not make the aircraft CAT 5 damaged nor is it serviceable!

 

That is the issue with this silly thread, for me!  I thought that CLOD had it modeled that depending on the damage to the aircraft, even if you made it back to base, it decided if the aircraft was damaged enough to award a full "kill" or partial damage.  That system, perhaps would be good here.

 

As a side note, If we were all playing in a proper server that restricted the number of aircraft depending on the number of remaining serviceable aircraft, perhaps we would see more players trying to limp home and land, rather than just bailing over friendly territory to re-spawn ASAP!?  

 

Regards 

Edited February 12, 2017 by Haza

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Dive bombing in an HE-111?

Why not its a great plane with great abilities (Can barrel roll, loop, immelman, chandell & stall turn without issues can dive past the 540kph limit with care!

Dive bombing is

Faster,

More accurate (this is not WT bombs Do Not land right on that cross in bomb sight but a bomb dropped from 50m @ 45* angle lands right where i want it)

More target choices and flexibility as i can alter course and change targets in less than 2 seconds versus readjust a bomb sight.

Safer as im faster and leave the area faster

Safer as i leave the area on the deck where i am hardest to spot.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2017 by =r4t=Sshadow14

[Haza]

Why not its a great plane with great abilities (Can barrel roll, loop, immelman, chandell & stall turn without issues can dive past the 540kph limit with care!

Dive bombing is

Faster,

More accurate (this is not WT bombs Do Not land right on that cross in bomb sight but a bomb dropped from 50m @ 45* angle lands right where i want it)

More target choices and flexibility as i can alter course and change targets in less than 2 seconds versus readjust a bomb sight.

Safer as im faster and leave the area faster

Safer as i leave the area on the deck where i am hardest to spot.

 

 

 

Just made me laugh!

We have the Ju 87 and 88 for dive bombing and they are both usually very accurate.  

Oh well, each to their own I guess!

Edited February 12, 2017 by Haza

[FuriousMeow]

Haza, You got shot up, your aircraft was damaged, you didn't make it to base without the aircraft being heavily damaged. Sorry this software doesn't have the finite ability to discern between the fact you got shot up by the enemy and managed to limp back to - truly - crash land when the engine/engines went out or were recorded on gun cam as actually going down. In reality, you'd be a probable kill. So the difference between a probable and actual kill in all sims is nill - you'd still be counted as a kill. If what you want is an appending - "Probable kill of..." then yes, let's get that going. But no, getting shot the heck up and not making it to base under power shouldn't get a hushed landing - you didn't make it back in non-heavily-damaged-condition, you were definitely at least a probable.

 

Your issue is that you were announced as being shot down. That is the only reason for this topic. Your aircraft would be a write off, or at least re-engined and patched up, either way if it was that damaged.

 

Your "aircraft engineer" title has no bearing on this.

 

Also, the original topic was some bizarre nonsense that damaged engines quit when near airbases which is absolutely absurd.

Edited February 12, 2017 by FuriousMeow

[Haza]

Haza, You got shot up, your aircraft was damaged, you didn't make it to base without the aircraft being heavily damaged. Sorry this software doesn't have the finite ability to discern between the fact you got shot up by the enemy and managed to limp back to - truly - crash land when the engine/engines went out or were recorded on gun cam as actually going down. In reality, you'd be a probable kill. So the difference between a probable and actual kill in all sims is nill - you'd still be counted as a kill. If what you want is an appending - "Probable kill of..." then yes, let's get that going. But no, getting shot the heck up and not making it to base under power shouldn't get a hushed landing - you didn't make it back in non-heavily-damaged-condition, you were definitely at least a probable.

 

Your issue is that you were announced as being shot down. That is the only reason for this topic. Your aircraft would be a write off, or at least re-engined and patched up, either way if it was that damaged.

 

Your "aircraft engineer" title has no bearing on this.

 

Also, the original topic was some bizarre nonsense that damaged engines quit when near airbases which is absolutely absurd.

