Complex Engine Management

[Nical]

I pretty must just get started on Il-2 BOS. I choose do fly the Yak-1 ser69 over the german ones because I wanted to learn how to manage my engines.

My understanding is that german planes have a lot of automated systems.

 

If I understand correctly, the Yak-1 engine is pretty reliable and can run almost all the time at 100% throttle and RPM.

Is there a plane in IL-2 BOS that is less forgiving in wrong engine management ? I don't have the impression that I'm learning anything on the Yak-1 since I cannot break my engine by wrong management..

 

Thanks

[Jaegermeister]

Try the P-40

[Guest deleted@171995]

4 минуты назад, Nical сказал:

 

Есть ли в BOS Ил-2 самолет, менее снисходительный к неправильному управлению двигателем? У меня нет впечатления, что я учусь чему-то на Як-1, потому что я не могу сломать свой двигатель неправильным управлением.

 

P-39, P-40.

[cardboard_killer]

34 minutes ago, Nical said:

I don't have the impression that I'm learning anything on the Yak-1 since I cannot break my engine by wrong management..

 

Engine management allows you to squeeze the best out of the plane, which means running at the edge of the envelope. For example, the Bf-109's radiator will open up, slowing the plane down so the pilot cannot keep it closed when extra speed is absolutely worth the risk of overheating.

 

The danger in most of the managed planes is if you get low and slow as they can overheat quickly even with rads wide open. With some, a rapid change in rpm will blow the engine up, too.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

The la5 and la5fn are certainely a good choice. You have to mind your oil cooler and cowl shutters among other things. The IL2 and Mig3's mixture is very important too and will make a difference. Also, the p-47 requires rpm, throttle and turbo management. You can link the turbo to the throtle but you can control it manually too. Finally, with german planes you can revert to manual propeller pitch if you want. Its pretty practical for taxiing.

Edited June 5, 2021 by I./JG52_Woutwocampe

[Gambit21]

13 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

Try the P-40

 

Yep 

 

Said no real life pilot about the real P-40 - ever.

 

[-SF-Disarray]

About the most complex engine in the game to manage, in terms of the number of things you have to watch and adjust is the P-47.  With that said, it isn't like juggling chainsaws or anything like that. Just a few things to keep in mind.

[Eisenfaustus]

From what I understand the OP was talking about BoS only - so suggestions to collector planes and other modules might not be the way. 
 

I‘m no expert on the 4 soviet planes of BoS Standard Edition so  I‘ll concentrate on the Germans:

Bf 109 F-4 - no CEM. Throttle does everything. 
Bf 109 G-2 - you can squeeze out a little extra performance by choosing manual prop pitch and increasing revs. Skill only useful in this plane and not necessary to fligh it well. 
He 111 H-6 - you have to manage water and oil radiators as well as RPM. 
Ju 87 D-3 - like He 111 but if you carry a larger bombload you have to do it very well to keep up with your flight.

Superchargers and mixture are automatic on all German planes. No separate boost systems on any of those 4. 

[Remontti]

I've seen many ruin their engines in He-111 and Stuka soon after take-off. But overall engine management is pretty easy in those too.

[Lusekofte]

10 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Yep 

 

Said no real life pilot about the real P-40 - ever.

 

Problem with P 40 and P 39, is you cannot do what Russian pilots did with them.

They ran their engines so hard that engine changes had in some cases to be done after 1 or 2 missions. They just did not follow factory specification. P 40 , P 47 and P39 is quite impotent compared to history

[CountZero]

pck any american airplane if you wont to brake the engines... game shows they didnt know how to build reliable engines like germans and russians knew in ww2. More they bombed german factorys and oil producions , the better reliable engines germans build lol

Edited June 6, 2021 by CountZero

[danielprates]

The p40 has a single stage compressor, so in lower altitudes it is easy to accidentally go over the max MP setting and damage the engine. Remedy for that is constantly minding tge MP gauge, but since that is true for all or most planes anyway, I don't see that as an extra layer of engine management complexity.

 

Most soviet early planes are 100% manual, like the Lagg-3, why don't you fly it for a while to get used to things?

