PDA

View Full Version : How do you best maintain engine damage?



Afromike1
12-05-2008, 04:25 PM
Here's the story, I was flying in my 109 and then suddenly some spit jumps me from behind. I manage to dive low and get away from him. Meanwhile, the nearest friendly base to me was about 3 minutes away. I was doing my best to figure out how long I could manage before my engine makes that "DIEING" noise until it becomes completely inoperable. I was doing well until 2 minutes when I start to hear faint hick-ups in my engine. It was only until like 15 seconds away from the airstrip where my engine becomes completely blown up and I couldn't make the landing.

I was doing 80% throttle the whole way because I thought that if I max it at 100% I could risk overwhelming the engine and it would die faster.

Do you have any more tips on how I could have made it for the last 15 seconds?

thefruitbat
12-05-2008, 04:33 PM
I've often wondered how this is moddeled myself, as to whether you benifit from lowering rpm.

I suspect its a time thing like engine overheat damage, but thats just a guess, but with that in mind if i'm in a safish area, my policy is to firewall it and climb at best climb speed, and then glide in. From enough height you can glide a long way.

fruitbat

Duckmeister
12-05-2008, 04:35 PM
You need to open up your radiator, I think, and make sure your prop pitch is either on Auto (for some german planes) or at %100 or %95, depending on what you're throttle is, you say its 80, so put it on %95 for cruising, maybe even 90.

Also, raise your flaps, for less drag. But I think the big problem was you probably closed up your radiator in the chase to get more speed, and you forgot to put it back open and it killed your engine.

It also could be because you had your mixture too low or high, IDK.


EDIT:

From the CEM guide:


I have seen many complaints that the 109 series of aircraft engines only last a couple of minutes. This is not true. The reason the engine fails is that they are using improper prop pitch, fuel mixture, and radiator settings. The failures are caused by the pilot and have nothing to do with bugs or code. I have found the engines in the 109's to be very durable and I am able to over rev for short speed burst's without damage to the engine.

So it's a combination of all three.

willyvic
12-05-2008, 04:52 PM
I firmly beblieve that it is the game engine itslelf that dictates when your engine goes south. Too many times I have been "in reach" of the threshold when my engine decides to quit. I really believe that the game knows when I am in reach of the runway!!!


WV

TX-EcoDragon
12-05-2008, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
climb at best climb speed, and then glide in. From enough height you can glide a long way.

Yep, that's exactly the thing to do - it might seem to be a good time to fly level and go as fast as you can towards home base, but if you are flying faster than best rate of climb speed (usually around 260-280 km/h for most aircraft in IL-2) then you are generally only wasting energy in the form of increased drag and higher fuel flows. If you have enough power to climb at a speed in that range, then do it! You are more efficient at that speed than a higher speed anyway, and the altitude you gain will then be turned into added gliding distance.

Best glide speeds are quite variable, but if you don't have an accurate number, then remember that in most aircraft the best glide speed is around 20-40 km/h less than best climb. . .and don't forget to close your radiator, and pull your prop pitch all the way back to 0%.

If I know I'm going to run out of gas before I get back to the ruwnay I'll often climb at best rate to an altitude appropriate to the distance I have to travel, and shut the engine down - that way I can land, startup, and taxi out of the way if in coops for example (or restart when on final approach if your power off landings aren't your strong point).

Freiwillige
12-05-2008, 07:39 PM
quote:
"I have seen many complaints that the 109 series of aircraft engines only last a couple of minutes. This is not true. The reason the engine fails is that they are using improper prop pitch, fuel mixture, and radiator settings. The failures are caused by the pilot and have nothing to do with bugs or code. I have found the engines in the 109's to be very durable and I am able to over rev for short speed burst's without damage to the engine."

The 109's are automatic. It is historic. They had a device that Messerschmitt called the black box that controlled prop pitch, mixture and radiators. All the pilot had to do was controll the throttle! You could turn this sytem off but only did so if the prop pitch sytem failed or was damaged. To turn it off otherwise was not advised by the Luftwaffe.

The 190 had a simular but more complex and some say better automated sytem.

triad773
12-05-2008, 09:54 PM
If I can, I get all the height my engine will give me and open the radiator (and back off the throttle to 90%- then 100% as it is sputtering to get that little bit more of altitude), and somewhat historically to what happened, pray I make it home. If I can't dead stick in, I want to at least make sure I have the altitude to decide if or when to bail or not. If the engine dies, there is a chance to restart if there is any life left in the old bird, sometimes. But having the time and altitude to make calm, rational decisions to me is the best asset.

