Did pilots ever screw up engine management while fighting in real life?

[seafireliv]

Got fixated on a bogey, got him smoking. About to finish the job- My engine sputtered and died. GAHHHHHH! Sometimes there feels like a lot of engine management is required even when fighting. You close the rads and the cowls, pop on the boost power up the prop pitch revs to catch that 109. But almost immediately your engine starts over-heating... You ignore it for a few seconds more- Then pop!

 

So it got me thinking, I`ve never read of pilots screwing up engine management in a dogfight in reality, but surely they must have done. Are there accounts of it happening?

[JG4_Sputnik]

It happens to me sometimes, and that is real since I fly in VR 

 

No seriously, I don't know that this ever happened, but I can imagine that it did here and there.

However I've read that some rookie pilots didn't use the manual prop pitch in the Emil due to workload and therefore didn't perform that well as the vets which they didn't like to see.

 

What leads to the question of how many pilots actually preferred manual prop pitch over auto (in german planes at least) for better performance? And how many do it in the game?

[Eicio]

Maybe that happened, but the pilots didn't come back to report it.

[seafireliv]

Yea, I get a feeling that those that blew their engine either got shot down and killed or simply didn`t admit to it.

[Frenchy56]

2 minutes ago, seafireliv said:

Yea, I get a feeling that those that blew their engine either got shot down and killed or simply didn`t admit to it.

If they didn't admit to it, they would soon after they get an earful from the ground crew.

[Finkeren]

Engine trouble of one kind of another were commonplace during combat missions. certainly a lot of them were due to mishaps or wear and tear, but a significant portion likely was the result of mishandling.

 

Of course engines IRL seldom died instantly like we see when you exceed time limits in this game, but let’s not open that can of worms yet again.

 

In some ways it also might have been a bit easier to manage the engine IRL:

 

Unlike most of us who play this game, real life combat pilots flew only one type of aircraft at a time, so memorizing critical values and watching the different gauges would be second nature for them, unlike us who constantly have to keep in mind which model of which aircraft we are flying right now.

 

Some of the warning signs of a mismanaged engine could also be easier to notice IRL: Abnormal sounds and vibrations would be more noticable and in some aircraft an overheating engine could literally be felt by the pilot as rising temperature in the cockpit.

 

At last we have to keep in mind, that just like other forms of warfare active air combat most often lasted a very short time, from mere seconds to a few minutes,  often not long enough to critically damage an engine through mishandling, before there was a breather, where you could turn your attention to the engine. 

 

If I were to take a wild guess, I would say, that the most common critical engine damage caused by mishandling in combat was over-rev’ing either in dives or caused by too rapid throttle movements at fine pitch settings.

[Diggun]

There's a great passage about this in Derek Robinson's superb novel 'Piece of Cake' (I'd tell you to go out and buy it, but since you all already own a well thumbed copy I shall save myself the bother), where mid-dogfight, a (Hurricane) pilot is described as pushing the wrong lever, which makes the engine scream, this flusters him and he tries to correct by pushing another lever, which makes things worse, and he gets so caught up trying to deal with this cascade-failure that he fails to notice a 110 sneak up behind him and blow him in half. I am prepared to place large sums of money on this kind of thing happening frequently. young, hurriedly trained pilots in complex aircraft in stressful circs.... If you get distracted trying to manage your engine for a few seconds....well, that's all it takes in a dogfight. Just one of the very many reasons that you might not see an attacker.

[seafireliv]

Quote

Of course engines IRL seldom died instantly like we see when you exceed time limits in this game, but let’s not open that can of worms yet again.

 

Very interesting. I am rather interested in this quote though. So engines lasted longer in reality? I know I shouldn`t ask, but I hate being told to just `not ask` when it seems a perfectly valid subject. I learned a long time ago to not just accept when someone tells me to just accept without question. Still it`s up to you whether you wish to answer or not.

 

Quote

There's a great passage about this in Derek Robinson's superb novel 'Piece of Cake' (I'd tell you to go out and buy it, but since you all already own a well thumbed copy I shall save myself the bother), where mid-dogfight, a (Hurricane) pilot is described as pushing the wrong lever, which makes the engine scream, this flusters him and he tries to correct by pushing another lever, which makes things worse, and he gets so caught up trying to deal with this cascade-failure that he fails to notice a 110 sneak up behind him and blow him in half. I am prepared to place large sums of money on this kind of thing happening frequently. young, hurriedly trained pilots in complex aircraft in stressful circs.... If you get distracted trying to manage your engine for a few seconds....well, that's all it takes in a dogfight. Just one of the very many reasons that you might not see an attacker.

