P-40

[gimpy117]

6 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

@KW_1979 In a Mustang I manual the limits for the V-1710-39 are 5 min for 45.5", which currently in game it's 5 min for 42",  it's a difference of 250 HP (1150 vs 900) at sea level which would be of good help currently for the P-40. Also it's noted that with a manifold pressure regulator it could use 56" for 5 min, for 1470 HP at sea level.

Imho a modification that allows 45.5" for 5 min or 56" would help greatly.

 

but it's looked like it's established that the engine was being run at 70"HG on pilots admission". this would seemingly mean that someone did it, and lived to tell the tale. I think the part in the memo that was posted earlier in this thread were the writer basically says it "could lead to loss of aircraft or air crew" is very telling. did he say "oh no if you run 70" of mercury it'll blow up for sure!"? no, it was a much more luke warm response, which leads me to believe that Allison was aware just how much the engine could take, they just didn't wanna guarantee it.  

7 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

If people think that reliable 1800hp Allison's should be a thing in 1942 they are welcome to ?

 

This is late 44 109 K4 Db 605 with MW50 power levels

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

memo posted above did say they were running these numbers in Australia and Africa for "prolonged periods" must of been a problem for those DAK guys 

have you read this: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/V-1710_Service_Use_of_High_Power_Outputs.pdf

the company talks about "occasional failures" 

 

oh and yeah the 601 you're talking about was running garbage fuel. the water meth injection was to keep it from immediately blowing up. the Alison also have a lower compression ratio (better for detonation) and weighs more (can mean it's a stouter engine). the DB 601 seems to be a mildly more stressed engine, built of lighter components (it's 300 pounds lighter...where do you think that came from?) to fit into a small air-frame, that to me adds up to an engine that isn't over-engineered. I have a feeling the V-1710 was so stout because it was overbuilt, hence the obscene numbers it was run at...if it was built to DB601 specs it would need water injection 

Edited April 1, 2020 by gimpy117

[Dakpilot]

13 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

but it's looked like it's established that the engine was being run at 70"HG on pilots admission". this would seemingly mean that someone did it, and lived to tell the tale. I think the part in the memo that was posted earlier in this thread were the writer basically says it "could lead to loss of aircraft or air crew" is very telling. did he say "oh no if you run 70" of mercury it'll blow up for sure!"? no, it was a much more luke warm response, which leads me to believe that Allison was aware just how much the engine could take, they just didn't wanna guarantee it.  

memo posted above did say they were running these numbers in Australia and Africa for "prolonged periods" must of been a problem for those DAK guys 

have you read this: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/V-1710_Service_Use_of_High_Power_Outputs.pdf

the company talks about "occasional failures" 

 

oh and yeah the 601 you're talking about was running garbage fuel. the water meth injection was to keep it from immediately blowing up. the Alison also have a lower compression ratio (better for detonation) and weighs more (can mean it's a stouter engine). the DB 601 seems to be a mildly more stressed engine, built of lighter components (it's 300 pounds lighter...where do you think that came from?) to fit into a small air-frame, that to me adds up to an engine that isn't over-engineered. I have a feeling the V-1710 was so stout because it was overbuilt, hence the obscene numbers it was run at...if it was built to DB601 specs it would need water injection 

 

Your facts are very confused

 

I was talking of DB 605 as used in every 109 since G2 and was mentioning 1800hp version used in late 1944 K4

 

Not to be rude but you do not seem to have much idea of what you are talking about, and a 605 weighs at least 100kg more than an Allison, and 8 litres greater displacement. 

 

Anyway believe what you want about fantasy 1800+hp 1941/2 Allisons ?

 

I think I am out of this thread ?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

[gimpy117]

4 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Your facts are very confused

 

I was talking of DB 605 as used in every 109 since G2 and was mentioning 1800hp version used in late 1944 K4

 

Not to be rude but you do not seem to have much idea of what you are talking about, and a 605 weighs at least 100kg more than an Allison, and 8 litres greater displacement. 

 

Anyway believe what you want about fantasy 1800+hp 1941/2 Allisons ?

 

I think I am out of this thread ?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

so then the Alison memo is totally fake? just made it up? some employee went to Africa and Australia and talked to the guys flying the actual combat missions and was like:

 

"well, you know what...this ought to be  be a funny prank!"

