Modeling of Rotary Engine Throttles

[US41_Winslow]

   In Flying Circus, rotary engines currently function like a stationary engine instead of a rotary.  Rotary engines have a much more primitive carburetor where the throttle adjusted the amount of fuel and air to the engine, but the petrol fine adjustment* adjustment was needed to  achieve the correct mixture.**  This is unlike more modern carburetors present on stationary engines where the throttle adjusts a flapper valve that controls the amount of air-fuel mixture going to the engine and the mixture control is only needed to adjust the air-fuel mixture when the density altitude changes.  In Flying Circus, throttle changes do not require an adjustment of the petrol fine adjustment, meaning Il2 treats them as if they have a normal carburetor. This results in rotary engines being just as easy to control as a stationary engines since they have none of the throttle issues that rotaries have.  This becomes obvious when pilot reports are compared to what we currently see in Flying Circus.

 

   The first pilot report comes from The Aerodrome forum (see link below), which contains part of an article from Flight International written by Ronald Skyes during his time instructing on Bentley Camels. The first quote covers starting the Camel.

 

   "See that both magneto switches are off and that the petrol fine-adjustment lever is closed. Turn the petrol tap ON to "main tank.". Turn on the cock behind the hand air-pump, and pump-up to 1Ib/sq in; at this pressure the relief valve should blow off. Turn the cook OFF. Open the petrol fine-adjustment by pushing the short lever forward for about one half of its travel. Answer the air mechanic's call of "Switches off; petrol on; suck in" While the Propeller is then being pulled round, move the long lever on the quadrant (controlling the barrel throttle-valve) a little way forward until a sucking, gurgling noise is heard as the petrol and air are drawn through the barrel throttle in the hollow crankshaft into the rotating crankcase. (The mixture passes through the crankcase and up the induction pipes to the overhead inlet valves.) While the propeller is being turned round, the oil pump will be drawing pure castor oil from the oil tank and forcing it to the crankshaft bearings, timing gears, master and slave big-ends and the cylinder walls, all of which are scoured by the petrol, the castor oil is insoluble in petrol. Meanwhile waist belt, winds his muffler over his nose mouth, and secures it by his helmet chin*strap. After several turns of the engine the propeller is turned back to a position of about 10 o'clock: then the mechanic shouts "Contact!" The pilot puts both switches ON, the petrol fine adjustment lever nearly right back, the throttle half open '1lnd shouts "Contact." The mechanic pulls the prop' down smartly; and in turn has his arm or belt pulled hard by the rigger to get him clear of the propeller as the engine fires."

 

   What that paragraph shows that is interesting for those used to a normal carburetor is that the petrol fine adjustment is pushed forward to allow fuel to the engine as it is being pulled through and then pulled back when the mechanic swings the prop to avoid flooding the engine when it starts.  To start the Camel on Flying Circus, the petrol fine adjustment lever is pulled fully back, just like the real Camel, but instead of reducing the amount of fuel to the engine, it richens the mixture as you would to start a stationary engine.  This means that the petrol fine adjustment control is reversed.  During takeoff, the petrol fine adjustment only needs to be pushed forward slightly to lean the mixture for maximum RPMs, helping prove that the throttle isn't properly modeled for rotaries.

The image above shows the position the real Camel's petrol fine adjustment control would be in when the mixture is full rich, which is idle cut-off in game.  The image below shows the full-rich position in game, which is the full-lean position in reality.

 

   This next two quotes come from the same article as the first quote, but deals with runup and takeoff in the Camel.

 

   "One of the pleasing features of the B.R.l engine in comparison with earlier makes is that it responds normally to the throttle and does not require "blipping" although a blip-switch is provided in the spade-handle of the joy0stick. So the initial engine run-up to give 1,050 revs can be done by opening the throttle and petrol fine adjustment lever together."

 

   "Check for 1tlb/sq in air pressure in the pipe to the air space in the main petrol tank: this can be corrected by adjusting the relief valve in 'the pipe near to the pressure gauge or by pumping air with the hand pump near to the right hand. Look to see that no other machine is coming in to land: pull down your mask goggles; open the throttle wide and simu1taneously move the fine-adjustment lever just past the half-way position on the quadrant, when your ear will tell you that the mixture is correct and the engine firing evenly."