 

 

Ah, finally. Thankyou!

Edited April 11, 2018 by seafireliv

[Diggun]

I should point out that the incident occurs in a work of fiction. However, it has the ring of truth to it, and if you haven't come across Mr Robinson's work, I cannot recommend him highly enough:

 

https://historicalnovelsociety.org/reviews/piece-of-cake/

 

http://www.derekrobinson.info/

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Piece-Cake-R-F-Quartet/dp/0857050931/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1523460257&sr=8-3&keywords=piece+of+cake

 

n.b. apologise for tedious information / link spamming. It's a librarian thing

Edited April 11, 2018 by Diggun

[Finkeren]

5 minutes ago, seafireliv said:

 

Very interesting. I am rather interested in this quote though. So engines lasted longer in reality? I know I shouldn`t ask, but I hate being told to just `not ask` when it seems a perfectly valid subject. I learned a long time ago to not just accept when someone tells me to just accept without question. Still it`s up to you whether you wish to answer or not.

 

It’s just that there is a long and ongoing debate about the way the engine time limits are handled in the sim. You can find several threads about it in the FM-discussion section of the forum.

 

Just no need to reopen that discussion in this thread, since this is about real life and not the sim.

[curiousGamblerr]

Just search the forum for "engine limits" and you will get all the answers you want and more. Finkeren is just trying to avoid rehashing that discussion again in this thread.

[Gambit21]

It happened, especially in combat, which reduced the time interval between rebuilds/servicing/replacement.

[TRRA15]

Some years back I read some accounts of a WW2 US fighter pilot. The question was asked if task overload occurred, given the complexity of ( then ) modern fighters engine management. While he stated that much of it became routine and habit, there are times that, during combat with and enemy plane, sometimes finer details of engine management took a back seat to situational awareness ( vis-a-vis the enemy aircraft ) in the moment.

 

One passage that stood out for me was a quote he said, though I'm paraphrasing from memory. It went something like this:

"If we are in an air combat with each other, and if I could somehow get you interested in propeller pitch, fuel/air mixture etc, engine temperature etc I would gain the upper hand" or somesuch thing.

[PatrickAWlson]

One of the thing that made the FW190 so effective is that it eliminated all of that engine management, allowing the pilot to focus on the world around him (targets, threats, etc.).  No question real pilots screwed up manual engine management all the time, or lost SA because they were busy with engine management.

 

[seafireliv]

6 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

One of the thing that made the FW190 so effective is that it eliminated all of that engine management, allowing the pilot to focus on the world around him (targets, threats, etc.).  No question real pilots screwed up manual engine management all the time, or lost SA because they were busy with engine management.

 

 

That`s what I was thinking. I don`t fly Axis aircraft much, but I was impressed with how little I actually needed to do with the engine when fighting in those aircraft.

[Dakpilot]

 I Know/knew a number of multi thousand hour pilots who have trashed engines (radials) with mishandling, improper descent procedure being one of the  the biggest engine killers (not talking of combat), shock cooling, prop driving the engine with accompanying master rod failure. Also seen ( and experienced ) engine failures on start up and during flight.

 

Am sure mismanagement/mistakes in the heat of combat were fairly common, same as getting caught out with bad tactical decisions under stress, just that they would not often be reported as such

 

Quite often an engine failure is catastrophic and very sudden, by the time you get the warning signs (audible/physical or from instruments) it is already too late and the irreversible damage is done, however sometimes (rarely, but it has happened to me) there is no sign of anything until after the flight and shut down, on the post flight you will find one of the engines locked solid...and pause for thought

 

when a piston engine is producing upwards of one thousand plus horsepower and something goes wrong/breaks there is not much 'headroom' and things can/will escalate very quickly, with jet engines this is even quicker, although they are generally much much more reliable

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[JaffaCake]

4 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 shock cooling,

 

 

Wasn't this a myth that was debunked multiple times? By the simple fact that starting a cold engine would cause higher temperature gradients than "shock cooling" could ever achieve? (or was there a different reason? I don't recall now)

Edited April 11, 2018 by JaffaCake

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Soviet memoirs have mentions of engines being blown by poor user-management, and mainly malfunctions as well which are a direct consequence of that. The Airacobra I pilots complained that it was sensitive and hard to manage, for example.

