PDA

View Full Version : Short message to Oleg...PLEASE fix this



XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 07:56 AM
Oleg/Development Team:

As a Yak/LA flyer and one who enjoys your IL-2/IL-2FB software very much, there's a gross bug that I'd like to bring to your attention which has to do with engine power. Specifically, when power is reduced in these aircraft, it doesn't happen for about 7-10 seconds.

This is a HUGE disadvantage in close-in engagements and one that simply should not be present. This situation seemed to be introduced in the last patch. It did not exist in either the original IL-2 game or the patches previous to IL-2 FB 1.11.

Furthermore, this issue almost always requires that the engine be shut down completely for landings.

Accuracy in an aircraft's flight characteristics is always important but this is one that should be very easily rectifiable and requires no alteration in the respective aircraft's flight models.

This matter has nothing to do with constant pitch props, RPM, etc....it's strictly a power issue. Pull power in a BF-109 and power is withdrawn immediately; do it in a Yak/LA and it takes several seconds to occur.

Anyway, have a look and see what you think. Thanks and, again, your job with IL-2/IL-2FB is masterful. Well done.

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 07:56 AM
Oleg/Development Team:

As a Yak/LA flyer and one who enjoys your IL-2/IL-2FB software very much, there's a gross bug that I'd like to bring to your attention which has to do with engine power. Specifically, when power is reduced in these aircraft, it doesn't happen for about 7-10 seconds.

This is a HUGE disadvantage in close-in engagements and one that simply should not be present. This situation seemed to be introduced in the last patch. It did not exist in either the original IL-2 game or the patches previous to IL-2 FB 1.11.

Furthermore, this issue almost always requires that the engine be shut down completely for landings.

Accuracy in an aircraft's flight characteristics is always important but this is one that should be very easily rectifiable and requires no alteration in the respective aircraft's flight models.

This matter has nothing to do with constant pitch props, RPM, etc....it's strictly a power issue. Pull power in a BF-109 and power is withdrawn immediately; do it in a Yak/LA and it takes several seconds to occur.

Anyway, have a look and see what you think. Thanks and, again, your job with IL-2/IL-2FB is masterful. Well done.

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 10:03 AM
Its not a bug.

Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 11:06 AM
lol... fannnntastic.

What pray tell is it then?

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 12:24 PM
Reduce pitch and power at same time, and this will do the same.. German planes have automatic pitch control, meaning you reduce throttle you reduce pitch at same time.. allied planes have constant speed props, meaning you have to reduce both to slow down..

I would be more worried about this, sice this was supposed to be advantage for german planes, making them much more simpler to fly.. but for some reason i find russian planes the easiest to control engine for maximum output..no fooling with radiators, manual pitches, and you automaticly get all the horsepowers you can possibly get..




____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 08:11 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
- Its not a bug.
-
- Oleg Maddox
- 1C:Maddox Games

Respectfully, there are no WWII aircraft engines that when the throttle is pulled, power (not RPM) didn't get immediately reduced. This issue seemed to appear in the 1.11 release. Why was this done when it simply isn't correct?

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 08:42 PM
Vipez- wrote:
- Reduce pitch and power at same time, and this will
- do the same.. German planes have automatic pitch
- control, meaning you reduce throttle you reduce
- pitch at same time.. allied planes have constant
- speed props, meaning you have to reduce both to slow
- down..

Just to be clear, pulling the throttle on ANY aircraft reduces power immediately..but not with the way the Yak/LA families' engine modeling is done. It's not an RPM issue...it's a strictly a power issue. If you can't pull power, there are situation where you can't prevent the overshoot. The disadvantage here is fairly obvious. As an aside, if you really wanted to slow down, power would be reduced and pitch would be *increased*.

- I would be more worried about this, sice this was
- supposed to be advantage for german planes, making
- them much more simpler to fly.. but for some reason
- i find russian planes the easiest to control engine
- for maximum output..no fooling with radiators,
- manual pitches, and you automaticly get all the
- horsepowers you can possibly get..

In a close-in engagement, it's a huge advantage for ANY plane that *can* do it while the opponent *cannot*. It's not "getting" the horsepower that's the issue...it's the taking it away. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 10:06 PM
Can't believe it, a VVS whiner complaining his plane is too powerful and slippery. LoL

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 11:35 PM
BfHeFwMe wrote:
- Can't believe it, a VVS whiner complaining his plane
- is too powerful and slippery. LoL

It's interesting how people read into a post what they want to regardless of the words it contains.