 

   Both of these quotes mention needing to adjust the petrol fine adjustment when the throttle is moved to keep the correct mixture, something that we don't see currently implemented into Flying Circus.

 

   This final quote is from an article in the Shuttleworth Veteran Aeroplane Society's Propswing magazine, which was reproduced in the Vintage Aviation Echo (see link below).  This is of particular interest because it deals with a Clerget engined Camel, which is what we have.  The only difference is our Camel has the 130 horsepower Clerget 9b while the Shuttleworth Collection's Camel has the 140 horsepower Clerget 9bf, the only difference between the two being the longer stroke of the 9bf.

 

 

   "During the pre-takeoff run-up the settings for 1100 RPM (considered adequate for the first take-off) were bloctube (BT) 6-7 and fine adjustment (FA) 3 1/2 - 4 1/2 (see footnote 4).  Running on a single magneto was checked and although the engine note changed there was no discernible RPM drop.  The engine was throttled back to 600 RPM (BT=2) and chocks waved away.  Fuel air pressure was pumped to 2-2 1/2 psi.  The stick which had been held back during the run-up was repositioned to approximately half way between neutral and full forward.  The BT was opened slowly to ensure that the engine was responding correctly without choking and to mitigate the gyroscopics as discussed earlier.  As expected the tail did not lift until about half way through the take-off roll and when it did lift the aircraft yawed slightly to the the left before I was able to detect and correct the movement.  Although some pitch sensitivity was noticed it was possible to maintain the correct pitch attitude."

 

   The pilot (Dodge Baily) used a different procedure than Skyes, keeping the petrol fine adjustment control in the same position while slowly advancing the throttle.  Since I have no experience with rotary engines, I do not know if the difference in methods is due to pilot preference or the type of engines, but I would guess it is the former since the same method used by Skyes is mentioned in Winged Victory for a Clerget Camel.

 

   Although I focused only on the Camel, this issue is also present on the Fokker Triplane and Nieuport 28 and the rotaries in Rise of Flight.  Overall, this issue is, in my opinion, not that large and other issues, such as the damage model, should be prioritized but it would be nice to see it fixed eventually.

 

*The petrol fine adjustment functions just like a normal mixture control and controls the amount of fuel to the engine.

**Thank you to @Chill31for correcting me on how rotaries work. His post further down does a much better job of explaining this.

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56275&page=5

https://vintageaviationecho.com/sopwith-camel/

Edited June 7, 2021 by Miners
Corrected description of fine adjustment control

[Cynic_Al]

This has been debated in the past and it boils down to this:  How popular do you think it would be to have to operate two engine controls with one hand?

[US41_Winslow]

I do think this should be modeled as Flying Circus is intended to be a simulator, not an arcade game.  I already control my mixture and throttle at the same time and have no trouble doing that.  All you need to do is rig the control so both are close to each other and can be operated with the same hand at the same time.

[Cynic_Al]

5 hours ago, Miners said:

I do think this should be modeled as Flying Circus is intended to be a simulator, not an arcade game

 

 

The current producer prefers it to be called a simulator, while others might expect higher standards before that term could be justified.

 

 

5 hours ago, Miners said:

 I already control my mixture and throttle at the same time and have no trouble doing that.  All you need to do is rig the control so both are close to each other and can be operated with the same hand at the same time.

 

Try selling that to someone using entry-level controls, which need comprise only a mouse and keyboard.

[No.23_Triggers]

2 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

 

1.   The current producer prefers it to be called a simulator, while others might expect higher standards before that term could be justified.

 

 

 

2.   Try selling that to someone using entry-level controls, which need comprise only a mouse and keyboard.

The fact that these two phrases are addressing the same game is absolutely delicious...

[US41_Winslow]

Anyone with only a mouse and keyboard would have a very hard time controlling a rotary-engine airplane without settings like autorudder or simplified physics, since the mouse does not provide enough presision. I would also presume they might be using settings such as auto mixture.

[US103_Baer]

In theory I'm totally with you @Miners in a push towards higher realism in as many areas as possible.