But then again, bailing isn't always the best option either. Remember how Molders got it in North Afrika (rolled his 109, bailed, but was tragically struck in the chest by his vertical stab upon exiting the craft).

109s generally are much better gliders than a 190 or P-47 (historically, anyway) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I have, on occasion, practised engine failure in different planes (shutting it off in mid-flight and trying to restart). Some seem easier to restart in flight than others. It is also, I understand a standard practice IRL to practise such. I once worked with a gent who claimed that he was a flight instructor at Glenview Naval Air Station in Illinois- he was cashiered when he accused a student of his that he was not being trained as a Kamikaze pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

M_Gunz
12-05-2008, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Afromike1:
Here's the story, I was flying in my 109 and then suddenly some spit jumps me from behind. I manage to dive low and get away from him. Meanwhile, the nearest friendly base to me was about 3 minutes away. I was doing my best to figure out how long I could manage before my engine makes that "DIEING" noise until it becomes completely inoperable. I was doing well until 2 minutes when I start to hear faint hick-ups in my engine. It was only until like 15 seconds away from the airstrip where my engine becomes completely blown up and I couldn't make the landing.

I was doing 80% throttle the whole way because I thought that if I max it at 100% I could risk overwhelming the engine and it would die faster.

Do you have any more tips on how I could have made it for the last 15 seconds?

So you were jumped and engine hit? And low from diving to escape with enemy perhaps still trying to find you?
Stay low, cut throttle a good ways and just maybe you don't run out of speed too fast.
Climb? With someone either catching up in an undamaged plane or trying to find you then why risk becoming a dot against the sky?
Big IF but IF you have a long flat stretch between you and the airfield then you could try running in ground effect at very low
power and very low drag.

7.7.3 - Skimming in Ground Effect (http://av8n.com/how/htm/power.html#toc146)

one paragraph:

Specifically, the procedure is to maintain best-glide speed right down into ground effect, even if this means that you enter ground effect over the swamp a tenth of a mile short of the intended landing place. Once you are in ground effect, start pulling back on the yoke. Because there is very little induced drag in ground effect (as discussed in connection with soft-field takeoffs in section 13.4), the airplane can fly at very low airspeeds with remarkably little drag. You can then fly all the way to the landing area in ground effect. It is like a prolonged flare; you keep pulling back gradually to cash in airspeed and pay for drag. This technique will not solve all the world's problems, but it is guaranteed to work better than trying to stretch the glide by pulling back before entering ground effect.

Freiwillige
12-06-2008, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by triad773:
But then again, bailing isn't always the best option either. Remember how Molders got it in North Afrika (rolled his 109, bailed, but was tragically struck in the chest by his vertical stab upon exiting the craft).


Not Molders, Here is molders death.
On November 22, 1941 he was flying as a passenger in a Heinkel He 111 from the Crimea to Germany to attend the funeral of his superior and friend, Ernst Udet. Attempting to land at Breslau during a thunderstorm, the aircraft crashed. Mölders and the pilot were killed.

I beleive you are reffering to Hans-Joachim Marseille the star of Afrika!

triad773
12-06-2008, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:

I beleive you are reffering to Hans-Joachim Marseille the star of Afrika!

Ah yes- you are correct. My mistake

thefruitbat
12-06-2008, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
quote:


The 109's are automatic. It is historic. They had a device that Messerschmitt called the black box that controlled prop pitch, mixture and radiators. All the pilot had to do was controll the throttle! You could turn this sytem off but only did so if the prop pitch sytem failed or was damaged. To turn it off otherwise was not advised by the Luftwaffe.

The 190 had a simular but more complex and some say better automated sytem.

Not the emils i think you will find.

fruitbat

na85
12-06-2008, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
Here's the story, I was flying in my 109 and then suddenly some spit jumps me from behind. I manage to dive low and get away from him. Meanwhile, the nearest friendly base to me was about 3 minutes away. I was doing my best to figure out how long I could manage before my engine makes that "DIEING" noise until it becomes completely inoperable. I was doing well until 2 minutes when I start to hear faint hick-ups in my engine. It was only until like 15 seconds away from the airstrip where my engine becomes completely blown up and I couldn't make the landing.

I was doing 80% throttle the whole way because I thought that if I max it at 100% I could risk overwhelming the engine and it would die faster.

Do you have any more tips on how I could have made it for the last 15 seconds?

