Engine management

[HagarTheHorrible]

Q 1,. Does BoX support a more sophisticated engine management regime than RoF ?

 

Q 2,  Does engine management fall under the umbrella of FM ?

 

Q 3,. Would it be desirable to have a more involved engine management regime ?

 

I was trying to look up an article I'd read several years ago, about flight testing the Pup, in which the pilot/ author talked about having to keep the control colum pressed forward, pretty much into the dashboard.  I haven't found it yet.  I did read this article though, very pleasant, in which he talks about managing the engine, or fuel.  Rotaries were, it appears, needing constant attention, something not particularly covered in RoF, I wondered if it something that might be explored more in FC, whether it is desirable and, if not connected to the sophistry of the FM's might be achievable, given the experience gained by the developers, in producing the more sophisticated WW2 aircraft ?

 

This is the article I was reading;

https://haa-uk.aero/document/flight-testing-the-sopwith-pup/

 

[Cynic_Al]

Rotaries cannot be fitted with the same type of carbs used on other engines, which means the pilot has to regulate the fuel and air independently as conditions change. Would we want this in a game? I doubt it. At best it could be made an option for the purists, but not a requirement, as in practice it would need two 'slider' controls operated with the same hand.

[unreasonable]

I remember seeing that excellent article in Aeroplane magazine: one of the most detailed "fly a rotary" articles I can recall.

 

Playing RoF I used to try to use the engine in that manner, but it was certainly not necessary: I do not think rich cut outs on take off were possible in any type, but you could use mixture to cut the engine while descending, being careful to not let the prop stop turning. RoF CEM was fairly basic, but then so are BoX's timers.

 

I doubt that the FC CEM is much evolved from RoF, all seemed fairly straightforwards in the Dr.1, but I would rather wait for a comment from someone more current in RoF: I have not done much with it for a couple of years now. Personally I would like a more realistic CEM for RoF, as I find the strangeness of these contraptions part of the charm.

1 minute ago, Cynic_Al said:

Rotaries cannot be fitted with the same type of carbs used on other engines, which means the pilot has to regulate the fuel and air independently as conditions change. Would we want this in a game? I doubt it. At best it could be made an option for the purists, but not a requirement, as in practice it would need two 'slider' controls operated with the same hand.

 

For the sliders that is true enough: but that is also true of all the allied planes that have a separate throttle and rpm control. If you have a system that works for a Spitfire or Yak, you have one that can easily be changed to a two lever rotary control. Which can be over-ridden in difficulty settings by using the engine helper. So it is already there: it is just that the effects of the two inputs are modeled in a highly simplified way. 

[Jack59]

I yearn for more detail in engine management. The closer the handling of the engine is in the game to reality, the more immersive it is. Also, I like having to monitor my systems in flight on the way to the combat zone. Simply flying the aircraft can be interesting, as well as fighting in it.

 

My first love is WWI aircraft. They capture my imagination like no other. But one of the aspects that I have appreciated about the WW2 birds, and which has increased my interest in them, is the management of those high performance engines. I gravitate towards the aircraft with the least automation, like the P-39 and P-40. I would highly welcome any more detail that could be brought to the management of the WWI crates.

[HagarTheHorrible]

25 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Personally I would like a more realistic CEM for RoF, as I find the strangeness of these contraptions part of the charm.

 

 

Yes, one of the appeals of more complex engine management is exploring the quirks and character of different aircraft or at least engine types.

[Ceowulf]

Definitely with you guys- an optional more CEM would be really fun.   I like flying the P40 in Il2 just for the extra engine management.   

 

This is obviously not a complaint though.  Just a nice to have.  

 

Ceowulf<><

[Sotka94]

I'm in the opposite camp, getting more and more used to engine management in WW2 planes, but it isn't something I take great pleasure in. I like that WWI planes have much less engine management. Many people will certainly feel different than I do, but I'd rather not have more hassle with engines, at least not mandatory such. For some engine management is a joy that adds immersion, for others a chore you have to do in order to keep having fun.