I was using the Yak/LA aircraft strictly as examples in describing an ENGINE power issue. This situation could very well occur in other aircraft as well but the Yaks and LAs are the one's that I'm most familiar with so I spoke of these aircraft.

To be clear (hopefully), NO ONE was complaining about any aircraft's flight model...this is an ENGINE issue. I cited WHY it's an issue and used the example of a close-in engagement to illustrate the importance of it. Geez, Louise I hope that's chrystal clear. (Wait and see, some still won't grasp the straightforward simple point being made after all this. Go figure.)

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 11:38 PM
BfHeFwMe wrote:
- Can't believe it, a VVS whiner complaining his plane
- is too powerful and slippery. LoL


Now if we could just get Oleg to complain about his lack of adequate responsiveness, and overall cold shoulder to the FB community... we'd have us a ballgame.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 11:46 PM
as i responded in general discussion

You mistake the prop pitch with the constant speed prop setting... What you are calling prop pitch of 100% when you fly your yak is in fact a max prop speed setting. If you want to have it the way you describe, you'll have to disable the constant speed prop.


<center><img src=http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg></center>

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 12:16 AM
Does anyone have any documentation of the internal workings of the throttle/prop controls of the planes in question?

What just occured to me is that perhaps there is some mechanical linkage involving the throttle control, prop governor control, and the actual throttle of the engine.

It could be that in the real planes there was an arrangement whereby the actual engine's throttle had a low end stop linked to the prop governor control to prevent a closed throttle/high RPM condition.

Cars with chokes have a cam linked to the choke plate that prevents the throttle from closing to the curb idle stop when the choke is closed, it would be a very simple thing to have a similar arrangement to stop the planes' engines' throttles from closing past a certain position, based on the prop RPM governor's position.

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 07:19 AM
Hoarmurath wrote:
- as i responded in general discussion
-
- You mistake the prop pitch with the constant speed
- prop setting... What you are calling prop pitch of
- 100% when you fly your yak is in fact a max prop
- speed setting. If you want to have it the way you
- describe, you'll have to disable the constant speed
- prop.

I responded to your post in the general discussion area but to be brief, it's a distinction without a difference. It doesn't matter if it's fixed, manual variable or fully constant-speed prop, when the throttle is brought back power is reduced right now and it impacts the aircraft energy level immediately...not in 7-10 seconds. The rest of the remarks are in the general discussion area so I won't repeat them again here. Btw, thanks for taking the time to comment.

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 07:40 AM
So you know for a fact that for those particular planes that closing the throttle immediately cut off all or practically all fuel and air from reaching the engine? There was none left in the carb or injector bodies (whichever used) that could still flow in after the valve was shut and/or the airflow was cut off?

That is interesting. I would have guessed that you are only sure it is the case and I further guess that Oleg knows more than he is printing in English where perhaps he is not comfortable writing technical discussion.

I've seen in FB that if I want to slow a CSP equipped plane down that all I have to do is lower the "prop pitch" rpm and the plane will slow right down. Try setting "pitch" at 20% some time and see what happens. Maybe that was the way to control what you think fuel metering should? Yeah, there had to either be a mechanism or a procedure but that don't mean it's what you expect! Unless you just happen to have flight manuals for those planes, how can you be so sure? I'd just love to know! Please, give the rest of us a source!


Neal

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 08:04 AM
GR142-Pipper wrote:
- Oleg/Development Team:
-
- As a Yak/LA flyer and one who enjoys your
- IL-2/IL-2FB software very much, there's a gross bug
- that I'd like to bring to your attention which has
- to do with engine power. Specifically, when power is
- reduced in these aircraft, it doesn't happen for
- about 7-10 seconds.

This is just a limitation in the way the engine sound & the Manifold pressure gauge is modeled in the game, nothing more. when you reduce throttle in all planes even those with a CS prop, power is in fact being reduced but it doesn't look or sound like it. Just look at your airspeed. When you reduce power you see your airspeed imediately begin to drop. If the developers could control the speed of the engine sound by rpm & the volume of the engine sound by load (manifold pressure once it's modeled correctly) there would be no more confusion.

