Griffon Engine Modes so tight?

[VR_Dogfighter]

Trying to get used to flying the new Griffon powered Spitfire in combat, but finding the engine modes really tight banded and especially in combat mode.

 

According to the spec I should be able to get boost of 9 as combat mode, but not sure I'm getting past 8 before it registers as emergency power, which obviously has limited time.

 

There seems little room for error flying needing power without blowing the engine especially with little to distinguish in mode sounds, which can be clearly heard with the Merlins.

 

Anyone else found how to best push this beast? 

[Jade_Monkey]

It's a combination of boost and rpm. Make sure your rpm is not over 2600 to stay in combat mode.

 

But i agree the griffon needs to have a bit more leeway between modes, it seems very strict with the boost around 9.

[HandyNasty]

42 minutes ago, Nake said:

but not sure I'm getting past 8 before it registers as emergency power, which obviously has limited time.

 

So for demonstration purposes I did a test with the 109F-4 : following specs, it has 1 minute at full throttle (1.42 ata), 30 minutes at 80% (1.3 ata), and my own test just now at

- 85% throttle (+-1.34 ata) has my engine quitting after ~31min30

- 90% throttle (+- 1.38ata) has my engine quitting after ~3min50

- 94% throttle (+- 1.41ata) has my engine quit after ~ 2min 20

 

Now, each engine failure has a random part, which wasn't quite captured by my test (wasn't the intention). But it shows that : while all 3 throttle positions are considered "emergency power", intermediate throttle/rpm positions have intermediate effects on engine strain. It is NOT because the technochat says "emergency" that you're at what I would call "full emergency".

 

Hence for the XIV : if you pull, say +10 boost and 2600rpm it will register 'emergency mode' but you'll have way more than 5 minutes of it. Probably something like 50 minutes of it since you're only slightly above the 1 hour international power regime. Hence I wouldn't worry too much about exact engine settings in the XIV.

 

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

58 minutes ago, =FSB=HandyNasty said:

So for demonstration purposes I did a test with the 109F-4 : following specs, it has 1 minute at full throttle (1.42 ata), 30 minutes at 80% (1.3 ata), and my own test just now at

- 85% throttle (+-1.34 ata) has my engine quitting after ~31min30

- 90% throttle (+- 1.38ata) has my engine quitting after ~3min50

- 94% throttle (+- 1.41ata) has my engine quit after ~ 2min 20

 

Now, each engine failure has a random part, which wasn't quite captured by my test (wasn't the intention). But it shows that : while all 3 throttle positions are considered "emergency power", intermediate throttle/rpm positions have intermediate effects on engine strain. It is NOT because the technochat says "emergency" that you're at what I would call "full emergency".

 

Hence for the XIV : if you pull, say +10 boost and 2600rpm it will register 'emergency mode' but you'll have way more than 5 minutes of it. Probably something like 50 minutes of it since you're only slightly above the 1 hour international power regime. Hence I wouldn't worry too much about exact engine settings in the XIV.

Very informative post! I always thought that it was a fixed timer depending on engine mode, but it seems that it's not. Apparently the engine system is more realistic than I thought.

[Birdman]

Very informative indeed, I need to test how long the engine lasts with 2600rpm and 18 inches of boost. Curious to see if that lasts more than a minute.

[VR_Dogfighter]

1 hour ago, =FSB=HandyNasty said:

 

So for demonstration purposes I did a test with the 109F-4 : following specs, it has 1 minute at full throttle (1.42 ata), 30 minutes at 80% (1.3 ata), and my own test just now at

- 85% throttle (+-1.34 ata) has my engine quitting after ~31min30

- 90% throttle (+- 1.38ata) has my engine quitting after ~3min50

- 94% throttle (+- 1.41ata) has my engine quit after ~ 2min 20

 

Now, each engine failure has a random part, which wasn't quite captured by my test (wasn't the intention). But it shows that : while all 3 throttle positions are considered "emergency power", intermediate throttle/rpm positions have intermediate effects on engine strain. It is NOT because the technochat says "emergency" that you're at what I would call "full emergency".

 

Hence for the XIV : if you pull, say +10 boost and 2600rpm it will register 'emergency mode' but you'll have way more than 5 minutes of it. Probably something like 50 minutes of it since you're only slightly above the 1 hour international power regime. Hence I wouldn't worry too much about exact engine settings in the XIV.

 

 

Many thanks.. that's very interesting and good to hear.. Not sure why the techochat would be saying what it is, but I'll do some test flights with timing and see how the engine holds out! 

[nesher666]

Nake, what worked for me as a sustainable (~1hr) combat engine setting in the new Mk XIV is the 72% rpm 72% throttle positions.

 

This setting might "bite" into the emergency envelope sometimes while performing steeper dives, but should be OK most of the time (if you are worried then go for 71%/71%, you won't be short on power in this beast ). 