 

Edit: Wanted to make it clear that I don't mind at all the amount of engine management we currently have. Making it more complex is what I'm personally not that excited about.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Kreisau

[Chill31]

2 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

Rotaries cannot be fitted with the same type of carbs used on other engines, which means the pilot has to regulate the fuel and air independently as conditions change. Would we want this in a game? I doubt it. At best it could be made an option for the purists, but not a requirement, as in practice it would need two 'slider' controls operated with the same hand.

 

I think you could achieve it with 4 buttons as well as the sliders. It is certainly more complex to manage a rotary, but I don't think it would be too overwhelming for non-beginners of FC.  The complex part of a rotary is in rapid throttle changes and in landing. 

 

In flight, "idle" with the rotary controls will turn the engine off!  So one must be careful in how much he throttles down the engine.  

 

In ROF (have to see how FC performs), the rotaries can be throttled down to a soft idle, even low enough to land.  In reality, landing requires the use of the blip switch to slow down enough to touch down.

 

Unlike more advanced WWII engines, the rotaries will all have basically the same engine management ie. fuel and air control.  You won't have to have different control configurations from plane to plane.

 

In another 6 months, I should have some detailed information regarding running the rotary engine.

 

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Chill31

[Ceowulf]

Very cool.   And you can’t blip too much or rather for too long on the ground for risk of fouling plugs, right?   

 

@Kreisau, I am totally for keeping it optional.  More players is better that more buttons.   

 

Ceowulf<><

Edited July 20, 2018 by Ceowulf

[Chill31]

2 minutes ago, Ceowulf said:

Very cool.   And you can’t blip too much or rather for too long on the ground for risk of fouling plugs, right?   

 

@Kreisau, I am totally for keeping it optional.  More players is better that more buttons.   

 

Ceowulf<><

Not so much of fowling the plugs as the plugs are mounted in the cylinder at an angle that prevents fluid build up (I'll post a picture this weekend).  While the ignition is off (Blip switched depressed), the engine is still feeding fuel and oil to the cylinder, BUT there is no combustion...SO the mixture can become too rich and when you release the blip switch, the engine will not fire.  In flight, this can happen and you have to cut the fuel until the engine lights again.  On the ground...it just quits.

[HiIIBiIIy]

5 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

I was trying to look up an article I'd read several years ago, about flight testing the Pup, in which the pilot/ author talked about having to keep the control colum pressed forward, pretty much into the dashboard.

I have read the same article, but he said after the first flight,they adjusted the wing-incidence angle it was very little forward pressure needed.

 

[unreasonable]

Just been messing around with the FC Dr.1 some more: I agree that you can just throttle back to descend and land, but you can also do something similar to the article about the Pup in Hagar's link: it also allows a much faster descent, which can come in handy.

 

i.e. leave the throttle on full and control the speed with the mixture lever (The Pup pilot is not using blip to slow down but to hold instantaneous power on demand if he needs it during landing).  When you set the mixture to full lean the engine will cut after a while: then you need to enrich the mixture again to get it going before it stops completely.  I am reading the "fine adjustment" in the article as being equivalent to our mixture, and the "blocktube" as being equivalent to our throttle.

 

One thing I have not managed to reproduce is any rich cut out at take off or soon after, but the best rpms do require a little leaning after take off.

 

1 hour ago, Kreisau said:

 

 

Edit: Wanted to make it clear that I don't mind at all the amount of engine management we currently have. Making it more complex is what I'm personally not that excited about.

 

I do not think FC engine management needs to be much more complex - maybe even more complex at all - we already have mixture and throttle which stand in for their slightly different equivalents in rotaries, we have a blip switch,  and in RoF N.28 (FC Camels?) we had the additional option of shutting down a proportion of the cylinders.  We have overheat/overcool, radiators for the in-lines, and the possibility of over-revving for all.  Given the automation in WW2, arguably there is less to worry about, although in BoX you do have to watch those pesky engine timers, they will not be missed in FC.  