In the Bf-109 & Fw-190 as Vipez- mentioned they have the rpm control linked directly to the throttle. In other words max throttle = max Rpm (varies by model) & min throttle = min rpm (again waries by model). So when you reduce throttle you also reduce rpm & this is why it sounds like power is being reduced in these planes & not others.

I believe this to be wrong. If Messerschmitt & Focke wulf Had made it this way, why not just use a prop pitch control lever & lock it to the throttle with a .29 cent spring loaded metal clip as was done in the P-47? Why go to the trouble of inventing the kommandogerat for the Fw-190 & the elaborate engine/prop control system for the Bf-109?

Under what conditions would a real life pilot reduce throttle to a low setting? To slow down in a steep dive & for landing approach, right? Let's look at landing approach. The first thing a pilot does is reduce throttle. Then he sets prop to a fine pitch/high rpm setting, (2,500 rpm in the case of the P-39, 2,600 for P-51 & P-63). not full fine/max rpm since too sudden an increase in throttle could cause overrev in case the pilot has to gun it & go around. Yet in the Bf-109 & Fw-190 in FB reducing throttle to a low setting reduces rpm to minimum. This makes no sense to me. No pilot would ever set prop pitch to course pitch/low rpm for landing. If he had to gun it & go around he'd be screwed. Even the Bf-109 manual says if you must use manual prop pitch set your prop pitch to 11:30 position. This makes perfect sense. 11:30 position equates to about 85% prop pitch in FB. Almost full fine but not quite. If the Bf-109 pilots manual says 11.30 position on manual why would automatic dial it down to 6:30 or full course pitch as it does in FB.

Now let's look at slowing down in a steep dive. What prop pitch/rpm setting would one choose if you wanted to slow down the quickest, in other words create the most drag? full course/low rpm? No this creates the least drag. (think of feathering the prop). Full fine/max rpm? No this makes the airstream hit the prop blade at a high angle & doesn't impart much of it's energy to the aircraft. What you want is something less than full fine. Something that makes the airstream work the prop efficiently to spin the engine over against compression & slow the airplane.

Look at startup & take off in the Bf-109 in FB. (The Fw-190 in FB works differently it stays in fine pitch/high rpm for take-off) when you start the engine & are sitting there waiting to take off you see the prop pitch winding down to full course/low rpm. No pilot ever takes off at full course/low rpm setting on purpose. The Bf-109 pilots manual says if you must use manual prop pitch set your pitch to 12:00 position. This equates to about 90% prop pitch in FB. In FB in automatic in order to get the prop pitch back up to full fine/max rpm again after idling for a while you have to sit there at 100% throttle standing on the brakes for about 30 seconds. I guarentee you this is not how it worked in real life.

Maximum economy cruise in the Bf-109 G2 is 1.0aTa & 2,100 rpm. The pilots manual states that manual prop pitch must be used to attain these settings. I believe this is because as the Bf-109 piot reduced throttle below 50% the automatic prop pitch system would begin to increase rpm again.

Cheers......Smokin256

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 08:49 AM
Smokin256 wrote:
- GR142-Pipper wrote:
-- Oleg/Development Team:
--
-- As a Yak/LA flyer and one who enjoys your
-- IL-2/IL-2FB software very much, there's a gross bug
-- that I'd like to bring to your attention which has
-- to do with engine power. Specifically, when power is
-- reduced in these aircraft, it doesn't happen for
-- about 7-10 seconds.
-
- This is just a limitation in the way the engine
- sound & the Manifold pressure gauge is modeled in
- the game, nothing more. when you reduce throttle in
- all planes even those with a CS prop, power is in
- fact being reduced but it doesn't look or sound like
- it. Just look at your airspeed. When you reduce
- power you see your airspeed imediately begin to
- drop. If the developers could control the speed of
- the engine sound by rpm & the volume of the engine
- sound by load (manifold pressure once it's modeled
- correctly) there would be no more confusion.

That's not the impression I get at all and it just isn't a matter of sound effects. The actual power doesn't get reduced. Oleg also inferred this when he stated that the delay in actual power reduction taking effect after the throttle has been pulled back is "not a bug". It's actually the way it really is modeled. The easiest test is to simply land your aircraft. In a Yak or LA (again, these are the planes that I'm familiar with. There may be more.) if you don't actually kill the engine, your approach takes FOREVER. No, it's clear that power is being maintained.