 

I think not. now, 1800 HP is pretty nuts, but, apparently, if Allison's numbers are correct those engines were running under those conditions...so "fantasy 1800HP Allisons" might actually be a reality.  

 

here, I'll post it again: Just in case you didn't read it

Edited April 1, 2020 by gimpy117

[Burdokva]

1 hour ago, gimpy117 said:

so then the Alison memo is totally fake? just made it up? some employee went to Africa and Australia and talked to the guys flying the actual combat missions and was like:

 

"well, you know what...this ought to be  be a funny prank!"

 

I think not. now, 1800 HP is pretty nuts, but, apparently, if Allison's numbers are correct those engines were running under those conditions...so "fantasy 1800HP Allisons" might actually be a reality.  

 

here, I'll post it again: Just in case you didn't read it

 

Are we reading the same report?

 

I read it and, if anything, it contradicts your conclusions. Running the engines at 66" or 70" is "very apt to result in occasional failures which may occur some time after the operation at such high horsepowers but when operating normally or even cruising with resultant loss of pilot and aircraft [] we are particularly concerned regarding the tendency of people to whom we or our service men have talked to to feel that once a certain manifold pressure has been pulled on an Allison V-1710 engine that this is satisfactory proof that it can be continued and used on any model engine. [] We consider it urgent that the Services be warned not to feel that when they can take out 66" of a certain model of V-1710 that this will be permissable on all models of V-1710 engines."

 

They are telling exactly what you don't want to hear, that just ramming the throttle and RPM to the max does not work - you get exponentially higher power and chance of catastrophic engine failure. Especially using low quality fuel.

 

Guess who had poor quality fuel in abundance - the Soviets. The article I linked to, sad that no one bothered to check it, specifically has pilots complaining that the B-87 (which is poor octane to begin with) was garbage and did not achieve its stated high octane level. Yaks would run a lot better on "American" high 100 octane fuel.

 

So, where does this P-40 should be flying maxed out come from? Pilots testify that they overworked the engines and that they had to be replaced on an average of 35 hours, which is pathetically low (if this was a VK-107A everyone would be pointing that the engine is bad), and official manufacturer tests claiming engines can achieve greater output at the cost of structural damage and it is highly advised not to do it.

 

Engine timers are very restricted, sure. I would understand if a new algorithm allowed for more randomized failures within a, somewhat, loosened time period. But I imagine many people would run it at max RPM/manifold pressure while "cruising" to the combat zone and complain why their engines suddenly detonate in flight...

Edited April 1, 2020 by Burdokva
typos typing from phone

[Lusekofte]

Reading the translated memo I find the P 40 pretty accurate except the glass engine. 
The glass engine is confirmed by the devs and we can expect improvement. I do not think a 35 hour timer will be implemented though. 
Anyway I flownit mostly in Wol and offline. Taking away weight like guns and fuel make it a really good fighter. Even with my inpatient style I manage to win some victories with it.  
 

Edited April 6, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[gimpy117]

49 minutes ago, Burdokva said:

 

Are we reading the same report?

 

I read it and, if anything, it contradicts your conclusions. Running the engines at 66" or 70" is "very apt to result in occasional failures.....

yeah

I see the word "occasional" that isn't a "it'll blow up after 5 min" like we have now, or even a "this is very dangerous and should never be done". it's more of a "meh, probabally not a great idea, there could be occasional failures"    

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

USAAF airforce reports on the use of Mustang Mk I with the same engine as the P-40E had something to say along similar lines

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/e-geh-16.html

Quote

   36.       In view of the British operation and the fact that we have an approved war emergency rating on the 1710-39 engine of 56”, it is suggested that immediate steps be taken to remove the automatic boost controls from our P-51 airplanes in this theatre and that the instrument dials be marked with the proper lights. The British have operated at full throttle at sea level (72” Hg) for as much as 20 min. at a time without hurting the engines. According to them, the Allison is averaging 1500 hours between bearing failures as compared to 500 to 600 hours for the Merlin. The Allison, they have found, will drag them home even with the bearing ruined.