So you were jumped and engine hit? And low from diving to escape with enemy perhaps still trying to find you?
Stay low, cut throttle a good ways and just maybe you don't run out of speed too fast.
Climb? With someone either catching up in an undamaged plane or trying to find you then why risk becoming a dot against the sky?
Big IF but IF you have a long flat stretch between you and the airfield then you could try running in ground effect at very low
power and very low drag.

7.7.3 - Skimming in Ground Effect (http://av8n.com/how/htm/power.html#toc146)

one paragraph:

Specifically, the procedure is to maintain best-glide speed right down into ground effect, even if this means that you enter ground effect over the swamp a tenth of a mile short of the intended landing place. Once you are in ground effect, start pulling back on the yoke. Because there is very little induced drag in ground effect (as discussed in connection with soft-field takeoffs in section 13.4), the airplane can fly at very low airspeeds with remarkably little drag. You can then fly all the way to the landing area in ground effect. It is like a prolonged flare; you keep pulling back gradually to cash in airspeed and pay for drag. This technique will not solve all the world's problems, but it is guaranteed to work better than trying to stretch the glide by pulling back before entering ground effect.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is ground effect modeled in IL2?

Divine-Wind
12-06-2008, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by na85:
Is ground effect modeled in IL2?
I was going to ask that as soon as I read your suggestion on ground effect, lol

Duckmeister
12-06-2008, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
quote:
"I have seen many complaints that the 109 series of aircraft engines only last a couple of minutes. This is not true. The reason the engine fails is that they are using improper prop pitch, fuel mixture, and radiator settings. The failures are caused by the pilot and have nothing to do with bugs or code. I have found the engines in the 109's to be very durable and I am able to over rev for short speed burst's without damage to the engine."

The 109's are automatic. It is historic. They had a device that Messerschmitt called the black box that controlled prop pitch, mixture and radiators. All the pilot had to do was controll the throttle! You could turn this sytem off but only did so if the prop pitch sytem failed or was damaged. To turn it off otherwise was not advised by the Luftwaffe.

The 190 had a simular but more complex and some say better automated sytem.

First off, automatic control was not on the emils, I think.

Second, if you read the end of that quote, you saw that he said, "[with proper controls] I can OVERREV the engine (thereby switch to manual) without damage to the engine." A lot of times people will try to gain a bit more speed by switch it off, and thereby ruin their engine through terrible engine maintenance.

Freiwillige
12-06-2008, 04:49 PM
By the Battle of britian most 109E's had been fitted with the "Black box" which is why Oleg gave the E4 atomatic engine managment.

RPMcMurphy
12-06-2008, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:

I suspect its a time thing like engine overheat damage, but thats just a guess, but with that in mind if i'm in a safish area, my policy is to firewall it and climb at best climb speed, and then glide in. From enough height you can glide a long way.

fruitbat
Thats what I have done, climb high enough to glide-in if the engine quits. Not sure what "firewall it" means though. But I have made it back dead-stick like that alright. As long as you don't get jumped again in the process.

DrHerb
12-06-2008, 05:59 PM
I think the damage program is on a timer, i remember shutting down in a p-40 trying to glide back to base. I tried restarting and it ran at maybe 25% power till it siezed up.

Divine-Wind
12-06-2008, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
Not sure what "firewall it" means though.
Just a colorful way of saying, 'TAKE IT BALLS TO THE WALL BABY!'
Basically full throttle, except you do it in a forceful and manly way.

TX-EcoDragon
12-06-2008, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
Here's the story, I was flying in my 109 and then suddenly some spit jumps me from behind. I manage to dive low and get away from him. Meanwhile, the nearest friendly base to me was about 3 minutes away. I was doing my best to figure out how long I could manage before my engine makes that "DIEING" noise until it becomes completely inoperable. I was doing well until 2 minutes when I start to hear faint hick-ups in my engine. It was only until like 15 seconds away from the airstrip where my engine becomes completely blown up and I couldn't make the landing.

I was doing 80% throttle the whole way because I thought that if I max it at 100% I could risk overwhelming the engine and it would die faster.

Do you have any more tips on how I could have made it for the last 15 seconds?

So you were jumped and engine hit? And low from diving to escape with enemy perhaps still trying to find you?
Stay low, cut throttle a good ways and just maybe you don't run out of speed too fast.
Climb? With someone either catching up in an undamaged plane or trying to find you then why risk becoming a dot against the sky?
Big IF but IF you have a long flat stretch between you and the airfield then you could try running in ground effect at very low
power and very low drag.