[41Sqn_Skipper]

53 minutes ago, danielprates said:

The p40 has a single stage compressor, so in lower altitudes it is easy to accidentally go over the max MP setting and damage the engine. Remedy for that is constantly minding tge MP gauge, but since that is true for all or most planes anyway, I don't see that as an extra layer of engine management complexity.

 

Most soviet early planes are 100% manual, like the Lagg-3, why don't you fly it for a while to get used to things?

 

The P40 is the only aircraft in the game without a boost control, thus throttle must be adjusted depending on altitude and engine RPM to avoid overboosting.

[Jade_Monkey]

If you only have BOS (can't tell on mobile), you could also try the IL-2. Not too complicated but needs engine and radiator management.

[Nical]

Thanks for all this. So it seems that CEM is just a couple gauge to check or full auto (appart for US planes). I will try the Lagg to check the difference now that I think I have a good feel for the Yak.

[Gambit21]

15 hours ago, danielprates said:

The p40 has a single stage compressor, so in lower altitudes it is easy to accidentally go over the max MP setting and damage the engine. Remedy for that is constantly minding tge MP gauge, but since that is true for all or most planes anyway, I don't see that as an extra layer of engine management complexity.

 

Extra layer of complexity wasn’t the point, so much as it’s fragility in the game. In real life it was and is a reliable, forgiving workhorse of an engine.

[Lusekofte]

4 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Extra layer of complexity wasn’t the point, so much as it’s fragility in the game. In real life it was and is a reliable, forgiving workhorse of an engine.

So much so, that today a IL 2 sturmovik fly with a Allison, 

[PatrickAWlson]

Me 110 as well.  I flew one for the first time in quite awhile yesterday and managed to burn out one engine hauling 1000 kg of bombs at 1000 meters.  It has oil and water radiators to manage.

[Gambit21]

4 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

So much so, that today a IL 2 sturmovik fly with a Allison, 

 

It’s reputation for toughness and reliability (and power) was such that it was a favorite with tractor pullers and even drag racers now and then for decades post-war, and to this day.

(tractors anyway)

[Dakpilot]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

It’s reputation for toughness and reliability (and power) was such that it was a favorite with tractor pullers and even drag racers now and then for decades post-war, and to this day.

(tractors anyway)

 

Or maybe there were literally thousands of them available for peanuts post war. (and later) 

 

Not to denigrate the Allison but I think you will find that they were used primarily for their cost effectiveness. 

 

They were also used a lot  in powerboat/hydroplane racing, but beaten by Merlins and Griffons iirc

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Gambit21]

Just now, Dakpilot said:

 

Or maybe there were literally thousands of them available for peanuts post war. (and later) 

 

Not to denigrate the Allison but I think you will find that they were used primarily for their cost effectiveness. 

 

They were also used a lot  in powerboat/hydroplane racing, but beaten by Merlins and Griffons iirc

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

They were used decades post war even when there were not thousands of them laying about.

Bottom line - the Allison was and is a tough engine...the end.

 

That’s a separate matter to how cost effective they happened to be in 1955.

Guess what nobody puts in any tractor ever, let alone one that is pushed to it’s red line over and over - a glass jaw engine.

[Dakpilot]

They only started using them in mid 60's 

 

There were thousands available then, people were still able to buy dozens at a time in the 80's 

 

Gardner stone (tractor puller/racer) owned 83 Allisons at one time,  and probably had gone through a lot more.. 

 

They are used I the restored IL-2 and the 'new' Yaks because they are available and spares (comparatively) cheap and plentiful 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Gambit21]

Yes - and they are tough - you can obfuscate that point all you want but that is the fact.

 

I had a very interesting conversation with a P-63 owner/Pilot at Reno in 2019 about the Allison.

 

It was this game specifically that prompted me to ask certain questions - although I didn’t mention IL2. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Gambit21

[BlitzPig_EL]

Let's not forget that many of the Merlins used in air racing run Allison connecting rods because of their greater durability than their Rolls Royce designed originals.

[Dakpilot]

27 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Let's not forget that many of the Merlins used in air racing run Allison connecting rods because of their greater durability than their Rolls Royce designed originals.