And the British Mustang Mk I pilot notes mention two engines, F3R and F3R/M. F3R is the -39 engine, I don't know what the /M is except modified in some way, for this engine, the pilot notes allow full throttle for 5 minutes. For the "standard" engine, 56"Hg provided an automatic boost control is fitted, if not, 45"Hg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Mustang_I_Pilots_Notes.pdf

Edited April 2, 2020 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

In BoX, we do not have a couple of the theaters that would fully bring out the wide array of P-40 variants from the B-model onward all the way to the N-model.  But I'm glad we at least have the P-40E in BoX, because, hey, then we can fly it. I could see some kind of period-based engine improvement being a band-aid to extend the P-40E's life a little. It's one of the planes I enjoy flying because I find it interesting and it was a workhorse during the war. I also still fly the P-40 variants in heavily-modded IL2-1946 for PTO and MTO action.

[jollyjack]

Pregnant with a bomb like this i'll marry her:

 

 

Oops, she's there already, only the baby doesn't look like it's mine ☹️:

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by jollyjack

[Livai]

The P-40 is a beast, the surface cooling in the P-40 same as in the He-100 allow the P-40 to have the outlet completely closed during heavy combat tasks. The Engine is very solid doesn't die even when you do many mistakes. A very good beginner plane. Just forgot to mention the Fire power is great, too!

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

jollyjack, the first photo is the P40 E on display at the USAF Museum at Wright Field in Datyon OH.  That is a drop tank she is sporting, not a bomb.

[jollyjack]

26 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

jollyjack, the first photo is the P40 E on display at the USAF Museum at Wright Field in Datyon OH.  That is a drop tank she is sporting, not a bomb.

 

Ah, thnx .... now i wonder what's the % of what's inside.

PS, just tried to catch some MC202s with this P40, a P51 and a P39, quite a sport, but with a Yak 1b it's easier ... 

[Venturi]

Yeah the E4 weighs less but, it also has a lot less wing area. 
 

Recommend some consideration about instantaneous turn rate vs continuous.

Also consideration to the relative weights of P-40, P-39, and P-51. 
 

As much as some people like to think, it is not the only factor in airplane performance.

Yes Soviets had MUCH worse avgas  in 1941/2. 
however we are modeling optimal considerations in the sim

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

6 hours ago, Krispy_Duck said:

In BoX, we do not have a couple of the theaters that would fully bring out the wide array of P-40 variants from the B-model onward all the way to the N-model.  But I'm glad we at least have the P-40E in BoX, because, hey, then we can fly it. I could see some kind of period-based engine improvement being a band-aid to extend the P-40E's life a little. It's one of the planes I enjoy flying because I find it interesting and it was a workhorse during the war. I also still fly the P-40 variants in heavily-modded IL2-1946 for PTO and MTO action.

Well for Battle of Moscow we should really have Tomahawks, the P-40E started arriving in May 1942 to the USSR. Also all of the later Allison variants were sent to the Soviets, the K, M and N.

I might be wrong but I think for Battle of Kuban we could have some of the later P-40 models? I have seen somewhere a paintscheme profile of a P-40K from summer 1943 of the Black Sea Fleet.

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

6 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Well for Battle of Moscow we should really have Tomahawks, the P-40E started arriving in May 1942 to the USSR. Also all of the later Allison variants were sent to the Soviets, the K, M and N.

I might be wrong but I think for Battle of Kuban we could have some of the later P-40 models? I have seen somewhere a paintscheme profile of a P-40K from summer 1943 of the Black Sea Fleet.

 

The problem there, as I see it, is that you're talking a fairly extensive set of variants (fairly extensive dev work if you want the E, K, and N all involved) being offered as add-ons mere to existing battles. Maybe I'm underestimating the audience, but I'm not sure how well a P-40K would sell because the following for the P-40 and difference from the E-model may not be big enough. The BF-109 has tons of variants because it's routinely a main player rather than an add-on player, and because the 109 has a huge fan following that will buy it. The P-40 seems more like a niche group who enjoy early war stuff. I'd love it if you were right and there was a K or even an N model to be had. I won't hold my breath though.

[gimpy117]

4 hours ago, Venturi said:

Yeah the E4 weighs less but, it also has a lot less wing area. 
 

Recommend some consideration about instantaneous turn rate vs continuous.

Also consideration to the relative weights of P-40, P-39, and P-51. 
 

As much as some people like to think, it is not the only factor in airplane performance.