7.7.3 - Skimming in Ground Effect (http://av8n.com/how/htm/power.html#toc146)

one paragraph:

Specifically, the procedure is to maintain best-glide speed right down into ground effect, even if this means that you enter ground effect over the swamp a tenth of a mile short of the intended landing place. Once you are in ground effect, start pulling back on the yoke. Because there is very little induced drag in ground effect (as discussed in connection with soft-field takeoffs in section 13.4), the airplane can fly at very low airspeeds with remarkably little drag. You can then fly all the way to the landing area in ground effect. It is like a prolonged flare; you keep pulling back gradually to cash in airspeed and pay for drag. This technique will not solve all the world's problems, but it is guaranteed to work better than trying to stretch the glide by pulling back before entering ground effect.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is ground effect modeled in IL2? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that I've observed. . .not to mention the fact that this technique doesn't really do much to extend range. Yes, if your engine is just barely keeping you flying and you are low, then you would probably be better off in ground effect than just above it, but keep in mind that this is going to mean flying around 35 feet above ground (10 meters) or less for most fighters, and when the engine falters any more, you are going to go splat in an instant. If you are in ground effect, but at a higher speed, then the small increase in efficiency in ground effect will be irrelevant given increased parasitic drag associated with the higher speeds.

It's certainly true that climbing from the deck out of a fight will make you easy to spot vs staying in ground clutter, but it also gives you some energy to maneuver that you won't have low and slow. If you can do this long enough to get away, then so be it, but after that, I'd climb.

I guess it depends on what you want to do, and how comfortable you are defending yourself as you exit the area. . .but I can tell you this much: cruising in ground effect is the last place I want to be when my engine quits. . .in the real world at least. Here, well, it's just a video game. . .but I'll climb here too.

M_Gunz
12-06-2008, 10:02 PM
In that example the engine had quit and a best glide maintained right down to almost scraping where you're supposed to
get a really long flair. Would you have rather picked a spot within reach and be making the best of it there?

Funny but don't I get this over runways and airstrips in IL2? Plane don't want to slow down and touch down, just sort of
hovers until I'm all back and forth on the rudder trying to keep from rolling and finally touch down. Using a step less
flap really helps there but might bounce on landing.

I'd nursed shot engines up to 2 or 3 minutes on 40% or less power in a long glide, seeing if I make it over the lines or not.
Crank that engine and you won't get 1 minute before the prop becomes a drag element. No biggie, the engine seized, it's
stopped. Before then you climb a few 100 meters, maybe more than 1000 and slow down incredibly -- trailing heavier smoke
all the way and maybe get the dreaded fire.

I don't see any big choice about attacking your foe. He will maybe find you at the front of a trail of smoke anyway.
Get over the lines and either land or bail out. Planes are cheaper than experienced pilots, look how much experience
just getting engine shot is giving you! Poor little plane!

Is it not the same as real? Some descriptions 'fit' and there are elements of reality simulated very well.
I think that IL2 ground effect as I see it (never was in a plane running along in ground effect) only works over airstrips.

thefruitbat
12-07-2008, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
By the Battle of britian most 109E's had been fitted with the "Black box" which is why Oleg gave the E4 atomatic engine managment.

wrong, oleg gave it because the e4's used in barborrosa had it, in the summer of 41. Remember the game was wrote about the eastern front, thats why we have derated 190's to.

TX-EcoDragon
12-07-2008, 03:53 PM
If you are in the right situation, it can help, but the right situation exists in a very small range of circumstances. My real world experience has taught me that diving from 100 feet to say 30 for example was a bad idea - that little bit of extra altitude goes further than the increases efficiency in ground effect at extending the gliding distance. . . pushing from 50feet seemed to work well though. It just depends on the circumstances, and my experience has been that most IL-2 pilots just hug the deck and try to get home, and they usually don't make it very far. I almost always do make it when I'm able to climb. . . I'm a climber, and I base that choice on the understanding that the best way to increase my energy state (not maintain it, which is all you can do in GE) is to climb at best rate of climb speed. If I'm going to be behind a quiet engine, that's the ticket. Factor in the situation when making the choice, but if not directly threatened, climb.