 

So I think what the "petrolheads" want is just that these controls and engines work as far as is practicable in the way that actual plane's controls and engine's work. RoF/FC now is a fun approximation, I expect it could be more accurate without being any more complex: but defer to the experts as to where, if at all, evolution of the CEM is desirable. 

[HagarTheHorrible]

1 hour ago, Chill31 said:

Not so much of fowling the plugs as the plugs are mounted in the cylinder at an angle that prevents fluid build up (I'll post a picture this weekend).  While the ignition is off (Blip switched depressed), the engine is still feeding fuel and oil to the cylinder, BUT there is no combustion...SO the mixture can become too rich and when you release the blip switch, the engine will not fire.  In flight, this can happen and you have to cut the fuel until the engine lights again.  On the ground...it just quits.

 

 

Am I right in thinking, blipping to long resulting in an over rich mixture with the rather frightening consequence of jets of flame shooting out of the exhaust when un-blipped.  I have a vague memory of hearing about it in conjunction with the N28 for some reason.

 

20 minutes ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

I have read the same article, but he said after the first flight,they adjusted the wing-incidence angle it was very little forward pressure needed.

 

 

I suspected that might well have been the case, cheers.

17 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Just been messing around with the FC Dr.1 some more: I agree that you can just throttle back to descend and land, but you can also do something similar to the article about the Pup in Hagar's link: it also allows a much faster descent, which can come in handy.

 

i.e. leave the throttle on full and control the speed with the mixture lever (The Pup pilot is not using blip to slow down but to hold instantaneous power on demand if he needs it during landing).  When you set the mixture to full lean the engine will cut after a while: then you need to enrich the mixture again to get it going before it stops completely.  I am reading the "fine adjustment" in the article as being equivalent to our mixture, and the "blocktube" as being equivalent to our throttle.

 

One thing I have not managed to reproduce is any rich cut out at take off or soon after, but the best rpms do require a little leaning after take off.

 

 

I do not think FC engine management needs to be much more complex - maybe even more complex at all - we already have mixture and throttle which stand in for their slightly different equivalents in rotaries, we have a blip switch,  and in RoF N.28 (FC Camels?) we had the additional option of shutting down a proportion of the cylinders.  We have overheat/overcool, radiators for the in-lines, and the possibility of over-revving for all.  Given the automation in WW2, arguably there is less to worry about, although in BoX you do have to watch those pesky engine timers, they will not be missed in FC.  

 

So I think what the "petrolheads" want is just that these controls and engines work as far as is practicable in the way that actual plane's controls and engine's work. RoF/FC now is a fun approximation, I expect it could be more accurate without being any more complex: but defer to the experts as to where, if at all, evolution of the CEM is desirable. 

 

 

Quite right.

 

Maybe it's all there, it just requires a little fine tuning, to be a little more granular.  I don't recall having to worry to much about engine management in RoF, a little (very) mixture control here and there and a bit of blipping, but nothing overly onerous. Start engine, adjust mixture for best power, take off, adjust mixture once again, forget about it until end of flight.  Maybe it was a little more involved than that but I don't recall it if it was. It did feel a little lacking at the time though as if it needing more fiddling with depending on altitude change etc..

[Cynic_Al]

1 hour ago, Chill31 said:

 

 In another 6 months, I should have some detailed information regarding running the rotary engine.

 

 

In its current state, I presume you can operate your Dr1 without a ground crew, but do you think that will be possible once a rotary is fitted?

[Guest deleted@83466]

 

Quote

In its current state, I presume you can operate your Dr1 without a ground crew, but do you think that will be possible once a rotary is fitted?