Yes Soviets had MUCH worse avgas  in 1941/2. 
however we are modeling optimal considerations in the sim

i have always wondered why the 109 can sustain a turn with less speed bleed than the p-40 

[=621=Samikatz]

1 hour ago, gimpy117 said:

i have always wondered why the 109 can sustain a turn with less speed bleed than the p-40 

 

Better acceleration because it has a better thrust/weight

[gimpy117]

14 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

Better acceleration because it has a better thrust/weight

so that takes precedence over smaller wing area?  even when the 109 has higher wing loading? 

Edited April 3, 2020 by gimpy117

[=621=Samikatz]

21 minutes ago, gimpy117 said:

so that takes precedence over smaller wing area?  even when the 109 has higher wing loading? 

 

Both contribute. The P-40 as a slower, heavier, worse accelerating aircraft will struggle to maintain an ideal turning speed compared to the 109. It's like the P-47, which is also quite agile at high speed, but it loses that speed, and thus agility, after just a few turns

[Venturi]

Weight is important in aerodynamic turning performance, insofar as it creates lift-induced drag. A higher wing loading will create more drag at a given angle of attack than a lower wing loading, at equal aircraft weights. This is simplistic as wing planform matters a huge amount, too.

 

There is a lot more than that which creates drag penalties, though... airframe drag at high angles of attack are very significant. Up to 50% of the drag according to aeronautical engineer friends.
 

There is also no easy way to calculate these since there is no “table” of aircraft planform drag at differing angles of attack, unlike wing cross-sections. It does not matter for constant turns because the drag can be treated as being a fixed quantity in the equations, and cancelled out. However in combat it is the preservation of energy which is critical and this is a huge grey area.
 

I have no idea how the engineers who make the simulation have modeled this, but others have tried to come to some empirical conclusions about the relative values of this using data in the sim, like JtD’s thread.

The problem is that when the data is not published or disseminated, then it can be changed as engineer concepts of the aircraft’s performance, or as changes in other areas of the aircraft’s modeling change. I am not saying that is happening, what I am saying is that it is a black box that is open to interpretation

Edited April 3, 2020 by Venturi

[gimpy117]

4 hours ago, Venturi said:

Weight is important in aerodynamic turning performance, insofar as it creates lift-induced drag. A higher wing loading will create more drag at a given angle of attack than a lower wing loading, at equal aircraft weights. This is simplistic as wing planform matters a huge amount, too.

 

There is a lot more than that which creates drag penalties, though... airframe drag at high angles of attack are very significant. Up to 50% of the drag according to aeronautical engineer friends.
 

There is also no easy way to calculate these since there is no “table” of aircraft planform drag at differing angles of attack, unlike wing cross-sections. It does not matter for constant turns because the drag can be treated as being a fixed quantity in the equations, and cancelled out. However in combat it is the preservation of energy which is critical and this is a huge grey area.
 

I have no idea how the engineers who make the simulation have modeled this, but others have tried to come to some empirical conclusions about the relative values of this using data in the sim, like JtD’s thread.

The problem is that when the data is not published or disseminated, then it can be changed as engineer concepts of the aircraft’s performance, or as changes in other areas of the aircraft’s modeling change. I am not saying that is happening, what I am saying is that it is a black box that is open to interpretation

i would really like to see numbers regarding the amount of drag aircraft have in turns, just too see if there are any outliers. weirdly, the 110 and P-40 have almost exactly they same power/mass ratio and wing loading as the C series 110 (so similar to the E). i wonder which one turns better....

 

interestingly, if the P-40 is in "they've gone to plaid" engine settings at the 70" of mercury according to Allisons report , it's (freedom units incoming) .28HP/pound vs. the 109 G-6's .209 Hp/Lb. If it's 1,570 (which Allison agreed to in this memo)  power is at .265 hp/lb at empty weight, and with load i would guess it's closer to the G6.

this would kinda confirm that the p-40 could keep up with the 109's if run over-boosted, which a Russian ace claimed (as quoted) farther back in this post. and that really makes me wonder, it's really close to what was said, if you shed some gun weight, run the plane flat out (above what is currently allowed in game) then lo and behold power to weight is close to a 109 G6...and that's not even counting the lower wing loading of the p-40       

Edited April 3, 2020 by gimpy117

[Venturi]

Additional consideration should be made to the relative weights of the differing Allied aircraft as well as their power to weight ratios and their historical reputations.