By the way, I have used this technique a couple times in the real world back when I was training for my commercial certificate since one of the required maneuvers was a power off 180 degree precision approach and landing. You would either tell the examiner your selected point, or they would tell you (i.e. "touchdown at the third stripe on the ruwnay" etc), cut the power from the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, and you had to do a smooth gliding 180 turn and touch the ground on that point. Actually you, could overshoot the point by 200 feet, but if you undershoot it by even 1 foot, you fail.

During one of my training flights, one of my CFIs (a rather poor one who I stopped flying with after a few flights) asked me to list all the ways I could extend my glide during this maneuver. I listed things like extending my landing gear later, pulling the prop back, closing cowl flaps, retracting a notch of flaps if I was high enough, and of course maintaining best glide speed. . .there was one thing more that I missed. . .pushing over into ground effect.

I'd heard of the technique, but never thought it had much real world practicality since it would only gain you a few extra feet of glide, and only when employed in the perfect situation, and all the while increasing your exposure to collisions with obstacles. My CFI didn't fully understand that fact, and thought that diving from 100 feet down to 30 feet or less was going to get me further than just gliding down from 100 feet. He told me to do it after I sort of chuckled at the suggestion of it. "but watch out for the tractor over there, and be careful of the power lines, oh and there are fence posts near the runway threshold - so don't hit those either".

I thought it was bad technique and demonstrated questionable judgment by my CFI in even suggesting it - and then after telling me to do it, even knowing that there are lots of obstacles we could see (and certainly many we couldn't). Of course this is the same CFI that tried to tell me that an aft CG makes stall and spin recovery easier since "the elevator has more authority, and therefore the plane does what I tell it to quicker" (the last part is true, but only when below the critical angle of attack, and at that point, and aft CG is often fatal). He also tried to prevent a wing from dropping after a nose high power ons tall by using aileron input rather than rudder. . .bad news. Paying someone to teach you, who really should be taking lessons themselves isn't my idea of fun - but he read the ground effect thing somewhere, and thought hey, that's cool, I'll teach my students that. I did humor him that day, but kept wondering who was going to report us for buzzing the farmers in the field, and what an FAA examiner would really do if an applicant used this technique. Being the way that I am, I also had to either confirm how well it worked, or determine that it didn't work well enough to be worthwhile in this particular maneuver. I did my best at flying the the same exact approach a few times, and compared the usual method of maintaining best glide speed all the way into ground effect, with a push into ground effect from 50 feet, and lastly vs a push from 100 feet as my CFI had me do the first time. Only the second case had any tangible gains compared to the standard glide into ground effect, and then it was only a few feet, maybe ten. Pushing from 100 feet we came up shorter (as I'd expected), but not by much. Perhaps if I'd pushed harder, and let the aircraft accelerate a little more in the dive it would have been better. . .but as far as I'm concerned, power off, pushes towards the ground, at less than 100 feet are things that get people killed. . .especially when being taught to trainees who might accept it blindly, and who might not have lots of skill maneuvering at low altitude. In truth, most very experienced GA pilots have weak skills maneuvering at low altitude, it's dangerous business – and keep in mind that I see it as such even as a pilot trained in airshow style aerobatic flying with arguably a much better handle on it than most.

It's a good technique to understand if ever faced with an engine failure, but to deliberately skim over the ground at 30 feet struck me as a good way to get a rep for being a careless pilot, and worse yet, a good way to clip a pole etc and die. . .all so I could make it to the second runway stripe instead of the first for my commercial checkride - pure stupid if you ask me, especially since the smarter technique was to carry just a little extra altitude and use a gentle slip to scrub some extra altitude once you are on final and have the runway made. I've NEVER come up short on any of my power off landings, but I have needed some decent slips to get down - and that means I'm doing it the right way as far as I'm concerned. . .it always gets me to the right point, it doesn't require endangering anyone on the ground, it doesn't look like showboating, and it doesn't risk the life of those onboard the aircraft.


Wow. . .I guess that's a pretty OT rant eh?

I do have some lingering issues with the fact that CFIs teach this stuff. . .I guess I needed to vent.

Crikey2008
12-07-2008, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by triad773:
I have, on occasion, practised engine failure in different planes (shutting it off in mid-flight and trying to restart). Some seem easier to restart in flight than others. It is also, I understand a standard practice IRL to practise such. I once worked with a gent who claimed that he was a flight instructor at Glenview Naval Air Station in Illinois- he was cashiered when he accused a student of his that he was not being trained as a Kamikaze pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Yes it is a standard training to simulate engine failure even at very low altitude such as engine failure immediately after takeoff. I was practising this once (I shut the engine down and went through the procedure) and when I got back down I found that an excited gent who obviously didn't know about flying training had rushed into the aerodrome offices to raise the alarm. He came up to me after still agog. I guess my Instructor on the ground told him to go over and have a chat to me. It must have seemed disconcerting to him to think he was witnessing an aircraft crash.