 

As for continous power I use 64%/64% which is it's upper limit.

[HandyNasty]

3 hours ago, Birdman said:

Very informative indeed, I need to test how long the engine lasts with 2600rpm and 18 inches of boost. Curious to see if that lasts more than a minute.

 

 

Since 2750RPM & +18 inches boost has a 5 minute limit (i would guess more like a 5-7 minute limit due to the randomness of engine failure).

 

Some test for the griffon damage start :

2750 & +18 --> ~8min00

2600 & +18 --> ~14min35

2750 & +16 --> ~8min10

2600 & +16 --> ~18min15

 

These are 4 example timings where the engine is in "emergency mode" for all cases, but the damage starts at noticeably different times.  There is some random element to engine failure when you've exceeded its limits. So don't take these numbers as solid, but more as ballpark numbers.

 

[Birdman]

1 minute ago, =FSB=HandyNasty said:

 

 

Since 2750RPM & +18 inches boost has a 5 minute limit (i would guess more like a 5-7 minute limit due to the randomness of engine failure).

 

Some test for the griffon damage start :

2750 & +18 --> ~8min00

2600 & +18 --> ~14min35

2750 & +16 --> ~8min10

2600 & +16 --> ~18min15

 

These are 4 example timings where the engine is in "emergency mode" for all cases, but the damage starts at noticeably different times.  There is some random element to engine failure when you've exceeded its limits. So don't take these numbers as solid, but more as ballpark numbers.

 

Thanks for taking the time to test.

 

That's a good bit of time we have available with lower rpm. Will have to watch gas levels though.

[CountZero]

its just funny how so differant british engines have same time limits (1h or 5m) is almost as if time limits were not there because engines quality and bild was exactly the same so engines would brake after its time run out, but they were there for some other reasons.

 

Also there is still bug in techchat where only important message that tells you when timer run out and get recharged is not working for years now, all other messages work, but one that tells you when game wonts to kill your engine unrealisticly and unhistoricly, still dont work.

 

If that messages were fixed you could then use less power more effectivc as it would tell you when to stop, now you cant know how long you can use it if your using les then max power of engine mod.

 

if devs decide to use this strickt time limits on engines then atleast they should fix messages that tell us when game limits wont us to stop using them, as real ww2 pilots didnt have to worry about them, it was wory of ground mehancis. You either owerheat if you use them to mutch, run out of fuel faster or run out of special cooling liquid.

[CSW_Tommy544]

On 5/8/2021 at 4:59 PM, CountZero said:

its just funny how so differant british engines have same time limits (1h or 5m) is almost as if time limits were not there because engines quality and bild was exactly the same so engines would brake after its time run out, but they were there for some other reasons.

 

Also there is still bug in techchat where only important message that tells you when timer run out and get recharged is not working for years now, all other messages work, but one that tells you when game wonts to kill your engine unrealisticly and unhistoricly, still dont work.

 

If that messages were fixed you could then use less power more effectivc as it would tell you when to stop, now you cant know how long you can use it if your using les then max power of engine mod.

 

if devs decide to use this strickt time limits on engines then atleast they should fix messages that tell us when game limits wont us to stop using them, as real ww2 pilots didnt have to worry about them, it was wory of ground mehancis. You either owerheat if you use them to mutch, run out of fuel faster or run out of special cooling liquid.

 

The messages about running out of available emergency/combat mode time are still there in the game, just as the ones informing you about these times being fully recharged. The problem is that you have to have instrument panel difficulty simplification enabled for them to show.

Edited May 12, 2021 by CSW_FMF_Tommy544

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, CSW_FMF_Tommy544 said:

 

The messages about running out of available emergency/combat mode time are still there in the game, just as the ones informing you about these times being fully recharged. The problem is that you have to have instrument panel difficulty simplification enabled for them to show.

And why only thouse mesages are not turned on when techchat option is ON (like all other techchat messages), why they depend on totaly differant option also needing to be turned on, and on top option that has nothing to do with them (they are not any type of instrument panel, they are techchat messages). Its clear bug. Its like if you wont to have outside view enabled you have to turn on aditionaly optin for unrealistic engines.

Servers that have techchat turned on dont have instrument panle turned on, so basicly this bug makes important messages that kill your engine not show up. 

Its simple thing to fix, but for some reason not fixed.

 

The way game makes you fly by obeying strictly timers for engines make thouse messages more important then they should be, so there is reason for them to be visable to player if he plays with techchat messages visable, how is message that tels me im opening/closing canopy  more important then message about some unrealistic timer that will kill my engine without me knowing when. Thouse are probably most important tech chat messages in game and they dont work when techchat is on.