 

The Allison V-1710-39 of the P-40E for instance was later rated to run higher MAP (with manifold pressure regulator installed) without actual mechanical change of the engine itself. This would have given it approx 1500hp (1470) at WEP. The P51 for instance did not have a significantly higher HP rating, and if you look at the wing section and planform, it was less ideal than the P-40E for dogfighting. It had a significantly slower roll rate than the P-40E. The P-51 also weighed more, which would have increased induced drag.
 

So you tell me...

 

...was the historical bad reputation of the P-40E actually based largely on it having a single stage, single gear supercharger and thus poor high altitude performance, compared to its European contemporaries which had already moved to high altitude supercharger configurations?

 

I would suggest that when flown to later war power levels and under 10,000 feet, the P-40 easily outperformed the P-51 in a dogfight. 

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Venturi said:

I would suggest that when flown to later war power levels and under 10,000 feet, the P-40 easily outperformed the P-51 in a dogfight. 

I see what you mean, but the P-51 has both the speed and endurance on the P-40, besides other conveniences. So, no.

[gimpy117]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

I see what you mean, but the P-51 has both the speed and endurance on the P-40, besides other conveniences. So, no.

i don't necessarily agree, if were talking about high altitude bomber escort and dogfights, sure, but in IL2 most dogfights are down low 

[Venturi]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I see what you mean, but the P-51 has both the speed and endurance on the P-40, besides other conveniences. So, no.

 

My only consideration is accuracy.

Yes, the P51 was much faster and far better at altitude. That should be the case. But the rest of this discussion is not about speed or endurance.

[Voyager]

On 3/31/2020 at 10:22 AM, Dakpilot said:

 

[...]

 

Having experienced many engine failures IRL 99% gave no warnings, when things go wrong with high horsepower /high performance aero engines they happen fairly rapidly and terminally 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

Were any of those engine failure above or below max continuous? And if they were above max continuous, we're they outside the situations for the engine in question? 

 

And, to be honest, have any of us tested anything involving running the engines within their timers, but otherwise outside their operating parameters? I do find myself wondering what happens if I set up a P-47D-28 in cruise mode but closed all of the outlets and leaned the engine to the RPM drop? Would we expect the engine to operate continuously? 

[ZachariasX]

6 hours ago, Venturi said:

My only consideration is accuracy.

My only gripe in this regard is that the P-40 needs more work to fly it than the P-51 where retrimming is far less required AFAIR, and this is why I would (intuitively) prefer the P-51. Throwing these aircraft around in the sky is at times hard physical labor and the less you have to do the better IMHO when it comes to a fight between similarly experienced pilots. (I’m not a fan of the 109 either for exactly this reason, despite significant other qualities.) Other than that, I think the P-40 is a great aircraft as such, very sturdy and it handles well. It did serve well too.

 

I originally booked a TF-51 this summer for flight to get get some hands on exerience with it, but in the current situation that will have to wait a bit... But I‘m curious how it is like.

[Venturi]

You can also book a flight in a P40...

 

...by the way. Increasing engine RPM while maintaining same throttle should REDUCE MAP as long as critical altitude for a given RPM has not been reached.

 

This occurs because there is a pressure drop behind the throttle butterfly in the intake tract, as long as the throttle is not wide open.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Venturi said:

You can also book a flight in a P40...

Me wants that too... Will do... But I guess after the Sea Fury, all of that whenever after we come out of the current predicament.

 

 

[Bremspropeller]

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I originally booked a TF-51 this summer for flight to get get some hands on exerience with it, but in the current situation that will have to wait a bit... But I‘m curious how it is like.

 

At Kissimmee, or at some other place?

 

3 hours ago, Venturi said:

Increasing engine RPM while maintaining same throttle should REDUCE MAP as long as critical altitude for a given RPM has not been reached.

 

Yeah, thats another thing that needs to be looked after.

MAP should act more like a torque-gauge in that regard.

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, Bremspropeller said:

At Kissimmee, or at some other place?

With them:

https://www.warbirdflights.co.uk/

 

[Bremspropeller]

A lot more reasonable in terms of ca$h spent than S51. I'll have to bug Agathos when he's finished with his transition-course. I already know his answer, though... ?