People think an aircraft should never look as if its out of flight. Practising slide slips are another instance. I had lined up a road as a side-slip guide and next thing I knew there were cars pulling off to the side of the road and stopping, 'getting out of the way' of my seeming 'crash'; not wanting to be part of it obviously.

An aircraft with enough altitude can glide a long way. It can also have enough energy to make a forced landing. If your engine has anything wrong with it it will give up under sustained use (at 80% throttle) if you don't know about extending an aircraft's range using CPM. It's also dangerous to have shot electricals sitting beside shot oil and fuel systems. WW2 pilots could nurse a shot engine home but then the trouble was usually found to be fixable on the ground. Besides, they had to get past enemy lines.

If you are below 1000 ft in game it's probably best to shut the engine down, climb as high as you can and then force land in game. you may get captured but no-one in il-2 knows whether that is better than crashing and being killed.

ElAurens
12-07-2008, 08:04 PM
The H8K Emily has the most pronounced ground effect I have experienced in the sim.

M_Gunz
12-08-2008, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
I do have some lingering issues with the fact that CFIs teach this stuff. . .I guess I needed to vent.

Maybe check the quals of the guy who put that on his pilot-training website?
You did read the whole section? He is suggesting 1/10th mile, appx 500 ft. and yes, as an engine out situation.

As opposed to a shot engine incapable of running for long that engine may catch fire at any moment.
Once over the lines, definitely I'd climb to safe parachute alt just so I could bail out.
I've had to tell an online rear gunner to bail once. It was courtesy since I was next out. Can't always make it back.

Kettenhunde
12-08-2008, 05:26 AM
Of course this is the same CFI that tried to tell me that an aft CG makes stall and spin recovery easier

That is not only stupid, it is extremely dangerous. This guy is teaching this to new pilots??

Freiwillige
12-08-2008, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
By the Battle of britian most 109E's had been fitted with the "Black box" which is why Oleg gave the E4 atomatic engine managment.

wrong, oleg gave it because the e4's used in barborrosa had it, in the summer of 41. Remember the game was wrote about the eastern front, thats why we have derated 190's to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The major distinction between the E-3 and E-4 versions is in the type of engine and propeller mechanism fitted is my understanding with the E-3 being manual prop pitch only and the E-4 having an automated prop. If this is the case than both the E-3 and the E-4 fought during the battle over England in 1940

TX-EcoDragon
12-08-2008, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
I do have some lingering issues with the fact that CFIs teach this stuff. . .I guess I needed to vent.

Maybe check the quals of the guy who put that on his pilot-training website?
You did read the whole section? He is suggesting 1/10th mile, appx 500 ft. and yes, as an engine out situation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, there is nothing wrong with his comments at all. . .he mentions maintaining best glide speed all the way into ground effect, rather than trying to stretch a glide by raising the nose before reaching ground effect, and that you use this when you will not be able to reach the spot you have selected to land.

That's the perfect time to use ground effect to maximize a glide. A very common pilot reaction in an engine failure is to be so afraid of the engine out off airport landing that they keep raising the nose and bleeding off speed trying to keep from descending that last 50 or 100 feet above ground level that they stall, and may spin. . .and that's certain to be fatal in almost every case. On the other hand, if a pilot is able to resist this temptation, and can land the aircraft under control, they are almost certain to survive. If a pilot is aware of the benefits of ground effect, they will be much more prone to resist from raising the nose, and slowing below best glide speed before reaching ground effect.

All that plays out in his comments in suggesting using this when "no power is available"¯ and "the aircraft is too low and/or too far from the desired landing place"¯ makes sense, and note that he doesn't suggest diving into ground effect, but rather says to maintain "best-glide speed right down into ground effect"¯ and that it is "better than trying to stretch the glide by pulling back before entering ground effect."¯

On the other hand, many well intentioned pilots and CFIs seem to be teaching this as a method to employ in place of maintaining best glide before reaching ground effect.

Bringing this back into the IL-2 realm, and the OPs questions, you'll notice that the scenario of the OP's is different than that posited by the site you quoted in that:

a) engine power still remains - but will remain for an unknown amount of time
b)a climb could in fact provide for sufficient glide distance to make it back home

TX-EcoDragon
12-08-2008, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
The H8K Emily has the most pronounced ground effect I have experienced in the sim.