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by CountZero

[41Sqn_Skipper]

On 5/8/2021 at 4:59 PM, CountZero said:

its just funny how so differant british engines have same time limits (1h or 5m) is almost as if time limits were not there because engines quality and bild was exactly the same so engines would brake after its time run out, but they were there for some other reasons.

 

The engine limitations are explained in Pilot's Notes General.

 

AP 2095 Pilot's Notes General (published in June 1941):

 

 

AP 2095 Pilot's Notes General Volume 2 (published April 1943):

...

 

As you can see the time limits changes during the war (climb duration from 30 min in 1941 to 1hr in 1943), but they are the same for all engines. Which is of course achieved by choosing limiting the RPM and boost as necessary.

 

[CountZero]

22 minutes ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

The engine limitations are explained in Pilot's Notes General.

 

AP 2095 Pilot's Notes General (published in June 1941):

 

 

AP 2095 Pilot's Notes General Volume 2 (published April 1943):

...

 

As you can see the time limits changes during the war (climb duration from 30 min in 1941 to 1hr in 1943), but they are the same for all engines. Which is of course achieved by choosing limiting the RPM and boost as necessary.

 

 

So real ww2 pilot would lose his engine every time if he flew more then, for example 5min, on max power ?

 

Thats some serious thing for pilot to keep mined ocupied on in combat, why would they alow pilots to risk losing airplane if in heat of battle they forghot they used max power for longer then alowed, or timer didnt recharegd (what RAF manual say you have to wait 3 time power used if u use 5min you have to wait 15 min to use that 5min again ?  looks like something invented just for game to me) Why not add simple alarm to warn pilot when he used 5min and if he use more his engine is dead, in heat of battle they risk pilot life for something so simple to have when timers kill your engines 100% of time like in game, thats some crazy sht if timers worked like in game, seams like they didnt care mutch about pilots.

 

Or maybe limits in real life were not behaving like in game, where your engine dies 100% of time when you go over limits.

 

So if game is so strickt, players needs to be informed when game wonts him to stop, as im sure in real life ww2 airplanes engines did NOT blow up 100% of time if pilots go abow 1-5-15min or what ever limits some manuals recomended.

 

Game has mehanic to convay messages about state of airplane, its cald techchat, fact is only this important messages dont work when that option is turned on like on 90% servers.

If engine timers would behaved in real life like they behave in game, airplanes would have build in warnings in cockpits about time run as going over alowed time limit would be dangerous for pilot and airplane to not know when hes over that limit that will 100% of time kill his engine.

 

 

 

[[CPT]Crunch]

Quote

"These figures provide a 'general' guide to the reasonable use of the engine." 

 

Not a 'specific' set of hard coded time limitations, with guaranteed destruction of your engine.

[41Sqn_Skipper]

My engine hasn't been overhauled once and it's clearly way beyond the expected 100hrs. I'm happy if it doesn't break down under normal conditions. 

When was the last time your engine was overhauled?

Edited May 14, 2021 by 41Sqn_Skipper

[CUJO_1970]

12 hours ago, CountZero said:

 

So real ww2 pilot

 

 

Real ww2 pilot could only hope to understand your virtual desktop computer struggle. You are truly part of the greatest generation.

[Talisman]

16 hours ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

The engine limitations are explained in Pilot's Notes General.

 

AP 2095 Pilot's Notes General (published in June 1941):

 

 

AP 2095 Pilot's Notes General Volume 2 (published April 1943):

...

 

As you can see the time limits changes during the war (climb duration from 30 min in 1941 to 1hr in 1943), but they are the same for all engines. Which is of course achieved by choosing limiting the RPM and boost as necessary.

 

 

Good gen Skipper  The AP 2095 Pilot Notes General were to be read by pilots in conjunction with the pilots notes for individual aircraft.  The Pilot Notes General put the individual aircraft pilot notes into context concerning the wider picture and underpinning policy. 

For me, one of the big take-aways from the Pilot Notes General is that the engine limitations in the individual aircraft pilot notes are a general guide and that they may be disregarded by the pilot in combat and other emergency situations.

I am not aware of any such similar instructions for Axis pilots authorising that they may disregard engine limitations in the same way.  Perhaps, for historical accuracy, British aircraft pilots should be allowed to disregard engine limitations in combat in this combat flight simulation, without the in-game unhistorical engine timer damage modelling. 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[Dakpilot]

Welcome to everyone flying max rpm and WEP boost from take off to landing... Very historical 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[iFoxRomeo]

I don't think engines would break after the time limit that is set in the manual is exceeded.

The problem is: How do you prevent sim-pilots from flying full-throttle till the fuel tank is dry? The next aircraft they jump into is fresh from the factory.

 

23 hours ago, CountZero said:

If engine timers would behaved in real life like they behave in game, airplanes would have build in warnings in cockpits about time run as going over alowed time limit would be dangerous for pilot and airplane to not know when hes over that limit that will 100% of time kill his engine.