- In the Bf-109 & Fw-190 as Vipez- mentioned they have
- the rpm control linked directly to the throttle. In
- other words max throttle = max Rpm (varies by model)
- & min throttle = min rpm (again waries by model). So
- when you reduce throttle you also reduce rpm & this
- is why it sounds like power is being reduced in
- these planes & not others.
-
- I believe this to be wrong. If Messerschmitt & Focke
- wulf Had made it this way, why not just use a prop
- pitch control lever & lock it to the throttle with a
- .29 cent spring loaded metal clip as was done in the
- P-47? Why go to the trouble of inventing the
- kommandogerat for the Fw-190 & the elaborate
- engine/prop control system for the Bf-109?
-
- Under what conditions would a real life pilot reduce
- throttle to a low setting? To slow down in a steep
- dive & for landing approach, right?

There are several reasons of which the two you have mentioned are indeed among them. Here are a few examples and I'm sure others can contribute as well.

-- If you're trying to maintain an "inside turning position" during a decending spiral

__ If you're trying to prevent an overshoot when pursuing a target in a zoom climb

-- If you're trying to pull inside a target aircraft's turning circle while preventing an overshoot

-- If you're simply trying to land without a ridiculously long approach

-- If you're in a rolling scissors and want to hang over the top or pivot

-- If you're in a horizontal scissors and want to cut back within the turning radius of the opponent. (Watch a 109G-2 do it and try and stay with it in your Yak. It's not easy.)

- Let's look at
- landing approach. The first thing a pilot does is
- reduce throttle. Then he sets prop to a fine
- pitch/high rpm setting, (2,500 rpm in the case of
- the P-39, 2,600 for P-51 & P-63). not full fine/max
- rpm since too sudden an increase in throttle could
- cause overrev in case the pilot has to gun it & go
- around. Yet in the Bf-109 & Fw-190 in FB reducing
- throttle to a low setting reduces rpm to minimum.
- This makes no sense to me. No pilot would ever set
- prop pitch to course pitch/low rpm for landing. If
- he had to gun it & go around he'd be screwed. Even
- the Bf-109 manual says if you must use manual prop
- pitch set your prop pitch to 11:30 position. This
- makes perfect sense. 11:30 position equates to about
- 85% prop pitch in FB. Almost full fine but not
- quite. If the Bf-109 pilots manual says 11.30
- position on manual why would automatic dial it down
- to 6:30 or full course pitch as it does in FB.
-
- Now let's look at slowing down in a steep dive. What
- prop pitch/rpm setting would one choose if you
- wanted to slow down the quickest, in other words
- create the most drag? full course/low rpm? No this
- creates the least drag. (think of feathering the
- prop). Full fine/max rpm? No this makes the
- airstream hit the prop blade at a high angle &
- doesn't impart much of it's energy to the aircraft.
- What you want is something less than full fine.
- Something that makes the airstream work the prop
- efficiently to spin the engine over against
- compression & slow the airplane.
-
- Look at startup & take off in the Bf-109 in FB. (The
- Fw-190 in FB works differently it stays in fine
- pitch/high rpm for take-off) when you start the
- engine & are sitting there waiting to take off you
- see the prop pitch winding down to full course/low
- rpm. No pilot ever takes off at full course/low rpm
- setting on purpose. The Bf-109 pilots manual says if
- you must use manual prop pitch set your pitch to
- 12:00 position. This equates to about 90% prop pitch
- in FB. In FB in automatic in order to get the prop
- pitch back up to full fine/max rpm again after
- idling for a while you have to sit there at 100%
- throttle standing on the brakes for about 30
- seconds. I guarentee you this is not how it worked
- in real life.
-
- Maximum economy cruise in the Bf-109 G2 is 1.0aTa &
- 2,100 rpm. The pilots manual states that manual prop
- pitch must be used to attain these settings. I
- believe this is because as the Bf-109 piot reduced
- throttle below 50% the automatic prop pitch system
- would begin to increase rpm again.