 

That sounds like you're projecting your own social anxiety onto others, Cynic_Al.  "I have this wonderful Dr.1, but I have no friends,  and if I get a rotary engine I won't have anyone to spin the prop, so I won't be able to fly it anymore." ?

Edited July 20, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[Chill31]

 

[unreasonable]

50 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

Maybe it's all there, it just requires a little fine tuning, to be a little more granular.  I don't recall having to worry to much about engine management in RoF, a little (very) mixture control here and there and a bit of blipping, but nothing overly onerous. Start engine, adjust mixture for best power, take off, adjust mixture once again, forget about it until end of flight.  Maybe it was a little more involved than that but I don't recall it if it was. It did feel a little lacking at the time though as if it needing more fiddling with depending on altitude change etc..

 

I suspect that depends on the plane and also what kind of things you did in RoF. If you were a MP furballer, I expect you right, although you still have to worry about overspeeding your prop in dives.  If you played SP Career it got a bit more taxing, especially in the winter, when you might have a 45 minute mission at 3,000m with the main danger being over-cooling which you had to deal with using mixture, in a rotary, with no thermometer to tell you anything: just had to listen to the engine.  Time to test the Dr.1 on a winter map now....

 

edit: nice video, hope plane was OK, pilot lived to tell the tale. That is the rich cut that killed a large number of RFC trainees.

Edited July 20, 2018 by unreasonable

[Chill31]

Watch the whole video.  Especially the part at night.

31 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

In its current state, I presume you can operate your Dr1 without a ground crew, but do you think that will be possible once a rotary is fitted?

Possible...yes (I know a guy who did it). Safe or smart? ...not so much.  I have considered designing a starter system for the 80 Le Rhone.  Still on the fence about it...if I did, solo flights would be no problem.

 

I guess I am hoping that the unique opportunity to interact with a rotary powered WWI fighter would draw enough of a crowd that I could find decent help   time will tell!

[Lusekofte]

4 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

 

Yes, one of the appeals of more complex engine management is exploring the quirks and character of different aircraft or at least engine types.

Yes it also gain a balance among the users, those better at multitasking and used to more complex simulators might have a chance against those only want to move the throttle and dogfight. To me , the lesser complexity the game become more like a FPS game. But then again, I think this is what the developers want

[HagarTheHorrible]

3 hours ago, Chill31 said:

 

 

I guess I am hoping that the unique opportunity to interact with a rotary powered WWI fighter would draw enough of a crowd that I could find decent help   time will tell!

 

An armless enough proposal.  

 

"Yeh, just use both hands"

 

 

"Ok, just try it with one hand"

 

 

"hmmmmmm, never mind, I'll find someone else "...... " Anyone got a bucket of water and a sponge ?"

[J2_Von-Graff]

Well, if 100% authenticity is what you are looking for....(which I am not opposed to) even the Albatros series of fighters had elements that were not represented in ROF....like the fact you had to pump the oil via a little hand pump during flight every so often. Every 5 or 10 minutes or so I believe. Anybody want something else to keep track of? lol.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by Von-Graff

[J2_Trupobaw]

I have few axes on my quadrant so spiking I can't use them for anything... so if we need to pump back and forth, I'm ready.

Edited July 24, 2018 by J2_Trupobaw

[Jack59]

38 minutes ago, Von-Graff said:

Anybody want something else to keep track of? lol.

 

 

 

Yes! 

[J2_Von-Graff]

Then by all means petition the devs to add the Albatros manual oil pump.....and get yourself one of these as well.....plenty to keep you busy in flight.

 

[HiIIBiIIy]

47 minutes ago, Von-Graff said:

Then by all means petition the devs to add the Albatros manual oil pump.