 

Adding to what Dakpilot said, I know of cases where this has happened in real life, like a story I heard when a pilot took off in a turboprop with the pitch set to manual and forgot to bring it back for cruise during a four hour ferry flight. Nothing happened during that mission, but the engine in particular had to be sent for an inspection and had its service life considerably shortened.

[seafireliv]

I`m sorry but once again I`ve run out of likes for these great comments!

 

Thanks, chaps.

[sdflyer]

I've been talking to some WWII pilot and my impression that engine resource was limited from non combative life span due due to stress and simple mismanagement.

Even modern piston engines of post WWI (50th and 60) require to pay attention in every aspect of flight.  Turbo charged engines in particular can be stressed easily.

 

So yeah I believe many WWII pilot did mishandled their engines. However, I think this effect was not imminent but rather over short period of time. And of course as it mentioned above there are sign that things about to go wrong that pilot shouldn't ignore

[Porkins]

Every good pilot who blew an engine and made it back alive would know to blame it on a manufacturing defect.

[sdflyer]

6 minutes ago, JaffaCake said:

 

 

Wasn't this a myth that was debunked multiple times? By the simple fact that starting a cold engine would cause higher temperature gradients than "shock cooling" could ever achieve? (or was there a different reason? I don't recall now)

 

I don't think so the myth that was debunk about prop vs mp management order. But then again when you servicing   aircraft  there is very quick way to find whether it myth or not

[Dakpilot]

14 minutes ago, JaffaCake said:

 

 

Wasn't this a myth that was debunked multiple times? By the simple fact that starting a cold engine would cause higher temperature gradients than "shock cooling" could ever achieve? (or was there a different reason? I don't recall now)

 

In more modern GA aviation engines I guess that could be said 

 

But when talking of 30's/40's radials I listened to most of my very experienced 20,000 hour plus Captains (and ground engineers) opinions on this 

 

Rapid descents from cold high altitude at idle are bad for big radials, and it is hard to keep throttle up to keep temps up due to VNE

 

this was a common problem in air traffic control where 'barber pole' idle descents are common with jets/turbines and many ATC's have no experience with older types of aircraft especially at large 'modern' airports in high density traffic

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[EAF19_Marsh]

I like to double de-clutch my MG while nessing about on empty country roads in the wet. I could easily do something quite nasty to it through error and that is nothing compared to the mismanagement possible fuddling with boost and RPM in an aircraft when fighting in the vertical as some git shoots at you. 

 

In my quite limited flying I once landed a Bulldog having forgotten about flaps until almost down. If a silly 19-year old can make such a basic mistake while unhurried, I can well imagine young pilots committed far more serious offences under stress.

[JaffaCake]

41 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

In more modern GA aviation engines I guess that could be said 

 

But when talking of 30's/40's radials I listened to most of my very experienced 20,000 hour plus Captains (and ground engineers) opinions on this 

 

Rapid descents from cold high altitude at idle are bad for big radials, and it is hard to keep throttle up to keep temps up due to VNE

 

this was a common problem in air traffic control where 'barber pole' idle descents are common with jets/turbines and many ATC's have no experience with older types of aircraft especially at large 'modern' airports in high density traffic

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

 

I would highly doubt opinions of 20k hour experienced pilots - this is not a matter of experience but of simple science. If there was evidence of such "shock cooling" in combustion engines I would expect to see scientific evaluation followed by strict guidelines regarding the engine operation. I admit I did not do research in this area, so I lack literature, but a simple wiki search is a good start : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_cooling

 

Just remember that aircraft pilots are not engineers or scientists - what may "seem" like shock cooling could actually be caused by a completely unrelated mechanism. Its sometimes scary how such controversial "statements" are passed on as facts in communities, including this one.

Edited April 11, 2018 by JaffaCake

[sdflyer]

32 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

In more modern GA aviation engines I guess that could be said 

 

 

 

I believe article was written by CFI not by A&P on avweb. What myth or what is not can be easily find out by actually owning an airplane. I have seen CFI with thousands of hours mishandling engines and were thinking it was ok. Just because someone else is maintaining aircraft for them, they  wouldn't know sh@t about tear and wear they do.