What you say may be perfectly valid but at the end of the day when pilots pull power, power comes off right then...not in 7-10 seconds. There is no delay in the real world and there shouldn't be one here. Fly the BF-109 and then fly a Yak/LA (or whatever other aircraft exhibits slow engine power reduction). As currently modeled, the BF-109G-2 is very competitive even with the LA-5/7, all the Yaks, P-39s and the rest. Given a competent pilot, the ability to reduce power and have the change take effect immediately is key to why this is so for the 109. Don't take my word for it. Do some experiments with the current engine models for the different aircraft and see for yourself. You may be surprised.

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 09:06 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- So you know for a fact that for those particular
- planes that closing the throttle immediately cut off
- all or practically all fuel and air from reaching
- the engine? There was none left in the carb or
- injector bodies (whichever used) that could still
- flow in after the valve was shut and/or the airflow
- was cut off?

I know of NO aircraft that maintained engine power when the throttle was ******ed. None.

- That is interesting. I would have guessed that you
- are only sure it is the case and I further guess
- that Oleg knows more than he is printing in English
- where perhaps he is not comfortable writing
- technical discussion.

That certainly could be.

- I've seen in FB that if I want to slow a CSP
- equipped plane down that all I have to do is lower
- the "prop pitch" rpm and the plane will slow right
- down. Try setting "pitch" at 20% some time and see
- what happens. Maybe that was the way to control
- what you think fuel metering should? Yeah, there
- had to either be a mechanism or a procedure but that
- don't mean it's what you expect!

Do you know what happens in the real world when you simply "lower the prop pitch RPM"? You overboost the engine, it quits working and the prop stop spinning...all in very short order.

- Unless you just
- happen to have flight manuals for those planes, how
- can you be so sure? I'd just love to know! Please,
- give the rest of us a source!

A reasonable request and one that I'd like the source as well...but in reverse. Given that there are NO aircraft that I've ever flown that have engines that behave in this manner (civilian or military) nor ones that I've ever heard of (or that my other pilot friends have ever heard of), I'd like to see evidence that this engine behavioral model is in fact correct. If it's going to be modeled this way, then the burden of proof is to substantiate why it is so. Furthermore, it's NOT this way with the 109 (as an example).

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 06:56 PM
After thinking about this topic I am reminded of my Dodge mini camper (had forgotten how obnoxious it could be as I havn't driven it in a couple years). It has a Holley 2 barrel carburetor, and like all California heavy duty versions of that carburetor it has what is called a throttle positioner, which is a solonoid that holds the throttle open for a couple seconds when the throttle is released from a fairly open position. Extremely obnoxious when you need to brake quickly on the freeway and you feel the engine still making power against the brakes. A better system more commonly used is called a dashpot and uses a vacuum diaphragm to slow the closing of the throttle (rather than stopping it completely, and it still closes quickly).

Both of these devices are emission control devices (though I think some may use a dashpot for an anti backfire function as well) so I see no reason for a WWII fighter to have such a thing.

From what I understand aero engines do not use oil control rings, which is why I thought perhaps the throttle wasn't allowed to close at high RPM to prevent spark plug fouling.

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 09:40 PM
GR142-Pipper wrote:
-
- WWMaxGunz wrote:
-- So you know for a fact that for those particular
-- planes that closing the throttle immediately cut off
-- all or practically all fuel and air from reaching
-- the engine? There was none left in the carb or
-- injector bodies (whichever used) that could still
-- flow in after the valve was shut and/or the airflow
-- was cut off?
-
- I know of NO aircraft that maintained engine power
- when the throttle was ******ed. None.

I hope that Oleg read yuor post correctly because he seems to have reason for what he wrote. I've never seen a pink house with purple polkadots but there may be a whole town full of them somewhere.

-- I've seen in FB that if I want to slow a CSP
-- equipped plane down that all I have to do is lower
-- the "prop pitch" rpm and the plane will slow right
-- down. Try setting "pitch" at 20% some time and see
-- what happens. Maybe that was the way to control
-- what you think fuel metering should? Yeah, there
-- had to either be a mechanism or a procedure but that
-- don't mean it's what you expect!
-
- Do you know what happens in the real world when you
- simply "lower the prop pitch RPM"? You overboost the
- engine, it quits working and the prop stop
- spinning...all in very short order.

My mistake, I did leave out that I reduce throttle first. It works *in the sim*. I can't say for reality in WWII.