 

Furious,

 

Thank you for your 2 cents worth, however, I don't recall saying" heavily damaged" nor "shot the heck up" so not sure what you are assuming as even a minor fuel leak that causes you to run out of fuel, even after a perfect landing on an airfield, is reflected as a crash landing.  In all of my cases I have made it back to base, therefore I'm not sure where you assume a gun-cam would record me as a kill and going down, or are you once again assuming what you want!?  

In addition, as a current Military Aircraft Engineer with over 30 yrs experience (having also studied WW2 Allied Aircraft Battle damage), I thought knowing a little bit about real military aircraft combat/non-combat damage and serviceability states would have some bearing.  However, I will bow-down to your experience and apparent knowledge to dismiss my position as having no bearing.

 

Lastly, being one of those that usually tries to make it back to base, my experience is that the majority of my engine failures (if already damaged) usual occur within 2 mins of touch down, although I'm guessing this has no bearing as well.  Therefore, perhaps you might think it absurd or silly, but I guess climate change is absurd and silly to some, so I will leave it there and agree to disagree with you!

 

Regards

Edited February 12, 2017 by Haza

[Haza]

If it is fuel loss it should be clear from your gauges whether you are at risk of the engine quitting near to final approach.

 

If there is a significant risk of this, an alternate approach is simply to turn the engine off near the airfield and glide it in.

 

This works very well with some of the planes at least: Yaks and 109s, certainly, I do it occasionally just for fun.  Fw190 and the two engined types, perhaps not - have not tried it.  

 

Unreasonable,

 

I will give this a go next time to see if turning the engines off makes a difference as I'm fed up with the number of "Crash landed" debriefs I get even after a perfect glide approach with no fuel, having taken the time to RTB!

 

Regards

[IckyATLAS]

Maybe some additional comments on crabbing at high angles. If you do strong lateral skidding say with nose on the right side, then your right wing becomes masked by your fuselage. You get many aerodynamical elements that will combine negatively. Two very intuitive ones, the slipstream is at an angle with the wings which will adversely effect the lift, and then you have the fuselage that has a braking effect  but will generate very turbulent air (this will depend on the fuselage shape and lateral section) on top and bottom of that right wing. As you can imagine depending on speed and load and lateral angle of the plane from the descent trajectory, you can very well stall brutally, with the right wing going down. When you add the vortex (corkscrew airflow) created by your propeller that now runs at an angle it will push or sweep laterally the airflow oriented along you descent trajectory. As normally in this situation your engine runs at minimum power (as you are going too fast) that effect is low but it is there. It can add real danger if your crabbing slows you too much and by feeling  some pre-stall vibrations, you push strongly the throttle being still in such strong lateral skid situation. It is amazing to see how a very simple flying model of an airplane can become an airflow engineering nightmare when one dives into the details. The say that the devil hides into the details is pretty true here.

P.S. same issues for your horizontal stabilizer, with a strong masking effect from the vertical stabilizer.

Edited February 12, 2017 by IckyATLAS

[unreasonable]

Unreasonable,

 

I will give this a go next time to see if turning the engines off makes a difference as I'm fed up with the number of "Crash landed" debriefs I get even after a perfect glide approach with no fuel, having taken the time to RTB!

 

Regards

 

Just a quick disclaimer - I am not saying this will have any effect on MP kill award decisions, since I do not play MP any more. You might still get a "mission failed" notification in an SP mission too.

 

This comment was made from the pov of actually trying to land without a crash that might lead to death in RL, hence lead to a self administered end to a SP career played DiD. 

[Haza]

Just a quick disclaimer - I am not saying this will have any effect on MP kill award decisions, since I do not play MP any more. You might still get a "mission failed" notification in an SP mission too.

 

This comment was made from the pov of actually trying to land without a crash that might lead to death in RL, hence lead to a self administered end to a SP career played DiD. 

 

I will give it a go to see if my landing status changes.  The issue of a kill is a minor point for me as a badly damaged aircraft that is beyond repair should be reflected as a lose and I'm happy for the other team to get that, but I enjoy the challenge of getting back and landing.  As a I said before, I'm sure CLOD would award you with a successful landing and award the other guy a percentage of a frame depending on the amount of damage if you landed successfully.  If the aircraft was a write-off you would get credit for a landing and they would get 100% "Kill".  It is just a shame that it does does appear to do the same here.