 

We don't have to go far with even simple horizontally opposed engine such as Lycoming O-320. One would think it can take nearly anything with it, but the truth is - no. 50 hours oil sample sent to the lab will quickly expose the truth. In contrary, if CFI instructed on their own airplane, their pocket would quickly reminded them what myth or what not

[Dakpilot]

10 minutes ago, JaffaCake said:

 

 

I would highly doubt opinions of 20k hour experienced pilots - this is not a matter of experience but of simple science. If there was evidence of such "shock cooling" in combustion engines I would expect to see scientific evaluation followed by strict guidelines regarding the engine operation. I admit I did not do research in this area, so I lack literature, but a simple wiki search is a good start : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_cooling

 

Just remember that aircraft pilots are not engineers or scientists - what may "seem" like shock cooling could actually be caused by a completely unrelated mechanism. Its sometimes scary how such controversial "statements" are passed on as facts in communities, including this one.

 

I think the term shock cooling may have different meanings to different people

 

having helped rebuild a few 'big round' engines I will just go with the 'opinions' of very experienced engineers and my own experience during my career as a pilot  and to agree, I am not a scientist, did not mean to start a controversy and sidetrack the discussion 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[GridiroN]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but a million years ago I saw a documentary about the development of the F18 and one of its initial problems was that it had too many buttons. It gave the pilot "brain burn" and would become paralyzed with indecision. 

 

Flying a plane I'm sure is much different in real life when you have to actually move levers and push buttons. German crews testing out captured la5s found it a ridiculously designed plane as increasing speed in a fight required the attention/manipulation of 6 different gadgets. 

Edited April 11, 2018 by GridiroN

[RedKestrel]

Things like this came up in Ace of the Eighth, a memoir of an 8th Air Force pilot (Norman Fortier). He mentions several occasions where a pilot he was flying with overheated the plane's engine - he describes it as 'boiling off the coolant' or something like that - and the engine dying  very soon after from extreme overheating. This invariably resulted in a crash landing, ditching or bailing out. 

I may not be remembering correctly, but this happened during climb outs and cruising, not even combat...just from improper settings, maintenance problems or trying to climb at too low an airspeed. He didn't mention it happening in dogfights. But if it can just happen in normal operation, surely in the stress of combat someone blew their engine.
 

[Dakpilot]

I don't know about "brain burn"

 

but I certainly got 'brain hurt' quite often 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Tag777]

Here is a link to an interview with Nikolai G. Golodnikov. There are interesting comments about engine limits in real life compared to what manuals says.

 

https://www.warbirdforum.com/russp40.htm

[Finkeren]

IMHO one of the biggest, most important developments that served to make a combat (fighter) pilot’s life easier was the widespread introduction of constant speed propellers near the start of WW2. The high powered supercharged engines of the 1930s demanded variable-pitch propellers, but until these were automated as CSPs, they must have been a major PITA to operate. Just try turning on manual pitch in the Bf 109 in the middle of a dogfight and try to keep a stable rpm as you dive, climb and turn in a fight for your life: That’s what flying a modern fighter in for instance the Spanish Civil War was like.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Finkeren

[Poochnboo]

Pilot overload was a big reason that Col. Rau, who commanded the 20th Fighter Group, felt that the P-38 was not a good airplane for combat over Europe. And the 20th flew -38's at the time! Here is part of a message he sent to 8th Air Force Fighter Command.

"20th Fighter Group Headquarters APO 637 U.S. Army(E-2)
3 June 1944
Subject: P-38 Airplane in Combat.
To: Commanding General, VIII Fighter Command, APO 637, U.S. Army.
1. The following observations are being put in writing by the undersigned at the request of the Commanding General, VIII FC. They are intended purely as constructive criticism and are not intended in anyway to "low rate" our present equipment.
2. After flying the P-38 for a little over one hundred hours on combat missions it is my belief that the airplane, as it stands now, is too complicated for the 'average' pilot. I want to put strong emphasis on the word 'average’, taking full consideration just how little combat training our pilots have before going on as operational status.
3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-fivehours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavyload). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced",what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several thingswrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperaturewith subsequent engine failure.
4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. Thelogical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get organized that they were shot down before they could get going."