 

However FC or Great Battles, seems to be going in the opposite direction. I doubt it's a deliberate plan,  but rather a result of, firstly, the law of unintended consequences, and secondly, business pressures on resources. 

Examples:

a) The DM changes for ww2 creating a disaster for ww1

 

b) long-range aircraft view enhancement for ww2 creating arcade-like situations in FC

 

c) inability to devote resources to revise long-standing issues with RoF that are thus imported into FC.  Witness the N28

 

I'm sure if you asked Jason he'd love to have more realistic rotary engine control options, or work through the list of FM improvements. But practically,  he's got limited options

 

So what to do?

Without a direct competitor it's either

A) accept what is+constructive engagement+lots of patience,  or

B) walk away. 

 

I don't believe we should silently accept what we're given.  Issues should be voiced, especially newly created ones that are a result of ww2 engine compromises that were either over-looked,  under-tested or ignored by dev team.  Those are unacceptable and devs should be left in no doubt until plans to address are announced. 

 

For longer term things like FMs, incorrect engines, the community can help with data, proofs and a truckload of patience. I thought the recent N28 research and modeling was a great example. 

[US41_Winslow]

@US28_BaerI definitely agree with you that there are much more pressing issues than how the rotary engines are modeled, mainly the damage model.  About the spotting issues, I imagine this is partly due to Flying Circus animating far-off airplanes as somewhat large black dots, making them much more visible than they should be.  My experience with spotting airplanes is that once you see the airplane, you can see it quite a ways off, but actually finding the airplane, even when it is just a few miles away, can be challenging though it becomes much easier with more practice.  I remember Chuck Yeager said that he could spot airplanes 60 or so miles away but no one else in his flight could see them until they got much closer.  Then again, I have a somewhat poor monitor so the airplanes appear only five or ten miles away so this issue may be much more important for those with better monitors. 

[Angry_Kitten]

What would the cost of getting the fancy smancy physical engine control unit that would be needed to have all the throttles, etc needed to simulate rotary engine like it is in real life?

 

Im guessing 500$ perhaps?

[US41_Winslow]

Rotary engines have the same number of controls as a regular engine.  All this would do is require the pilot to move the petrol fine adjustment lever (which is our current mixture control) when they change the throttle.  So, it requires no more controls than you already have if you have the throttle and mixture control set up.

[J5_Adam]

Airplane goes vroom 

[J99_Sizzlorr]

 

[Dragon1-1]

On 5/6/2021 at 6:36 AM, pocketshaver said:

What would the cost of getting the fancy smancy physical engine control unit that would be needed to have all the throttles, etc needed to simulate rotary engine like it is in real life?

 

Im guessing 500$ perhaps?

Try 50$: https://www.ebay.com/itm/254975595026?hash=item3b5dbad212:g:nSIAAOSwI9Bgms1H 
This one is used, but new ones don't cost all that much more. Anyone with a dual throttle could use one of the levers for mixture, too. If I didn't have a 3D printer, I'd buy myself a pair of those for flying twin engine aircraft. 

 

We have a bunch of settings for simplified engine controls, why not use that if most people can't take it? IMO, in unassisted mode, rotaries should be as cantankerous and difficult to control as in reality.

[Todt_Von_Oben]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Anyone with a dual throttle could use one of the levers for mixture, too.

 

I couldn't get the link to work but I like your idea.  I have a dual throttle rig and will give that a try.

 

As to the point of operating a mixture and throttle control with one hand being somehow undesirable or difficult: I've flown most American civilian airplanes ranging from a Luscombe 8E to a DC3 and in every one of them the pilot controlled the mixture, throttle (and in twins, the props, too) with the same hand.  There's nothing new, difficult, or extraordinary about that at all.  In fact, that's how it usually is.

 

And in WWI planes where the mixture is on the sidewall and the throttle is on the stick: still no problem because they usually aren't adjusted at the same time.  Generally, you set the mixture and apply the throttle.  If you need to adjust the mixture in flight, there's nothing stopping you from removing your hand from the throttle briefly to adjust the mixture lever.  No problem.  