-- Unless you just
-- happen to have flight manuals for those planes, how
-- can you be so sure? I'd just love to know! Please,
-- give the rest of us a source!
-
- A reasonable request and one that I'd like the
- source as well...but in reverse.

Agreed. The learning experience would be cool. But then there would also be a call for everything out maybe? It seems that it would require several volumes of large books!

Well that doesn't stop information from being revealed at all, a piece at a time where it's fitting either. Before FB was released were were told that information behind so many things would be revealed and if it's been out then I wasn't there!

- Given that there
- are NO aircraft that I've ever flown that have
- engines that behave in this manner (civilian or
- military) nor ones that I've ever heard of (or that
- my other pilot friends have ever heard of), I'd like
- to see evidence that this engine behavioral model is
- in fact correct. If it's going to be modeled this
- way, then the burden of proof is to substantiate why
- it is so. Furthermore, it's NOT this way with the
- 109 (as an example).
-
- GR142-Pipper

Okay, I'll bite... what's the oldest engine design you've flown that's had no upgrades as to controls or workings (not talking about better sparkplugs here) since the date of design? Piper Cub fit that? I'm not sure there.

Are ALL the Soviet planes or all CSP planes that you've flown in the sim like that? Your initial post isn't something that I remember in the sim. I haven't had the troubles you wrote of but I don't play late war planes much. If it's just a very few certain models then it's either a bug which Oleg denies or it's specially modelled that way. I wouldn't take any bets either way myself at this point!


Neal

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 07:04 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
-
- GR142-Pipper wrote:
--
-- WWMaxGunz wrote:
--- So you know for a fact that for those particular
--- planes that closing the throttle immediately cut off
--- all or practically all fuel and air from reaching
--- the engine? There was none left in the carb or
--- injector bodies (whichever used) that could still
--- flow in after the valve was shut and/or the airflow
--- was cut off?
--
-- I know of NO aircraft that maintained engine power
-- when the throttle was ******ed. None.
-
- I hope that Oleg read yuor post correctly because he
- seems to have reason for what he wrote. I've never
- seen a pink house with purple polkadots but there
- may be a whole town full of them somewhere.

I think that he read it correctly. If he missed the message in the initial post (hard to believe, but possible), it's been more than adequately clarified in the subsequent discussion.

--- I've seen in FB that if I want to slow a CSP
--- equipped plane down that all I have to do is lower
--- the "prop pitch" rpm and the plane will slow right
--- down. Try setting "pitch" at 20% some time and see
--- what happens. Maybe that was the way to control
--- what you think fuel metering should? Yeah, there
--- had to either be a mechanism or a procedure but that
--- don't mean it's what you expect!
--
-- Do you know what happens in the real world when you
-- simply "lower the prop pitch RPM"? You overboost the
-- engine, it quits working and the prop stop
-- spinning...all in very short order.
-
- My mistake, I did leave out that I reduce throttle
- first. It works *in the sim*. I can't say for
- reality in WWII.
-
--- Unless you just
--- happen to have flight manuals for those planes, how
--- can you be so sure? I'd just love to know! Please,
--- give the rest of us a source!
--
-- A reasonable request and one that I'd like the
-- source as well...but in reverse.
-
- Agreed. The learning experience would be cool. But
- then there would also be a call for everything out
- maybe? It seems that it would require several
- volumes of large books!

Actually, the overwealming body of evidence suggests that maintaining power after the throttle has been cut in a piston-engined aircraft (if it exists at all) lies in (at best) an extreme minority of aircraft. Justitification for this should be easy to provide. I submit (respectfully) that it doesn't exist.

- Well that doesn't stop information from being
- revealed at all, a piece at a time where it's
- fitting either. Before FB was released were were
- told that information behind so many things would be
- revealed and if it's been out then I wasn't there!
-
-- Given that there
-- are NO aircraft that I've ever flown that have
-- engines that behave in this manner (civilian or
-- military) nor ones that I've ever heard of (or that
-- my other pilot friends have ever heard of), I'd like
-- to see evidence that this engine behavioral model is
-- in fact correct. If it's going to be modeled this
-- way, then the burden of proof is to substantiate why
-- it is so. Furthermore, it's NOT this way with the
-- 109 (as an example).
--
-- GR142-Pipper
-
- Okay, I'll bite... what's the oldest engine design
- you've flown that's had no upgrades as to controls
- or workings (not talking about better sparkplugs
- here) since the date of design? Piper Cub fit that?
- I'm not sure there.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. In the real world from whence I came most of the military prop aircraft engine designs came from the 40's with the civilian engine designs coming mostly from the 1950s. In all cases, they behave the same...cut the throttle and power comes off immediately.