One of the observable characteristics of ground effect is a nose down pitchng moment when entering it, and of course a decrease in the angle of the glidepath . . .I've never tested the H8K, but in other aircraft I have not observed a tanglible ground effect. There are certainly "floaters" though, like the 190, that are very sensitive to excessive approach speeds, but in my experience, setting a lower approach speed will prevent there from being any excessive floating , and there is not obvious (to me anyway) change in the glidepath of the aircraft, or the characteristic nose down pitch when entering ground effect. It's certainly not as obvious as it is in most real world aircraft, but even then it's still a fairly subtle effect. . .especially as wingloading goes up. It's the most obvious when you are established for an aim marker such as a ruwnay stripe and that as you enter gorund effect you wil see teh stripe sink in the windscreen as your glide path flattens. . it's also obvious when practicing landing without elevator control, and using only power and trim (or only one or the other). Right as you enter ground effect you will need a blast of power or a blip of nose up elevator trim to keep the nose from falling.

WTE_Galway
12-08-2008, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
I do have some lingering issues with the fact that CFIs teach this stuff. . .I guess I needed to vent.

Maybe check the quals of the guy who put that on his pilot-training website?
You did read the whole section? He is suggesting 1/10th mile, appx 500 ft. and yes, as an engine out situation.

As opposed to a shot engine incapable of running for long that engine may catch fire at any moment.
Once over the lines, definitely I'd climb to safe parachute alt just so I could bail out.
I've had to tell an online rear gunner to bail once. It was courtesy since I was next out. Can't always make it back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The most interesting engine failure advice I ever got was from the CFI of my flight school, an old bush pilot from the Northern Territory and New Guinea.

He said when (not if) you get an engine failure you might be forced to come down among trees. if so center yourself between two solid ones so as to take off both wings at once and you will probably survive. Hitting one tree is fatal as the plane wraps itself around it.

TX-EcoDragon
12-08-2008, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:

He said when (not if) you get an engine failure you might be forced to come down among trees. if so center yourself between two solid ones so as to take off both wings at once and you will probably survive. Hitting one tree is fatal as the plane wraps itself around it.

Yep - some advice is GOOD advice!

Also remember in the above scenario and if in a highwing aircraft to avoid using full flaps if you have rear seat passengers when doing this. . .or ensure that they have their heads on their knees as bad things happen with flaps down when the wings fold back into the fuselage.

ElAurens
12-09-2008, 05:44 AM
EcoDragon, not really sure if the "Emily" exhibits true ground effect, never paid attention to the attitude of the nose as I'm usually under (or on) fire, but it is very very difficult to get her to settle the last few feet onto the water. Typically I have to raise the flaps to the "combat" position achieve touchdown.

Water based aircraft certainly present their own unique challenges. (NO BRAKES!!!!)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
12-09-2008, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
By the Battle of britian most 109E's had been fitted with the "Black box" which is why Oleg gave the E4 atomatic engine managment.

wrong, oleg gave it because the e4's used in barborrosa had it, in the summer of 41. Remember the game was wrote about the eastern front, thats why we have derated 190's to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The major distinction between the E-3 and E-4 versions is in the type of engine and propeller mechanism fitted is my understanding with the E-3 being manual prop pitch only and the E-4 having an automated prop. If this is the case than both the E-3 and the E-4 fought during the battle over England in 1940 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They didnt all have an auto prop, and even if they did it could be troublesome :-

"We began our climb almost immediately after take-off and he was
constantly using the radio to ask us to slow down so that he could keep
up. It was obvious that he wasn't manipulating the pitch control with
the skill of the more seasoned pilots to produce the same power as our
machines. We tried to tell him what to do on the radio but to no avail.
Eventually, about half way across the Channel at 4,000 metres Kühle told
him to leave the formation and return to base. "


"Leutnant Erich Bodendiek, II/JG 53 engaged in a 18 September 1940 combat :