 

I can do it in VR using the keys; so using a lever will be a lot easier and more realistic because I won't have to peak out from under my headset to see the keyboard; I can just put my hand on the lever and adjust it by perceived lever position and RPM response; just like in a real plane. 

 

So I think setting the mixture in these WWI planes via a lever would be a LOT more realistic than doing it with the Alt +/- keys.  I'm going to modify my rig to do that ASAP.

 

Thanks for the idea. 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Todt_Von_Oben

[Todt_Von_Oben]

On 5/6/2021 at 11:08 AM, J99_Sizzlorr said:

 

 

 

No reason why that can't be done with the left hand alone; using the same kind of spread grip that multi-engine pilots use to cover the multiple mixture, prop, and throttle levers at the same time.  Doesn't have to be done as shown here and in fact, doing it this way in flight doesn't make sense since he's not controlling the stick.    

[J99_Sizzlorr]

The videos only purpose was to show how the mixture was operated on a Camel.

[Cynic_Al]

9 minutes ago, Todt_Von_Oben said:

 

 

 

As to the point of operating a mixture and throttle control with one hand being somehow undesirable or difficult: I've flown most American civilian airplanes ranging from a Luscombe 8E to a DC3 and in every one of them the pilot controlled the mixture, throttle (and in twins, the props, too) with the same hand.  There's nothing new, difficult, or extraordinary about that at all.  In fact, that's how it usually is. 

 

So I think setting the mixture in these WWI planes via a lever would be a LOT more realistic than doing it with the Alt +/- keys.  I'm going to modify my rig to do that ASAP.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone's saying that it's undesirable to operate mixture and throttle with the same hand, only that to make it compulsory for rotaries would not be popular, due to:

 

a. The hardware requirements. 

b. The necessity to co-ordinate the two settings.

 

You may easily set-up your rig to allow you to control both settings with the same hand, but that alone will not simulate the management of a rotary engine. 

By modifying the electronics of the throttle/mixture controller, it would be perfectly feasible to make the throttle lever override the true mixture setting, such that whenever the throttle were moved, the pilot would need to move the mixture lever to restore the correct setting.

[unreasonable]

Currently if you fly Spitfire MkV (and some others) you have to set propeller rpm and boost on a separate axis, unless you use the green box helper. If you do not have a split throttle HOTAS (or additional throttle quadrant) you have to use a button somewhere for one or the other. Running a rotary with two levers would be no different in principle. You need no more controls than you need for WW2 planes.

 

The team could model the details of rotary engine management if they wanted and give the two levers their own set. Then you could set one lever in game as both boost and fuel lever, and the other as mixture and bloctube, since when operating any aircraft only one of each pair is in use.

 

 It would be fun if the team revisited this: I like the rotaries. But I do not see it happening.    

Edited May 21, 2021 by unreasonable

[Todt_Von_Oben]

2 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

I don't think anyone's saying that it's undesirable to operate mixture and throttle with the same hand, only that to make it compulsory for rotaries would not be popular, due to:

 

a. The hardware requirements. 

b. The necessity to co-ordinate the two settings.

 

 

Somewhere, I got the impression some were inferring that one-handed control of multiple levers is unusual or difficult; might have been a mistaken impression but I'm okay with it.  The point I wanted to make is: controlling two levers with one hand is common practice and not difficult at all; if anyone thought otherwise.

 

Oh no, I wouldn't say it should be compulsory; or foist it on anyone.  I would like to do it myself, though.

 

I can look at your two examples from two perspectives: real planes or FC.  In a real WWI plane, the hardware requirements are established by design so I surmise we're talking about simcraft.  

 

a. For me, it looks like the hardware assignment will require (1) installing an extra USB lever control; and (2) assigning the mixture functions presently covered by my Alt + / - keys, to the new lever.

 

b. I mostly fly the Dr.1 and D7F so I'd like a functional stick throttle and side quadrant arrangement.  I don't foresee any coordination problems between throttle and mixture since I usually don't deal with both simultaneously.  