- Are ALL the Soviet planes or all CSP planes that
- you've flown in the sim like that?

I can't speak to all. It seems that the Yak and LA families are now. Others have said that the P-47 now behaves this way as well too. On the other hand, the 109 and 190 throttle response is immediate.

- Your initial
- post isn't something that I remember in the sim. I
- haven't had the troubles you wrote of but I don't
- play late war planes much. If it's just a very few
- certain models then it's either a bug which Oleg
- denies or it's specially modelled that way. I
- wouldn't take any bets either way myself at this
- point!

What's interesting is that this WASN'T the case as recently as FB 1.1. With the release of 1.11, it's now there so it's presence is no accident. It was intentional and it's wrong.

It's unfortunate to see the <u>SIGNIFICANT</u> talent that Oleg and his team brings seemingly compromised by introducing aircraft or engine traits that simply shouldn't be there (good or bad, German or VVS). With that said, IL-2/IL-2FB is still a LOT of fun and the source of much enjoyment for me. But let's do it right.

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 08:10 AM
Hey, Pipper... while you're making vast inroads here towards rewriting history to your taste (seems to be the norm for your squad), why not ask Oleg about the Fw190 gunsight view, too, eh? :P

Big engines don't do anything all of a sudden. Maybe you're used to a 3 or 400 hp car motor that goes 'voom' when you bump the gas. When you're dealing with several THOUSAND horsepower, 2-3000 RPM, and engine temperatures of 90 or more degrees centigrade, it takes the engine a moment to slow back down.

I've had the opportunity to sit right seat in a C-47 before, and the throttles have a very pronounced lag time in *both* directions.

It's not just your coveted Yaks and Las that have this--crank up the 190-D9 from 0 to full power and time how long it takes for the engine to spool all the way up. Then chop the throttle and see how long it takes for it to slow down.

Very big things--especially very big, complex, hot, multivalved combustion-driven rapidly-rotating things--don't go from 2500 to 1000 in 0 seconds flat, the same way they don't go from 1000 to 2500 instantly.

Stenciled on the side of my Dora:

"Lasst das H√¬∂llentor √¬∂ffen, es friert hier oben!"
("Leave the gates to Hell open, it's FREEZING up here!")

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 10:16 AM
I'm going to have to step in here:

You really seem to be missing the point... in it's ENTIRITY.

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 11:52 AM
PlaneEater wrote:
- Hey, Pipper... while you're making vast inroads
- here towards rewriting history to your taste (seems
- to be the norm for your squad)

The "norm for your squad"? Too funny. Rant on.

- why not ask Oleg
- about the Fw190 gunsight view, too, eh? :P

Psssst...PlaneEater, this may come as a shock but this thread isn't about the FW-190's gunsight. If you want to discuss that, start your own thread and ask Oleg yourself.

- Big engines don't do anything all of a sudden.

Yes they do. They power up decently briskly and power down very quickly. The operative word being "power".

- Maybe you're used to a 3 or 400 hp car motor that
- goes 'voom' when you bump the gas.

Yep, just as I'm used to engines in the aircraft that I've flown doing the same thing.

- When you're
- dealing with several THOUSAND horsepower, 2-3000
- RPM, and engine temperatures of 90 or more degrees
- centigrade, it takes the engine a moment to slow
- back down.

No it doesn't. Power comes off right now when the throttle is pulled. The more power the engine has, the more noticable this is.

- I've had the opportunity to sit right seat in a C-47
- before, and the throttles have a very pronounced lag
- time in *both* directions.

Ah, so you've "sat in the right seat of a C-47". Good airplane the C-47 is. I've flown the left and front seats in a variety of civil and military aircraft as pilot in command and NONE had pronounced lag. Perhaps the C-47 that you "sat" in needed to visit the local A&P for a little engine TLC.

- It's not just your coveted Yaks and Las that have
- this--crank up the 190-D9 from 0 to full power and
- time how long it takes for the engine to spool all
- the way up. Then chop the throttle and see how long
- it takes for it to slow down.