The Mercedes DIII engine has a engine driven oil pump, it's water pump you have to give a shot of grease to now and then.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Too many beans for dinner.  The result, a little excess gas. An old one, but good none the less.  I love the sound of the wires although evidently, the pilot can't hear it.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by HagarTheHorrible

[unreasonable]

 

The part you have to copy paste looks like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&amp;v=Mmm37Xeq0iI

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by unreasonable

[HagarTheHorrible]

Cheers,  I realised I was overcomplicating things by either using the link button in the compose box or trying to use the embed in the youtube share option when the above didn't work.

[unreasonable]

You are welcome, it took someone else to tell me how to do it years ago - this cut and paste from You tube to forum method is simpler than all the "shortcuts". 

Edited July 24, 2018 by unreasonable

[J2_Von-Graff]

The Mercedes DIII engine has a engine driven oil pump, it's water pump you have to give a shot of grease to now and then.

 

I stand corrected! I knew you had to periodically pump and grease something.

[HagarTheHorrible]

The truth about rotaries

 

 

Watch from the 4 min mark, are alternatively just enjoy all of it.

 

 

The cockpit floor seems to get fairly clarted and grubby from the accumulated castor oil.

Edited July 24, 2018 by HagarTheHorrible

[yaan98]

On 7/20/2018 at 10:12 AM, Chill31 said:

 

Unlike more advanced WWII engines, the rotaries will all have basically the same engine management ie. fuel and air control.  You won't have to have different control configurations from plane to plane.

 

 

 

 

Hey Chill31, I've read some of your posts on theaerodrome forums a long time ago which were very informative.

 

I'd like to know your take on some information that I've gathered from various sources. (which I had posted in another thread, but got buried):

 

Gnome: No fine fuel adjustment, no air throttle (always on max or off). Altitude will affect max ceiling as mixture becomes too rich.

Gnome Monosoupape: Fine fuel adj., but fixed (air) throttle (always on 100% or off, engine can be 'leaned' in flight but not throttled back).

Oberursel, Le Rhone, Clerget, Bentley: Fine fuel adj., and air control (not linked, so any change in throttle setting also requires a change in mixture setting, and the mixture also needs to be leaned as altitude increases). Engine power range from 50% - 100%, below 50% it will cut out (~800 to 1200 rpms)

 

[Chill31]

On 7/24/2018 at 5:27 PM, yaan98 said:

 

Hey Chill31, I've read some of your posts on theaerodrome forums a long time ago which were very informative.

 

I'd like to know your take on some information that I've gathered from various sources. (which I had posted in another thread, but got buried):

 

Gnome: No fine fuel adjustment, no air throttle (always on max or off). Altitude will affect max ceiling as mixture becomes too rich.

Gnome Monosoupape: Fine fuel adj., but fixed (air) throttle (always on 100% or off, engine can be 'leaned' in flight but not throttled back).

Oberursel, Le Rhone, Clerget, Bentley: Fine fuel adj., and air control (not linked, so any change in throttle setting also requires a change in mixture setting, and the mixture also needs to be leaned as altitude increases). Engine power range from 50% - 100%, below 50% it will cut out (~800 to 1200 rpms)

 

 

I am not a rotary engine expert by any means.  I am learning a lot about the Rhone engines as I go though...

 

My understanding is the Gnome comes in two basic flavors during WWI: the 100 Hp Gnome 8 B-2 and the 160 Hp Gnome 9N.  Both of these engines have a fine fuel adjustment.  Only the 160 has a speed adjustment in the form of an ignition selector switch.

 

The Rhone/Oberursel, Clerget, etc. all have a carburetor and a fine fuel control.  Operating the block tube carburetor slides a block over the intake hole to regulate air.  It ALSO operates a needle that regulates fuel flow, so in a sense, it works like a normal carburetor that controls fuel and air; however, it is not as good at controlling the fuel, hence the fine fuel control which only changes the amount of fuel.  I think these engines will idle down lower than 50% power, somewhere around 30-40%?  Watch Mikael Carlson's videos on youtube, and you can see he taxis his plane around nice and slow with the engine throttled down.