 

In the triplane, for example, I start up full rich and quickly lean to a specific RPM at idle; then set the throttle at METO power for takeoff.  In flight, I pitch level at full power and fine-tune the mix for best airspeed and highest rpm.  Then I'm set to dogfight.  I reduce to cruise power without changing the mixture; because I'll be going back to full power when the fighting starts.  It works in the sim; whether a real 9 would need to have the mixture reset; I don't know.  Never flew a rotary.  But I'll have no problem physically coordinating those steps.  No simultaneous adjustments to throttle and mixture to coordinate.  Easy stuff.

 

Actually, I've got a push-pull cable working the throttle wheel of my Fighterstick.  It's more "airplane-like" but I'm working on a replica Fokker stick with the rotary throttle lever in the left grip.  Putting that mixture lever on the left sidewall would be pretty close to realistic and I'm thinking it's gonna be cool until Von Rickenbecker comes out with a Fokker quadrant.   

 

Film at eleven.... 

2 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

The videos only purpose was to show how the mixture was operated on a Camel.

 

Well done, thanks.  I had to figure out how it worked earlier today at Flugpark.

 

My addition is to explain that the controls don't need to be operated two-handed; a one handed technique is possible and preferable.   Somehow, I got the impression from some part of this thread that somebody felt operating these controls was physically awkward or difficult.  Just addressing that. 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Todt_Von_Oben

[Todt_Von_Oben]

Actually, the easiest (and cheapest) way for me to convert Mixture Control from keys to a lever might be something like this dual-throttle Saitek AV8R.  

 

I have an old one of these laying around.  Make a new control map where this replaces the Fighterstick; assign the mixture to one of the throttle levers; and there ya go.

 

[Chill31]

On 5/4/2021 at 10:59 PM, Miners said:

   In Flying Circus, rotary engines currently function like a stationary engine instead of a rotary.  Rotary engines have a much more primitive carburetor where the throttle adjusted the amount of air and the petrol fine adjustment* adjusted the amount of fuel to the engine unlike the carburetor on a stationary engine where the throttle adjusts a flapper valve that controls the amount of air-fuel mixture going to the engine and the mixture controls the amount of fuel present in the air-fuel mixture.  In Flying Circus, throttle changes do not require an adjustment of the petrol fine adjustment, meaning Il2 treats them as if they have a normal carburetor. This results in rotary engines being just as easy to control as a stationary engines since they have none of the throttle issues that rotaries have.  This becomes obvious when pilot reports are compared to what we currently see in Flying Circus.

 

   The first pilot report comes from The Aerodrome forum (see link below), which contains part of an article from Flight International written by Ronald Skyes during his time instructing on Bentley Camels. The first quote covers starting the Camel.

 

   "See that both magneto switches are off and that the petrol fine-adjustment lever is closed. Turn the petrol tap ON to "main tank.". Turn on the cock behind the hand air-pump, and pump-up to 1Ib/sq in; at this pressure the relief valve should blow off. Turn the cook OFF. Open the petrol fine-adjustment by pushing the short lever forward for about one half of its travel. Answer the air mechanic's call of "Switches off; petrol on; suck in" While the Propeller is then being pulled round, move the long lever on the quadrant (controlling the barrel throttle-valve) a little way forward until a sucking, gurgling noise is heard as the petrol and air are drawn through the barrel throttle in the hollow crankshaft into the rotating crankcase. (The mixture passes through the crankcase and up the induction pipes to the overhead inlet valves.) While the propeller is being turned round, the oil pump will be drawing pure castor oil from the oil tank and forcing it to the crankshaft bearings, timing gears, master and slave big-ends and the cylinder walls, all of which are scoured by the petrol, the castor oil is insoluble in petrol. Meanwhile waist belt, winds his muffler over his nose mouth, and secures it by his helmet chin*strap. After several turns of the engine the propeller is turned back to a position of about 10 o'clock: then the mechanic shouts "Contact!" The pilot puts both switches ON, the petrol fine adjustment lever nearly right back, the throttle half open '1lnd shouts "Contact." The mechanic pulls the prop' down smartly; and in turn has his arm or belt pulled hard by the rigger to get him clear of the propeller as the engine fires."