Actually such timer and warnings do exist in some aircraft, but it doesn't mean the engine fails instantaneously after the elapsed timelimit.

 

 

Fox

 

 

[41Sqn_Skipper]

48 minutes ago, iFoxRomeo said:

I don't think engines would break after the time limit that is set in the manual is exceeded.

The problem is: How do you prevent sim-pilots from flying full-throttle till the fuel tank is dry? The next aircraft they jump into is fresh from the factory.

 

Actually such timer and warnings do exist in some aircraft, but it doesn't mean the engine fails instantaneously after the elapsed timelimit.

 

 

Fox

 

 

 

An engine with 0 running hours since the last overhaul will not break, as mentioned the limits include a safety margin. But how about an engine with 50-100 running hours and several previous "overload" situations? Note that even the "1 hour climb limit" is considered an overload condition.

The typical flight simmer engine is 80% of the time in overload condition and in reality would never get close to the expected 100 hours between overhauls. And jumping in a new aircraft doesn't mean it's factory new. On average it will be a pool aicraft from your squadron, at the half of the expected running time and already abused by another flight simmer. 

 

It's very plausible that an engine in the middle of the expected running and heavy previous abuse will break down when limitations are exeeded (especially the serious overload conditions for the combat ratings). 

Edited May 14, 2021 by 41Sqn_Skipper

[iFoxRomeo]

1 hour ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

And jumping in a new aircraft doesn't mean it's factory new. On average it will be a pool aicraft from your squadron, at the half of the expected running time and already abused by another flight simmer.

In Il2:GB you get a pooled aircraft that is not factory new when you press the fly button? Really?

 

1 hour ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

It's very plausible that an engine in the middle of the expected running and heavy previous abuse will break down when limitations are exeeded (especially the serious overload conditions for the combat ratings).

I don't think so. But this discussion would lead to nothing, unless we find maintenance reports of the overhauled engines that show what parts had to be exchanged because they were out of tolerance or if the engine is nothing but scrap metal.

[palker4]

7 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

Welcome to everyone flying max rpm and WEP boost from take off to landing... Very historical 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

If you have a good engine model and thermal model then you cannot do that cause you will cook your engine. CloD does not have any silly egg timers that will destroy your engine if you manage your temps you can fly at max power the whole time. But people are not flying full power all the time cause don't want to burn all they fuel in 15 minutes and it is generally better to keep your engine cooler so that you can use the extra power when you need it without worrying about overheating. 

 

I do not understand why are people defending the engine timers. 

Today I was fighting K4s in  a P51 in a quick mission and I happen to fly at an altitude where I could not get enough boost for emergency mode so I was in the combat mode all the time. Then when I got lower my combat mode timer run out, but my emergency mode still had some time left so I  could increase the power to stop my engine from destroying itself. Now explain to me how that makes any iota of goddamn sense?! 

[FTC_Riksen]

11 hours ago, ACG_Talisman said:

 

Good gen Skipper  The AP 2095 Pilot Notes General were to be read by pilots in conjunction with the pilots notes for individual aircraft.  The Pilot Notes General put the individual aircraft pilot notes into context concerning the wider picture and underpinning policy. 

For me, one of the big take-aways from the Pilot Notes General is that the engine limitations in the individual aircraft pilot notes are a general guide and that they may be disregarded by the pilot in combat and other emergency situations.

I am not aware of any such similar instructions for Axis pilots authorising that they may disregard engine limitations in the same way.  Perhaps, for historical accuracy, British aircraft pilots should be allowed to disregard engine limitations in combat in this combat flight simulation, without the in-game unhistorical engine timer damage modelling. 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

 

It does clearly state in the docs that these limits may be disregarded during combat and emergency situations as you say however the documents also say "... to secure an adequate margin of safety against immediate breakdown ...". So immediate breakdown of engine when pushed over the limits may happen and are not so unhistorical as you claim. Most likely, they were less common than not but changes definitely increased with pronlonged use and between overhauls. Yes, pilots probably exceeded these limits when their lives where on the line but where do we draw the line in-game to allow the use of emergency power? Im not trying to defend the current approach we have but they at least give us something to hold on to, something documented which is better than having people flying on emergency power throughout the entire sortie IMHO. Perhaps, a good solution would be to take the manual emergency power time limits and add a random timer after it is exceeded for 3 types of damage:

- 1. Mild: Not really a damage but some signs that you are pushing too hard. For example, gradual decrease of manifold pressure associated with change in engine sound. Once noticed, the pilot simply pulls back to cruise settings and let the engine rest a bit. No side effects present

- 2. Moderate: This one gives the same clues to the pilot but this time you have a chance to have some permanent damage to the engine. Not a immediately critical to completely stop your engine right away as we have now but something that requires attention and lets you, at least, try to rtb.