I was not flying my usual plane but, as I was the Technischer Offizier,
I had to fly a plane with a new automatic propeller just to test it.
That was my bad luck, having that bloody plane on that day for the first
time because that 'automatic thing' turned that angle of the propeller
so that an average speed was always maintained and not a kmh more! That
meant trouble when starting and trouble at high altitude as the plane
was nearly always unmanoeuvrable and swaggered through the air like a
pregnant duck.
It was fine weather with clouds at an altitude of about 8,300m and out
of this swung the RAF fighters when we were at 8,000m. They were
obviously directed by radar but just missed us as they came out of
clouds about a kilometre to the right of us. The Gruppen Kommandeur, Hpt
von Maltzahn, did the best he could by climbing and trying to hide in
the clouds. Everybody succeeded but me, thanks to my excellent
propeller. My aircraft could not climb like the others had and therefore
all the RAF fighters turned on me and I had no chance of escaping by
diving as that wonderful propeller would ensure that I would travel at
just 300 to 350kmh. Therefore I decided to fly straight ahead trying to
gain altitude a metre at at time, perhaps reaching cloud without being
shot down. I saw the Spitfires flying around me and shooting and my
plane was hit several times... He then hit my my fuel tank which caught
fire immediately. Within a second, my cabin was full of smoke and fire
and I had to get out."

TX-EcoDragon
12-09-2008, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
EcoDragon, not really sure if the "Emily" exhibits true ground effect, never paid attention to the attitude of the nose as I'm usually under (or on) fire, but it is very very difficult to get her to settle the last few feet onto the water. Typically I have to raise the flaps to the "combat" position achieve touchdown.

Water based aircraft certainly present their own unique challenges. (NO BRAKES!!!!)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hehe. . .indeed. . .

Freiwillige
12-09-2008, 09:57 PM
"Leutnant Erich Bodendiek, II/JG 53 engaged in a 18 September 1940 combat :

I was not flying my usual plane but, as I was the Technischer Offizier,
I had to fly a plane with a new automatic propeller just to test it.
That was my bad luck, having that bloody plane on that day for the first
time because that 'automatic thing' turned that angle of the propeller
so that an average speed was always maintained and not a kmh more! That
meant trouble when starting and trouble at high altitude as the plane
was nearly always unmanoeuvrable and swaggered through the air like a
pregnant duck.
It was fine weather with clouds at an altitude of about 8,300m and out
of this swung the RAF fighters when we were at 8,000m. They were
obviously directed by radar but just missed us as they came out of
clouds about a kilometre to the right of us. The Gruppen Kommandeur, Hpt
von Maltzahn, did the best he could by climbing and trying to hide in
the clouds. Everybody succeeded but me, thanks to my excellent
propeller. My aircraft could not climb like the others had and therefore
all the RAF fighters turned on me and I had no chance of escaping by
diving as that wonderful propeller would ensure that I would travel at
just 300 to 350kmh. Therefore I decided to fly straight ahead trying to
gain altitude a metre at at time, perhaps reaching cloud without being
shot down. I saw the Spitfires flying around me and shooting and my
plane was hit several times... He then hit my my fuel tank which caught
fire immediately. Within a second, my cabin was full of smoke and fire
and I had to get out."

I have to admit as sorry as I felt for the guy I couldnt help but to laugh reading his story

Freiwillige
12-09-2008, 10:51 PM
On further thoughts all 109E's that had the auto system also had the ability to shut it off and set prop pitch manually, Why didnt he just shut off the auto prop controll?

Where did you find this source?

p51srule
12-10-2008, 06:34 AM
Ive had this happen several time, My engine gets all shot up and it just turns off and I can restart it. Also if your engine is on fire cant u set the fuel mixture to 0% to snuff out the fire?

P51srule http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

"speed is life in a dogfight"

thefruitbat
12-10-2008, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
By the Battle of britian most 109E's had been fitted with the "Black box" which is why Oleg gave the E4 atomatic engine managment.

wrong, oleg gave it because the e4's used in barborrosa had it, in the summer of 41. Remember the game was wrote about the eastern front, thats why we have derated 190's to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The major distinction between the E-3 and E-4 versions is in the type of engine and propeller mechanism fitted is my understanding with the E-3 being manual prop pitch only and the E-4 having an automated prop. If this is the case than both the E-3 and the E-4 fought during the battle over England in 1940 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

don't know where you get your info, different engines???? The only diff engine was in the e4/n for high altitude.

as far as i know, only diff between e3 and e4 is improved head armour and alteretions to the wings to allow mg-ff/m instead of mg-ff in the wings.

If you read around you can quite clearly see that the germans were in the process of impilementing automatic pitch during the end of BoB, it certainly wasn't standard in the BoB.

Oh, and by the way, when oleg first moddelled the e4, it was manuel only http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

keep reading...

fruitbat