 

   What that paragraph shows that is interesting for those used to a normal carburetor is that the petrol fine adjustment is pushed forward to allow fuel to the engine as it is being pulled through and then pulled back when the mechanic swings the prop to avoid flooding the engine when it starts.  To start the Camel on Flying Circus, the petrol fine adjustment lever is pulled fully back, just like the real Camel, but instead of reducing the amount of fuel to the engine, it richens the mixture as you would to start a stationary engine.  This means that the petrol fine adjustment control is reversed.  During takeoff, the petrol fine adjustment only needs to be pushed forward slightly to lean the mixture for maximum RPMs, helping prove that the throttle isn't properly modeled for rotaries.

 

The image above shows the position the real Camel's petrol fine adjustment control would be in when the mixture is full rich, which is idle cut-off in game.  The image below shows the full-rich position in game, which is the full-lean position in reality.

The rigging of the throttle and mixture controls can be done either way, and I think the French had them set up so that reward motion on the levers resulted in faster revving engines.  I'm not sure how the Camel was setup.

 

   This next two quotes come from the same article as the first quote, but deals with runup and takeoff in the Camel.

 

   "One of the pleasing features of the B.R.l engine in comparison with earlier makes is that it responds normally to the throttle and does not require "blipping" although a blip-switch is provided in the spade-handle of the joy0stick. So the initial engine run-up to give 1,050 revs can be done by opening the throttle and petrol fine adjustment lever together."

 

   "Check for 1tlb/sq in air pressure in the pipe to the air space in the main petrol tank: this can be corrected by adjusting the relief valve in 'the pipe near to the pressure gauge or by pumping air with the hand pump near to the right hand. Look to see that no other machine is coming in to land: pull down your mask goggles; open the throttle wide and simu1taneously move the fine-adjustment lever just past the half-way position on the quadrant, when your ear will tell you that the mixture is correct and the engine firing evenly."

 

   Both of these quotes mention needing to adjust the petrol fine adjustment when the throttle is moved to keep the correct mixture, something that we don't see currently implemented into Flying Circus.

 

   This final quote is from an article in the Shuttleworth Veteran Aeroplane Society's Propswing magazine, which was reproduced in the Vintage Aviation Echo (see link below).  This is of particular interest because it deals with a Clerget engined Camel, which is what we have.  The only difference is our Camel has the 130 horsepower Clerget 9b while the Shuttleworth Collection's Camel has the 140 horsepower Clerget 9bf, the only difference between the two being the longer stroke of the 9bf.

 

 

   "During the pre-takeoff run-up the settings for 1100 RPM (considered adequate for the first take-off) were bloctube (BT) 6-7 and fine adjustment (FA) 3 1/2 - 4 1/2 (see footnote 4).  Running on a single magneto was checked and although the engine note changed there was no discernible RPM drop.  The engine was throttled back to 600 RPM (BT=2) and chocks waved away.  Fuel air pressure was pumped to 2-2 1/2 psi.  The stick which had been held back during the run-up was repositioned to approximately half way between neutral and full forward.  The BT was opened slowly to ensure that the engine was responding correctly without choking and to mitigate the gyroscopics as discussed earlier.  As expected the tail did not lift until about half way through the take-off roll and when it did lift the aircraft yawed slightly to the the left before I was able to detect and correct the movement.  Although some pitch sensitivity was noticed it was possible to maintain the correct pitch attitude."

 

   The pilot (Dodge Baily) used a different procedure than Skyes, keeping the petrol fine adjustment control in the same position while slowly advancing the throttle.  Since I have no experience with rotary engines, I do not know if the difference in methods is due to pilot preference or the type of engines, but I would guess it is the former since the same method used by Skyes is mentioned in Winged Victory for a Clerget Camel.

 

   Although I focused only on the Camel, this issue is also present on the Fokker Triplane and Nieuport 28 and the rotaries in Rise of Flight.  Overall, this issue is, in my opinion, not that large and other issues, such as the damage model, should be prioritized but it would be nice to see it fixed eventually.

 

*The petrol fine adjustment functions just like a normal mixture control and controls the amount of fuel to the engine."