- 3. Critical: This one causes your engine to seize as we have in game.

 

So supposing the emergency limit is 5 min + Random factor time (say between 3 and 5 min), once the pilot exceeds this limit we could add the chance for each event every time this happens to something like:

- 80% of the time, a mild consequence happens, 15% a moderate damage event happens, and 5% a critical damage happens. So most of times after you exceed the limits you would be ok but the game would check these again every 1-2 min after that and increase the odds of a more critical one. For example: if you been flying on emergency for like 9 min and the engine started to give you a sound feedback that power is decreasing slowly so you are no longer getting your 21lbs but now 20lbs but you keep it going, the game would check the odds of damage again after like 2 mins but now increase the chances for moderate and critical damage by like 10% and so on.

This would make it ok to push the engines most of the time but still keep that chance of failure and other less severe events as could happen in real life but less frequently or abrupt as we have now. Just an idea ... I dont know, this issue is not that simple to tackle IMHO.

2 hours ago, iFoxRomeo said:

In Il2:GB you get a pooled aircraft that is not factory new when you press the fly button? Really?

 

I don't think so. But this discussion would lead to nothing, unless we find maintenance reports of the overhauled engines that show what parts had to be exchanged because they were out of tolerance or if the engine is nothing but scrap metal.

 

Is it factory new? Really?

 

You dont need maintenance reports as the pilot notes he posted above clearly say that these measures were to improve engine life and prevent immediate engine failure so they know for fact that these may be consequences of poorly maintained or abused engines. The purpose of an engine overhaul is exactly that, repair/replace parts when needed or check needed materials to keep it running at its best performance. If either one of thesa happen, the it is implicated and plausible that assume these consequences may happen as the documents states. No need for discussion here.

[oc2209]

I'm going to propose a compromise that, most likely, will satisfy no one.

 

The compromise is the result of 2 assumptions:

 

1) We don't want to make unnecessary work for the devs to overhaul the entire engine timer system.

 

2) We don't want to give players the freedom to abuse engines to a ridiculous extent, just because the game doesn't have our mechanics chew us out when we come back from every sortie with a blown up engine.

 

With the above in mind, I think the simplest solution would be to add a grace period to engine power settings. Perhaps 1 extra minute. During this time, maybe some subtle engine noise could be added (like an engine running rough?). Or maybe that's too gamey, I don't know.

 

The point is that adding a short grace period before engine damage is incurred would give people a bit more flexibility to abuse their engines, but not to the point of blatantly exploiting the game.

 

In other words, 1 minute limits become 2 minutes. 5 minute limits become 6. 10 becomes 11. Think of it as a buffer to provide some extra wiggle room, without breaking the game one way or the other.

[Reggie_Mental]

Spitfires....

 

Overrated and fussy planes produced by bourgeois capitalist lackeys.

 

Give me heroic product of Comrade Yakovlev and Soviet peoples

 

 

Edited May 15, 2021 by Reggie_Mental

[=621=Samikatz]

3 hours ago, Reggie_Mental said:

Give me heroic product of Comrade Yakovlev and Soviet peoples

 

I honestly think the Yak-7 (all Yaks, really, but the 7 feels like you have to pay the most attention to coolant) has probably the most intuitive and fun engine management in the game. There's no second counting, but you need to carefully manage temperatures to not burn the engine out (but also shut your radiators to chase and catch people), mixture to keep engine performance optimal and visibility down, pull back the prop to not over-rev in dives, etc. Mishandling the airplane like a clown will break it, but you keep an eye on your management with the cockpit gauges and feedback from the airplane

[Dakpilot]

The entire engine timers, heating and detonation model has been mentioned to be in the works by Dev's on a few occasions. 

 

Yak 7 was first trial of more advancements in this regime

 

**edit**

 

I am certainly not a fan of current engine timers, but a quick "fix" will not work here each engine and type have very different issues and downsides, a Klimov is not a Merlin or a DB or BMW or R2800 or Allison,

a generic overheat would lead to even more gamey problems

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Edited May 15, 2021 by Dakpilot

[Dragon1-1]

I do hope so. American fighters like the P-39 and P-40 were somewhat underrated by their documentation, the Soviets were known to push them much harder than designed, which actually made them quite a bit more competitive than they were in US service.