 

And cheaper and more available than even better ones

 

I know a lot you you are Allison fans but really, it was a good engine but there is no need to repeat forum snippets/legends all the time to big it up

 

The tractor pulling engine were pretty much all P-38 engines

 

Just about all the 'great' Allison 'facts' said on this forum are about different models than the ones complained about, that we have

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Soilworker]

On 6/6/2021 at 10:28 PM, Jade_Monkey said:

If you only have BOS (can't tell on mobile), you could also try the IL-2. Not too complicated but needs engine and radiator management.

 

You can, just rotate your screen. (Or view their profile.) 

 

Of course this doesn't help if they own it on Steam. 

[Livai]

On 6/6/2021 at 1:11 PM, LuseKofte said:

Problem with P 40 and P 39, is you cannot do what Russian pilots did with them.

They ran their engines so hard

 

Close the outlet put mixture to 100 % don't care about overheating the P-40 has enough water. The last time I had time to fly the P-40 I had a nice water fountain behind my P-40 tail watered trees, fields and shoot some Germans down - the overheat symbol on the right was my friend not my enemy. I landed on my home airfield safe damn was the P-40 engine hot really hot but the P-40 is really tough.

[gimpy117]

it's been in my sig dudes...

Alison Running at 70"HG

[BlitzPig_EL]

Gimpy, I have brought that document up since the P40 was released in the original IL2.  It never gets any traction, and I don't understand why.

 

Oh wait, I do understand.  It would upset the apple cart of a segment of the user base that has a vested interest in protecting their favorite aircraft's performance advantages in the early part of the war...

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by BlitzPig_EL

[Dakpilot]

Since when is Dec 42 early War? 

 

Which version of P-40 was being used then, not our E-1 I would think ? 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[312_Lazy]

On 6/5/2021 at 1:00 PM, Nical said:

I pretty must just get started on Il-2 BOS. I choose do fly the Yak-1 ser69 over the german ones because I wanted to learn how to manage my engines.

My understanding is that german planes have a lot of automated systems.

 

If I understand correctly, the Yak-1 engine is pretty reliable and can run almost all the time at 100% throttle and RPM.

Is there a plane in IL-2 BOS that is less forgiving in wrong engine management ? I don't have the impression that I'm learning anything on the Yak-1 since I cannot break my engine by wrong management..

 

Thanks

Yak's engine is easy to control but you still need to take care of:

• water radiator
• oil radiator
• compressor stage
• mixture (it's not as simple as some people think)
• propeller RPM (you'll be faster in some situations if you dont use full RPM)
• for s. 69 I tend to open and close canopy depending on situation

You can of course leave radiators open enough (say 75%) and forget about them but then you'll lose performance. Same applies to compressor, mix, rpm.

 

Russian engines were generally more demanding to control and it was often mentioned as deficiency by VVS test pilots. They were not automated enough to be flown by illiterate peasants as some people imagine. Yak preflight video as an example:

 

[LukeFF]

8 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Gimpy, I have brought that document up since the P40 was released in the original IL2.  It never gets any traction, and I don't understand why.

 

Oh wait, I do understand.  It would upset the apple cart of a segment of the user base that has a vested interest in protecting their favorite aircraft's performance advantages in the early part of the war...

 

 

C'mon, that's far too simplistic of an argument.  Whatever the reason was in the original IL2, the reason here now is all planes are using engine limits as published in each manual. Because of that, yes, the P-40 has been given stricter limits. Hopefully at some point that can be changed.

[Lusekofte]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

C'mon, that's far too simplistic of an argument.  Whatever the reason was in the original IL2, the reason here now is all planes are using engine limits as published in each manual. Because of that, yes, the P-40 has been given stricter limits. Hopefully at some point that can be changed.