 

However, perhaps the game is modeled that the damage caused to the fuel system when you have run out of fuel means that the aircraft is a "write-off".  If that is the case then fine, but having seen how badly damaged an aircraft has to be before it is written-off, I'm not totally convinced, but I guess as said earlier that is another topic!

 

Anyway, thanks for the advice, I will try and let you know how it goes mate.

 

Cheers

[DD_Arthur]

Its a hang over from RoF. If the engine is battle damaged and then fails, its a kill.  Engine failure is the key.  Switch off engine before this happens and dead-stick it onto the ground and no kill is counted.

[Monostripezebra]

The game mechanic seems to be that there are different degrees of damage modeled for each engine and you get a probably partly randomized rest-life on it.

 

But I´m definatly sure you can manipulate the remaining life on the engine by keeping temps as low as possible and the load light. Decreasing RPM with full mixture and full open rads seems to give a longer remaining engine functionality.

Where you are, when the engine quits, depends solely on the mission/map design and course. With the "too short" action flight distances, it means you are often in the vecinity of an airfield, but if you take longer tours you will end up in the woods most of the times...

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ToEiYZGy7E

[Stig]

 

 

Unfortunately this discussion is a somewhat off topic and deserves it's own thread, which I might make someday, but for now, I wholeheartedly disagree. There is no reason someone should get a kill for damaging an engine that dies 10 minutes later over friendly territory. It wouldn't be counted historically and it shouldn't be counted here

 

Many aircraft that returned to base, including ones that were not damaged, ended up as victory markings on enemy fighters. So it is not as such 'unhistorical'. 

[Matt]

I think the "crash-landed" message is more of an issue here. I also find it pretty discouraging when you nurse your damaged plane home to the airfield and manage to bring it down in one piece and then get a nice yellow "crash-landed" reward for that. You could basically just really crash land anywhere else and save the time and effort.

 

I think every time you reach a friendly airfield, it should count as "landed", no matter the state of the plane and every time you land or crash land any where else it should count as "crash-landed". Maybe renaming the terms would then be necessary, but at least it would make more sense.

[216th_Jordan]

I think the "crash-landed" message is more of an issue here. I also find it pretty discouraging when you nurse your damaged plane home to the airfield and manage to bring it down in one piece and then get a nice yellow "crash-landed" reward for that. You could basically just really crash land anywhere else and save the time and effort.

 

I think every time you reach a friendly airfield, it should count as "landed", no matter the state of the plane and every time you land or crash land any where else it should count as "crash-landed". Maybe renaming the terms would then be necessary, but at least it would make more sense.

 

But what if you dig in your plane on landing?

[JG13_opcode]

There should be a distinction between the aircraft being able to be fuelled and sent back up vs an aircraft that lands at base with big holes bin it, engine damage, and one gear partially collapsed, don't you think?

[Cpt_Branko]

Unfortunately this discussion is a somewhat off topic and deserves it's own thread, which I might make someday, but for now, I wholeheartedly disagree. There is no reason someone should get a kill for damaging an engine that dies 10 minutes later over friendly territory. It wouldn't be counted historically and it shouldn't be counted here. Another variation of this is getting a kill message when elevators are destroyed- you're still flying, if you've got pitch trim you still have a chance of making it home if you can escape your opponent. In short, the requirements for a kill message could use some revision IMHO. (but this will be less of a problem when TAW starts tomorrow, woo!)

 

Forcing myself back on topic...

 

Historically, it depends.

 

If you had reported it, it would be listed as probable. If there was confirmation that it went down (by land forces, etc), you would be credited afterwards. On the other hand very clean kills if nobody saw it could be possibly not credited. Or if you had a good reputation maybe it would be credited. What historically counted wasn't always terribly consistent, and wasn't always accurate.

 

Ideally speaking, if you had shot up an aircraft and it went down as a result (and observers saw that the aircraft went down), that would ideally speaking be credited in reality, even if the airplane crashed deep in friendly territory. So IL2:BoS way of doing it is sensible as it portrays reasonably what would have been credited if we had ideal observers everywhere.

 

Anyway, on topic, it seems really quite random. I think selective memory is the likely culprit of it always happening at landing