[Talisman]

12 hours ago, 41Sqn_Riksen said:

 

It does clearly state in the docs that these limits may be disregarded during combat and emergency situations as you say however the documents also say "... to secure an adequate margin of safety against immediate breakdown ...". So immediate breakdown of engine when pushed over the limits may happen and are not so unhistorical as you claim. Most likely, they were less common than not but changes definitely increased with pronlonged use and between overhauls. Yes, pilots probably exceeded these limits when their lives where on the line but where do we draw the line in-game to allow the use of emergency power? Im not trying to defend the current approach we have but they at least give us something to hold on to, something documented which is better than having people flying on emergency power throughout the entire sortie IMHO. Perhaps, a good solution would be to take the manual emergency power time limits and add a random timer after it is exceeded for 3 types of damage:

- 1. Mild: Not really a damage but some signs that you are pushing too hard. For example, gradual decrease of manifold pressure associated with change in engine sound. Once noticed, the pilot simply pulls back to cruise settings and let the engine rest a bit. No side effects present

- 2. Moderate: This one gives the same clues to the pilot but this time you have a chance to have some permanent damage to the engine. Not a immediately critical to completely stop your engine right away as we have now but something that requires attention and lets you, at least, try to rtb.

- 3. Critical: This one causes your engine to seize as we have in game.

 

So supposing the emergency limit is 5 min + Random factor time (say between 3 and 5 min), once the pilot exceeds this limit we could add the chance for each event every time this happens to something like:

- 80% of the time, a mild consequence happens, 15% a moderate damage event happens, and 5% a critical damage happens. So most of times after you exceed the limits you would be ok but the game would check these again every 1-2 min after that and increase the odds of a more critical one. For example: if you been flying on emergency for like 9 min and the engine started to give you a sound feedback that power is decreasing slowly so you are no longer getting your 21lbs but now 20lbs but you keep it going, the game would check the odds of damage again after like 2 mins but now increase the chances for moderate and critical damage by like 10% and so on.

This would make it ok to push the engines most of the time but still keep that chance of failure and other less severe events as could happen in real life but less frequently or abrupt as we have now. Just an idea ... I dont know, this issue is not that simple to tackle IMHO.

 

Is it factory new? Really?

 

You dont need maintenance reports as the pilot notes he posted above clearly say that these measures were to improve engine life and prevent immediate engine failure so they know for fact that these may be consequences of poorly maintained or abused engines. The purpose of an engine overhaul is exactly that, repair/replace parts when needed or check needed materials to keep it running at its best performance. If either one of thesa happen, the it is implicated and plausible that assume these consequences may happen as the documents states. No need for discussion here.

 

Just to be clear Riksen,  I do actually respect the choice the developers have made regarding engine limitations, I think I see what they are trying to achieve in terms of perhaps trying to get PC pilots to more realistically fly combat aircraft and it sets them apart from some other flight simulations in this respect.  However, I do think that in real life the Allied engines were more generally very robust and reliable and that the in-game timer limits for engine damage are therefore not historical.  However, I do think that what the developers have chosen to do in this regard does have some merit and I am happy to continue flying this way without too much fuss.  On the other side of the coin though, you may already be aware of what I have posted below, but I do find the engine overload testing information below rather interesting:

 

In real life our in-game Spitfire Mk IX LF, Merlin 66 engine passed 100 hours endurance testing at emergency combat rating +18 lbs boost and 3,000 rpm.

 

Some interesting details on page 224 of this article (link below) regarding Development of the Rolls-Royce Merlin Engine.

 

Development of the Rolls-Royce Merlin from 1939 to 1945 (wwiiaircraftperformance.org)

 

Standard production Merlin 66 engine, as fitted to the Spitfire Mk IX LF, overload tested @ 3,000 rpm with +18 lbs combat boost for 100 hours endurance (27 hours initially) with no adjustment or replacement and no involuntary stops and usual routine maintenance omitted entirely.  The engine was then stripped down and found to be in excellent condition.  The engine was then rebuilt without any replacement parts being fitted, then fitted to a Spitfire and given a further 100 hours endurance testing.

 

The lecture was by Mr A C Lovesey:

In 1930 Lovesey was awarded Aviators Certificate No. 9350 by the Royal Aero Club.^[3] In the late 1930s Lovesey (who had become known as 'Lov' in company shorthand) began working with others on developing the new Rolls-Royce Merlin and just prior to the start of the Battle of Britain was placed in charge of the development programme. His contribution to the Merlin, doubling its power output and improving reliability at the same time, was a major achievement. Post-war, Lovesey adapted the Merlin for civil use and then turned to turbojet development with work on the Rolls-Royce Avon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Lovesey

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-lovesey.pdf

 

Check out this information, please see link below, on the Tempest V engine.

http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/contributions/stories/130-the-greatest-engines-of-all-time-by-ljk-setright

This is an interesting extract regarding endurance testing:

Nor was that 3,750bhp service a typical combat rating that might be maintained for only 15 minutes. It was a figure that could be sustained hour after hour, day after day: Napier tested the Sabre at that rating for 175 hours non-stop. The company's usual endurance test was more varied: 10 hours at cruise rating, three hours at climb rating, one hour at take-off power, and one hour at combat maximum, with the whole 15-hour cycle being repeated non-stop over and over again.