 

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56275&page=5

https://vintageaviationecho.com/sopwith-camel/

 

The blocktube carburetor found on the Rhone and Clerget engines is the same one.  The jet size and the needle size vary according to the engine though.  When moving the throttle lever, you ARE changing BOTH air and fuel quantity at the same time.  So it is really a throttle, not just an air lever.  The mixture control ("fine adjustment") controls only the fuel flow.  These two controls work just as they do in a modern aircraft, but without the ability to finely control idle speed.  I think an ellison throttle body would really make a rotary engine run very nicely, but it wouldn't be historically accurate...

 

To further complicate things, each engine (80 Rhone, 110/120 Rhone, and Clerget) will behave differently regarding mixture usage.  The 80 Rhone is VERY tolerant of a wide range of mixture settings.  I can run that engine as easily as I run a Lycoming.  By this I mean I can set the mixture about 70% and do 95% of the flying with just the throttle.

 

The 120 Rhone on the other hand seems to be much more sensitive to mixture settings.  If I make big throttle changes, I have to make a mixture adjustment.  If the 80 Rhone can be used with throttle alone over 95% of the range, the 120 can probably be controlled by throttle alone for 35% of the range.

 

The Gnome series engines don't require very much mixture manipulation.  The "throttle" on the Gnomes is always wide open, so once you have it running well on the ground, only minor adjustments will be required in flight.  Engine speed on a Gnome is controlled by the ignition system instead of a throttle.

 

To date, I have run the 80 Rhone, 120 Rhone, and 160 Gnome.

 

In this video, you can see how I am using the throttle and mixture together.  Generally, they just follow each other.  As I got more experience, I found that I could get away with using the throttle only for a lot of my flying, to include formation flying.

if you want to control your sim with a realistic device, this is as good as money can buy

 

https://www.vrsimpits.com/tampier-quadrant

[J5_Adam]

"In this video, you can see how I am using the throttle and mixture together."

 

Where's the video?

[Chill31]

Fair question, oops.  

 

 

[ZachariasX]

Tempted to get such a unit... and put my original, Max Immelmanns 8th trophy, on that. But if they only made the mixture work in FC as does on the real engines.

[Holtzauge]

I'm impressed with the way you fly in and out between those trees on take off and landing @Chill31: Not much margin of error there or you end up in the greenery. In addition: If the wind is not directly in the direction of the runway: If you have a slight crosswind: I could imagine some nasty "rotors" coming off over the top of those trees and down into the pattern......

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

I agree with most of what Baer said - the DM and FM issues come first. Otherwise, it's the proverbial "deckchairs on the Titanic". Why fiddle with rotary engine control when you lose your surface controls 15 sec into a fight?

 

After the DM and FM issues are addressed, I can see a place for more advanced engine controls on certain planes. But I would make it optional rather than mandatory, or else usable with the keyboard or the buttons on the stick base.

 

WW1 is hard enough to sell to people, let alone now requiring additional purchase of more peripheral controls. I can see asking someone to buy a flightstick to play, which has  been the norm for years in PC sims. But the more peripheral controls beyond the basic flight stick that are required, the higher the barriers to entry. With something that's niche like WW1 to start with, you start limiting the audience more and more. It's about striking a balance between the sim aspects and barriers to entry for customers. I think you could add more elements to the engine controls, but it has to be done in a way that's accessible for the casual player.

Edited May 28, 2021 by NO.20_Krispy_Duck

[ZachariasX]

5 minutes ago, NO.20_Krispy_Duck said:

I agree with most of what Baer said - the DM and FM issues come first. Otherwise, it's the proverbial "deckchairs on the Titanic". Why fiddle with rotary engine control when you lose your surface controls 15 sec into a fight?

Actually, I think modelling procedures right is a way simpler and more obvious correction. The DM is mostly contriversial due to percieved issues rather than factual issues and hence never "right". (Quot capita, tot sensus.)

[J2_Bidu]

8 minutes ago, NO.20_Krispy_Duck said:

Why fiddle with rotary engine control when you lose your surface controls 15 sec into a fight?

 

Somehow Sahaj doesn't.

 

Yeah sure, sometimes he does. But he's stll the best candidate for Camel MacLeod (there can be only one).

 

I love the DR1. Not because it is a damage beast, although it is. But my best streak was in the Dolphin.