I mean , where is the harm? Why not just look at several sources about how these planes where abused and still made it back. And even if these limit where to be lifted, it still cannot compete against BF 109 at equal terms. I do not follow conspiracy theories, but the way several US airplanes are modeled, reputed to be very robust, one can understand why those theories rise

[Nical]

On 6/9/2021 at 3:16 PM, 312_Lazy said:

Yak's engine is easy to control but you still need to take care of:

• water radiator
• oil radiator
• compressor stage
• mixture (it's not as simple as some people think)
• propeller RPM (you'll be faster in some situations if you dont use full RPM)
• for s. 69 I tend to open and close canopy depending on situation

You can of course leave radiators open enough (say 75%) and forget about them but then you'll lose performance. Same applies to compressor, mix, rpm.

 

I would love to ear a bit more about mixture management of the Yak. I understood that you could just leave it at about 90% until 4000 meter and reduce it with altitude.

 

I tend to lower it more when low on fuel or cruising but that's all. All information I found about it was: "just lean it with altitude".

[MasterBaiter]

 

[69th_chuter]

The irony in this discussion can be shown in this (translated) quote from Golodnikov Nikolai Gerasimovich:

 

"I believe that the main difference in assessing the combat capabilities of the P-40 comes from the fact that we and the allies have completely exploited the aircraft in different ways. They have - that's how the instructions are written, not away from the letter of instructions.

As for us, as I said above, the main rule is to get everything you can from the aircraft and a little more. But how much this "all" is not written in the instruction, often even the aircraft designer himself does not know about it. It only understand in combat.

By the way, everything I said refers to "aerokobra" too. If we flew on those regimes that the Americans indicated in the instructions - Germans would have killed us at once, in the "native" regimes the fighter was "bad". And on "our" regimes were normally fought even with "Messer", even with FW, but, it used to happen, 3-4 such air battles, and all - "change the engine"."

[Dragon1-1]

I hope the P-39 will someday get its engine limits adjusted. Right now, it'll blow its engine unless you fly it by the book, and Messers will eat it for breakfast because of that. IRL, its engine was somewhat under-rated, and it could be ran at combat and emergency power for much longer than we can do it.

 

7 hours ago, Nical said:

I would love to ear a bit more about mixture management of the Yak. I understood that you could just leave it at about 90% until 4000 meter and reduce it with altitude.

 

I tend to lower it more when low on fuel or cruising but that's all. All information I found about it was: "just lean it with altitude".

Open the canopy, stick your head out of the window, and look at what color the flames are.  For max fuel efficiency, they should be blue. 

 

You can also look at engine RPM, most of the time you want to adjust it so that the engine RPM is highest. Most of the time, it'll be at max, but as you climb above 4km or so, you'll find it to be at slightly lower settings, decreasing with altitude. The flames will look blue-orange at that point.

Edited July 3, 2021 by Dragon1-1

[Dakpilot]

2 hours ago, chuter said:

The irony in this discussion can be shown in this (translated) quote from Golodnikov Nikolai Gerasimovich:

 

"I believe that the main difference in assessing the combat capabilities of the P-40 comes from the fact that we and the allies have completely exploited the aircraft in different ways. They have - that's how the instructions are written, not away from the letter of instructions.

As for us, as I said above, the main rule is to get everything you can from the aircraft and a little more. But how much this "all" is not written in the instruction, often even the aircraft designer himself does not know about it. It only understand in combat.

By the way, everything I said refers to "aerokobra" too. If we flew on those regimes that the Americans indicated in the instructions - Germans would have killed us at once, in the "native" regimes the fighter was "bad". And on "our" regimes were normally fought even with "Messer", even with FW, but, it used to happen, 3-4 such air battles, and all - "change the engine"."

 

You really need to read the whole article carefully rather than quote little pieces of it ?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[EAF19_Marsh]

On 6/5/2021 at 1:39 PM, cardboard_killer said:

 

For example, the Bf-109's radiator will open up, slowing the plane down so the pilot cannot keep it closed when extra speed is absolutely worth the risk of overheating.

 

 

 

IIRC you can switch to manual rads on the 109...?

[ShamrockOneFive]

I'd love to see the P-39 and P-40 get an engine modification with some sort of "extraordinary procedures" or something along those lines representing field restrictions. That way, if someone has an issue with it, the aircraft can be run with the default limitations. Or it can be run with a different set of limitations that are more approaching standard usage by the Russians in 1942.