What this perhaps proved incidentally was the greater suitability of the sleeve valve for a liquid-cooled engine than for the air-cooled type, for Bristol was never able to display such results.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited May 15, 2021 by ACG_Talisman

[iFoxRomeo]

19 hours ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

And jumping in a new aircraft doesn't mean it's factory new. On average it will be a pool aicraft from your squadron, at the half of the expected running time and already abused by another flight simmer.

Where do you have this info from? Does IL2 record the flight times of all simmers on all aircraft?

 

15 hours ago, 41Sqn_Riksen said:

Is it factory new? Really?

Well, to be honest, I don't have any info on that. But as there is no flight and maintenance record book I have to sign before and after each flight, I don't see any previous useage on the aircraft I join when I press fly.

 

15 hours ago, 41Sqn_Riksen said:

- 1. Mild: Not really a damage but some signs that you are pushing too hard. For example, gradual decrease of manifold pressure associated with change in engine sound. Once noticed, the pilot simply pulls back to cruise settings and let the engine rest a bit. No side effects present

I have no solution to the timer problem. But this particular point looks gamey to me. A performance loss does not autorepair itself.

 

15 hours ago, 41Sqn_Riksen said:

You dont need maintenance reports as the pilot notes he posted above clearly say that these measures were to improve engine life and prevent immediate engine failure so they know for fact that these may be consequences of poorly maintained or abused engines. The purpose of an engine overhaul is exactly that, repair/replace parts when needed or check needed materials to keep it running at its best performance. If either one of thesa happen, the it is implicated and plausible that assume these consequences may happen as the documents states. No need for discussion here.

Well there are operational limitations in a flight manual, and there is the experience from aircraft useage. Sometimes the experience shows that some limits are too strict and some too loose. A good example is the BMW 801D in the FW190A. In the A8 the manual stated 2700rpm/1.42ata for max 3 minutes. Some time late it was increased to 2700rpm/1.58ata/1.65ata and 10 minutes without changes in the engine construction and without exchange parts(except those to increase the boost) and still the same C3 fuel.
 

Fox

Edited May 15, 2021 by iFoxRomeo

[FTC_Riksen]

2 hours ago, ACG_Talisman said:

...

Talisman

 

Thank you for the info Talisman. Verily interesting read and information. I too would be fine of things are left the way they are as I think this might be a complicated issue to solve to be honest.

 

9 minutes ago, iFoxRomeo said:

 

I have no solution to the timer problem. But this particular point looks gamey to me. A performance loss does not autorepair itself.

 

Me neither and I agree that it might be too gamey ... But the way it is might be also considered too gamey by some. Hard thing to solve.

 

12 minutes ago, iFoxRomeo said:

... 

Well there are operational limitations in a flight manual, and there is the experience from aircraft useage. Sometimes the experience shows that some limits are too strict and some too loose. A good example is the BMW 801D in the FW190A. In the A8 the manual stated 2700rpm/1.42ata for max 3 minutes. Some time late it was increased to 2700rpm/1.58ata/1.65ata and 10 minutes without changes in the engine construction and without exchange parts and still the same C3 fuel.
 

Fox

 

I agree but we have to have something official to base this on otherwise we go from disregarding flight and aircraft manuals to adopting he said/she said stories or relying solely on sources that push the engines to its max without consideration to the life of the engine. We have to remember that these limits were also impose to ensure the life spam of the engine could be as long as possible. Odlf course they could run on emergency for very long periods of time but what was the long-term consequence of that to the engine? Hence the manuals regarding limits to the engine ... How do we account for.both factors in game is the problem ... How can we run the engine for longer but still account possible damages .... 

[[CPT]Crunch]

2 hours ago, iFoxRomeo said:

Well there are operational limitations in a flight manual, and there is the experience from aircraft useage.

Which in the case of the Spit above is not so, the very book itself says its only a recommendation, not any limit, in fact says to be completely disregarded at pilots discretion as the situation deems.

[JtD]

On 5/14/2021 at 2:59 PM, ACG_Talisman said:

I am not aware of any such similar instructions for Axis pilots authorising that they may disregard engine limitations in the same way.

 

It's the same thing for German engines, the time limits are legal issues only. They originate from a requirement by the authorities to give power levels with specified times. The actual label of the power settings goes "combat, emergency, take off" etc., and this is where you're supposed to use that power setting, no matter the time on the clock.

All engines had to pass type tests forcing them to run these settings for ages. Mind you, even most "non-stop" tests you read about these days were in fact interrupted for service and inspection.

 

Another thing to keep in mind, the real engines did break down, even without any abuse, Which is one reason pilots did treat them with care whenever they could. And some engines were more reliable or could take more abuse than others. True for different models, versions, series or even individual engines. I wouldn't want to mistreat an early series Merlin the same way I mistreat a nominally identical late series Merlin.