   There was more, but this is a gist of it. So, yes, it did happen for real in combat.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Poochnboo
misspelling

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

4 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

One of the thing that made the FW190 so effective is that it eliminated all of that engine management, allowing the pilot to focus on the world around him (targets, threats, etc.).  No question real pilots screwed up manual engine management all the time, or lost SA because they were busy with engine management.

 

not only the 190.

 

The 109F+ had also a one lever system to control its DB engines. It just had not a famous name like „Kommandogerät“.

 

In the Jumo driven Fw190 it was called „Motorbediengetriebe“ btw.

[CrazyDuck]

Hmm, I believe all those reports in style:

 

"16 planes took off, 2 turned back home to base due to engine trouble and 14 continued towards the target"

 

weren't always just innocent, random engine failures.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

not only the 190.

 

The 109F+ had also a one lever system to control its DB engines. It just had not a famous name like „Kommandogerät“.

 

In the Jumo driven Fw190 it was called „Motorbediengetriebe“ btw.

 

To be fair to the other side, late-model P-51s were highly automated as well. It wasn't like they were burying their heads in their cockpits, trying to get everything adjusted, like their poor P-38 brethren.

[Herne]

It's not just engine mismanagement though, don't forget errors by ground crew, or faulty components.

I just binge watched all six seasons of Ice Pilots recently where they fly DC-3's, DC4's and C46's commercially up in the North West Territories, and they had plenty of interesting problems over the years.

[seafireliv]

6 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

Pilot overload was a big reason that Col. Rau, who commanded the 20th Fighter Group, felt that the P-38 was not a good airplane for combat over Europe. And the 20th flew -38's at the time! Here is part of a message he sent to 8th Air Force Fighter Command.

"20th Fighter Group Headquarters APO 637 U.S. Army(E-2)
3 June 1944
Subject: P-38 Airplane in Combat.
To: Commanding General, VIII Fighter Command, APO 637, U.S. Army.
1. The following observations are being put in writing by the undersigned at the request of the Commanding General, VIII FC. They are intended purely as constructive criticism and are not intended in anyway to "low rate" our present equipment.
2. After flying the P-38 for a little over one hundred hours on combat missions it is my belief that the airplane, as it stands now, is too complicated for the 'average' pilot. I want to put strong emphasis on the word 'average’, taking full consideration just how little combat training our pilots have before going on as operational status.
3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-fivehours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavyload). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced",what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several thingswrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperaturewith subsequent engine failure.
4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. Thelogical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get organized that they were shot down before they could get going."

   There was more, but this is a gist of it. So, yes, it did happen for real in combat.

 

Great stuff and somewhat sad to see men lost to this. I knew this kind of thing must happen sometimes. It actually adds more credence to this sim now since I have often been fiddling with the engine so much that surely a pilot could simply be an easy shot if jumped or not react in a difficult situation due to his engine management\worries - And I thought the old IL2 was realistic! Means one must learn his ship.

Edited April 12, 2018 by seafireliv

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

2 hours ago, =FEW=Herne said:

It's not just engine mismanagement though, don't forget errors by ground crew, or faulty components.

 

You know, we are getting “tank crew” soon, I think we should have a “ground crew” plane management dlc too    

I as an AME in training would love this..

just like a maintenance mini game..

 

Skin repair, engine maintenance...

 

or even if you return to base with a damaged aircraft there could be a “fleet status”  aircraft being repaired and availability options... and you may have to take a patch job of a plane... 

 

Ahhh I know, I’m crazy...

[Poochnboo]

'Great stuff and somewhat sad to see men lost to this."

 

    When I read this report, it made me realize that the P-38 may have been more of a success in the Pacific for the reasons mentioned by Rau. The fact that the P-38 almost always had an altitude advantage over the Japanese, and that it was so much faster, meant that it was the Lightning doing the bouncing, more often than not, in the South Pacific. That means that the P-38 pilots had the time to prepare their airplanes for combat and were ready. They were seldom taken by surprise. Flying an airplane that was 50 or 60 miles an hour faster than its oponent meant that it would be difficult for an enemy plane to sneak up on them. 

 By the way. I think that when Col. Rau mentioned the "combat switch" he was talking about a state of mind, not an actual, physical, switch that was in the cockpit. He meant that the pilot may or may not have been mentally prepared for combat at that moment. At least, I think so.