 

/off-topic

9 hours ago, Voyager said:

And, to be honest, have any of us tested anything involving running the engines within their timers, but otherwise outside their operating parameters? I do find myself wondering what happens if I set up a P-47D-28 in cruise mode but closed all of the outlets and leaned the engine to the RPM drop? Would we expect the engine to operate continuously?

 

You can't really do it: The RPM is governed, so it won't act like a fixed-pitch propeller in terms of leaning.

Also, you don't lean the engine - you're just putting it into "auto"-gates or emergency-full. So you can only go to the performance gate (auto-rich) or the cruise-gate (auto-lean).

Not sure if you can actually lean it like a conventional CSP (fuel-flow or EGT).

[ZachariasX]

27 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Not sure if you can actually lean it like a conventional CSP (fuel-flow or EGT).

Now in game you can, works with P-40, 47, 38. Get them to 48% and no more exhaust smoke at full power. IIRC, this supposedly will be adjusted in the next patch. We‘ll see.

[Voyager]

8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

A lot more reasonable in terms of ca$h spent than S51. I'll have to bug Agathos when he's finished with his transition-course. I already know his answer, though... ?

 

/off-topic

 

You can't really do it: The RPM is governed, so it won't act like a fixed-pitch propeller in terms of leaning.

Also, you don't lean the engine - you're just putting it into "auto"-gates or emergency-full. So you can only go to the performance gate (auto-rich) or the cruise-gate (auto-lean).

Not sure if you can actually lean it like a conventional CSP (fuel-flow or EGT).

 

It does do the RPM drop, and the propeller does correct for it, but it's enough to be noticeable. The Stromberg carb isn't really gated; it seems to work more like a compensating system, that different engines require different levels off of. I cannot say that I have dug into the mechanism itself, but from the P-47N pilots manual it is an analogue control. 

 

Let me see if I can find it: https://archive.org/details/PilotTrainingManualForTheThunderboltP-47N/page/n31/mode/2up

 

Pg 33&34 talk about leaning on muggy days, or doing extra lean operations to save gas while cruising. Honestly I hope Greg's Airplanes and Auto's does a video on the Stromberg Carb at some point. That thing is just weird. 

[gimpy117]

I would think that upping the prop rpm ups the engine RPM, which in turn spins the supercharger faster, and ups boost made. this is a gear driven supercharger not a turbocharger. 

 

so I'm not surprised MAP goes up. 

[Dakpilot]

On 4/5/2020 at 2:25 AM, Voyager said:

 

Were any of those engine failure above or below max continuous? And if they were above max continuous, we're they outside the situations for the engine in question? 

 

And, to be honest, have any of us tested anything involving running the engines within their timers, but otherwise outside their operating parameters? I do find myself wondering what happens if I set up a P-47D-28 in cruise mode but closed all of the outlets and leaned the engine to the RPM drop? Would we expect the engine to operate continuously? 

 

The most common failure was at first power reduction from meto power (which was maximum of two mins if I recall correctly) 

 

Yep! Engine timers, which were strictly enforced (C-54 in this example) 

 

Losing an engine before 3 engine min control speed is a situation you don't want.. mostly a fatal accident at full weight. Flight engineer would be monitoring engine parameters very carefully but most failures would have no indication, including during cruise, first indication would be power loss nd vibration followed by pressure and temp indications, in my experience you would more likely feel something before engine temps or pressures gave a clue, shut down would be needed with rough running engine, backfires would more often blow an exhaust manifold which would very (very) likely cause engine fire. Fire suppression systems usually worked (activated) but were certainly not guaranteed to put out even a mildly developed engine fire. 

 

(These are just off the cuff comment on P&W R-2000 and reflection of mine - and mny other pilots I flew with - general experience from many different types including turbines, point being engines go bang, and we don't fly around with "damage" like we do in IL-2,

please just take this as my general opinion, I am not getting pulled in on micro discussions, take it or leave it ?) 

 

In game engine limitations are very lax, there are many things you can do that would cause serious damage in short time IRL, which is sort of OK in many instances for a combat flight sim except for a few glaring exceptions, a 'full' study sim in many situations would become a chore rather than enjoyable 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Lusekofte]

Well I started something new today. 
I have done some thinking before typing. 
 