[Dragon1-1]

I think a  could be implemented as "virtual flight and maintenance book", which would be a note, appearing before the mission, stating the aircraft's condition. In dynamic campaign, this would be determined by the campaign engine, while in single missions, the past usage stats of the aircraft would be determined by the designer, with an option to inherit the state from a previous mission in a scripted campaign. In instant action, it'd have to be configurable, while in MP it could be set by server owners for each slot. 

 

This would allow conditions of each specific battle to be simulated. Right now, depending on how you look at it, our aircraft are either factory-new, or so worn that going over the limits will cause a breakdown in short order. For example, in a late war mission, Germans would have trouble supplying new engines, so their aircraft would start more worn out, while in another, they'd be fairly well maintained, while the Soviets would be the ones who have to watch their engines.

[VR_Dogfighter]

The MKV seems to be the most delicate with the Merlin 45 or 70.

 

Testing at level flight with boost switch on I'm getting time exceeded at 3 min and engine damaged at 4 mins. With boost switch off and 100% power I'm getting time exceeded at 4 minutes and engine damaged at 4 min 40.

 

For the MkIX (with standard fuel) same level flight and 100% power I'm seeing time exceeded at 6 mins and engine damaged at 9 mins.

 

MkIX in DCS no effect after 12mins at 100%.

 

May be more realistic if temp guages or something started showing the engine was struggling to keep up, so you'd know when to back-off.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Nake

[JtD]

Not all engine damage is related to the temperatures that are shown in the cockpit. You can, for instance, overheat the exhaust valves without water and oil temperatures going anywhere near the limit. You mostly do this with a too weak mixture, but a sustained high power flight may also do the trick. Typical damage from that: Knocking/Pre-ignition as the valve is hot enough to ignite the air fuel-mixture before the spark, or burned off valves, improperly sealing the combustion chamber rendering the related cylinder less useful to useless. Can come with vibration and even major component failure (like crankshaft), if you're either unlucky or ignore the engines pain.

[FTC_ChilliBalls]

 

On 5/13/2021 at 9:38 PM, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

As you can see the time limits changes during the war (climb duration from 30 min in 1941 to 1hr in 1943), but they are the same for all engines. Which is of course achieved by choosing limiting the RPM and boost as necessary.

 

 

Very informative post, especially the end point 3. (ii) 

"These figures provide a general guide to the reasonable use of the engine.

In combat and emergency other considerations may justify the pilot in diregarding these restrictions."

 

What I would love to know more about is which setting actually causes the most issues with engine life in IL2 GB.

So what kind of formula are we going with? How do we quantify the RPM vs Throttle settings?

 

I.e. on a Merlin 66: 3000 RPM at +10 lbs of boost vs 2600 RPM at +25 lbs of boost?

Edited May 16, 2021 by So_ein_Feuerball

[CountZero]

3 hours ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

 

 

Very informative post, especially the end point 3. (ii) 

"These figures provide a general guide to the reasonable use of the engine.

In combat and emergency other considerations may justify the pilot in diregarding these restrictions."

 

What I would love to know more about is which setting actually causes the most issues with engine life in IL2 GB.

So what kind of formula are we going with? How do we quantify the RPM vs Throttle settings?

 

I.e. on a Merlin 66: 3000 RPM at +10 lbs of boost vs 2600 RPM at +25 lbs of boost?

 

on 3000rp and 10lbs safe time is 10min, on 2600rpm you cant do 25lbs, max is around 18lbs, and you can do it for safe time of 22min. In both cases techchat shows your in emergancy mode. This is reason why broken messages that tels player when his safe time run out should be fixed, because the way devs decided to model timers in game, thouse messages are only way to know when game wonts you to stop or it will unrealsiticly kill your engine. It dont work like that in real world so player needs to see thouse messages if they decided to do it this way where time limit is what kills your engine and you dont know what your time limit is if your not flying on max power. Simple bug to fix that makes game more enjoyable with the way they wont to limit engines.

I realy dont know who would think real ww2 pilot would say oh no i used up my 1min or 5min and now ill just stop and let that enemy catch me and kill me just so my mechanic ave up some time on engine overhauling... time limits were just recomandations, not kill switch like we have in game, and on top kill switch that we dont know when it fires because broken techchat messages that are still not fixed.

Edited May 16, 2021 by CountZero

[[CPT]Crunch]

Another thing about time based failure to consider, wouldn't it make a difference in how your actually stressing your engine?  A level cruise, as compared to a shallow gliding dive, vs a steep climb, vs violent and continuous maneuvering dogfight, currently it doesn't matter how your engine is burning your combat time, it all ends the same way for the same time.