Can we all agree on the level of authentic engine complexity we can expect in this game. 
 

In my opinion it is now clear what level of budget they have on this issue. It is limited at the moment, they have put resources of improvement else where. 
I find after reading this topic and others related to this. And even a book that the P 40 is not as bad as I think or commonly is believed. 
I knew it but that is only in the game, in the forum my mind it set on the hard engine limits and in game I do not notice them any more. 
It do perform well in BOM environment if you fly it within its limits from takeoff to battle, 

if in trouble you can abuse it significantly and still have a working engine to go back. 
I fly it with max 300 liter fuel and two cannons on each wing. If I take extra ammo depends on if I expect to strafe ground targets. 
My expectation is that a plane in this game should be historical comparable to its opponents. I believe that is what the devs is trying and I think P 40 does just that. Yes the parameters are set too hard , but it is nothing added here that prove the current P 40 wrong. 
I believe it only need more training than other planes 

Edited April 6, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Voyager]

12 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

 

The most common failure was at first power reduction from meto power (which was maximum of two mins if I recall correctly) 

 

Yep! Engine timers, which were strictly enforced (C-54 in this example) 

 

[...]

(These are just off the cuff comment on P&W R-2000 and reflection of mine - and mny other pilots I flew with - general experience from many different types including turbines, point being engines go bang, and we don't fly around with "damage" like we do in IL-2,

please just take this as my general opinion, I am not getting pulled in on micro discussions, take it or leave it ?) 

 

[...]

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

That is interesting. Any idea why the engines fail on reduction of power? 

 

Also, what was the process you all used to ensure you kept within the time limits? Did you use a stop watch for it? Also were the mto limits once per flight or did it specify intervals? 

 

Wait, you're not getting pulled into micro-discussions? But I want to take a core tap of your brain! I've got the tapper all up and running already! 

[Dakpilot]

8 hours ago, Voyager said:

 

That is interesting. Any idea why the engines fail on reduction of power? 

 

 

Most likely the engine has already "failed" at max power setting, reduction causes pretty much all stresses and forces in engine to be reversed, which is when it let's go. 

It was fairly common with non catastrophic failure to taxi in with no visible issues to find an engine completely locked after shut down during the post flight

8 hours ago, Voyager said:

 

Also, what was the process you all used to ensure you kept within the time limits? Did you use a stop watch for it? Also were the mto limits once per flight or did it specify intervals? 

 

 

Simple answer my watch! 

Since WWI a pilot watch was essential equipment, I used my first ever pilots salary to buy a quality seiko pilots watch with stopwatch, still got it!l

A stopwatch was standard kit in any flight bag and I think there were two fitted in the panel and one in the engineers panel. 

Sadly counting time is one of the primary requirements in flying, from the basic two minute turn to holding pattern all have to be flown to the second, some instructors would continuously test us with second hand on watch until we could fairly accurately judge one minute as second nature

 

8 hours ago, Voyager said:

 

 

Wait, you're not getting pulled into micro-discussions? But I want to take a core tap of your brain! I've got the tapper all up and running already! 

 

I was very lucky with my career, from my initial flight instructor who sent me solo (ex WW2 spitfire pilot with a 20,000 hr career and huge overall experience, became a personal friend, sadly died in aviation accident) to many many along the way, before I start rambling more, enough to say I have been pulled into so many stupid 'conversations' I get reluctant to post,  lock down may have temporarily effected me ?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Lusekofte]

56 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

I was very lucky with my career, from my initial flight instructor who sent me solo (ex WW2 spitfire pilot with a 20,000 hr career and huge overall experience, became a personal friend, sadly died in aviation accident) to many many along the way, before I start rambling more, enough to say I have been pulled into so many stupid 'conversations' I get reluctant to post,  lock down may have temporarily effected me ?

I hope you do tell us about your career. I can not remember having disagreements in the past with you. 
I never claimed any interest in technical stuff my interest is the aircrew and vintage planes in general. I spent my 54 year life reading warstories , mainly multicrew and all I could get my hands on DC 2-3 / C 47. 
So youR story  is the essence of why I fly WW 2 cfs. I care not how many times I get shot down

I hardly notice precence of people. I am there for the mission and plane. No matter if its roll rate is too slow or fast