Then it too is modeled incorrectly.

- Very big things--especially very big, complex, hot,
- multivalved combustion-driven rapidly-rotating
- things--don't go from 2500 to 1000 in 0 seconds
- flat, the same way they don't go from 1000 to 2500
- instantly.

But the power loss is near instantaneous when the throttle is cut.

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 10:01 PM
GR142-Pipper wrote:
"- That's not the impression I get at all and it just
- isn't a matter of sound effects. The actual power
- doesn't get reduced. Oleg also inferred this when he
- stated that the delay in actual power reduction
- taking effect after the throttle has been pulled
- back is "not a bug". It's actually the way it really
- is modeled. The easiest test is to simply land your
- aircraft. In a Yak or LA (again, these are the
- planes that I'm familiar with. There may be more.)
- if you don't actually kill the engine, your approach
- takes FOREVER. No, it's clear that power is being
- maintained.

I've been doing some testing on this & other issues recently & I found that all the prop planes in the game act pretty much the same. If you fly sraight & level at 3000 meters at 400kph then reduce power to 0% While maintaining 3000 meters altitude. They take approx. 30 seconds to slow to 300kph. I've tested the Bf-109G2, Fw-190A8, Yak3, Yak9, LA-5F, & P-47-D10. They all took approx. 30 seconds to slow down. & they all responded on about the same curve. I've also tried this expieriment with different prop pitch settings & found that prop pitch has no effect. they still slow down at the same speed. It is true that the planes became more reluctant to slow down in v1.11 but they are all about the same. Is this correct or historical? I have no idea. Do they take too long now to slow down? I don't know. But I do know there is no real difference between the planes. BTW have you tried landing the Me-262 yet? Hehe you want to talk about sailing right on by your airfield!

When I was doing some testing with the Stuka back in v1.1b different prop pitch/rpm settings did have a significant effect on how quickly it slowed down. If I cruised along at 300kph at 65% prop pitch @ 3000 meters, reduced power to 0% & prop pitch to 0% while maintaining 3000 meters. It slowed to 200kph in about 55 seconds. If I did the same thing only increased prop pitch to 100% it slowed to 200kph in about 35 seconds. Now this is as it should be. In v1.11 it no longer makes any difference. I don't know why we lost this feature.

As I'm sure your aware, none of this has anything to do with the AI. If your basing this complaint on an inability to avoid an overshoot against the AI it doesn't apply. The AI can stop on a dime regardless of which plane it's in or it's energy state or anything else.

Cheers.....Smokin256

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 12:29 AM
Smokin256 wrote:
- GR142-Pipper wrote:
- "- That's not the impression I get at all and it
- just
-- isn't a matter of sound effects. The actual power
-- doesn't get reduced. Oleg also inferred this when he
-- stated that the delay in actual power reduction
-- taking effect after the throttle has been pulled
-- back is "not a bug". It's actually the way it really
-- is modeled. The easiest test is to simply land your
-- aircraft. In a Yak or LA (again, these are the
-- planes that I'm familiar with. There may be more.)
-- if you don't actually kill the engine, your approach
-- takes FOREVER. No, it's clear that power is being
-- maintained.
-
- I've been doing some testing on this & other issues
- recently & I found that all the prop planes in the
- game act pretty much the same. If you fly sraight &
- level at 3000 meters at 400kph then reduce power to
- 0% While maintaining 3000 meters altitude. They take
- approx. 30 seconds to slow to 300kph. I've tested
- the Bf-109G2, Fw-190A8, Yak3, Yak9, LA-5F, &
- P-47-D10. They all took approx. 30 seconds to slow
- down. & they all responded on about the same curve.

Respectfully, this isn't the issue. It's not a matter of simply how much time each plane takes to slow down in a straight and level situation, It's an issue of whether or not power gets reduced in a timely manner (immediately as it should be, but isn't on <u>some</u> aircraft) after the throttle is cut. With the Yaks, LAs, P-47s (others too maybe) power doesn't get reduced until 7-10 seconds after throttle cut which is nonsense.

My apologies for grinding this issue but it has a significant (and adverse) impact on several aircraft. More importantly, it's simply wrong yet has been deliberately programmed into selected airplanes' engine characteristics when it didn't exist before.

If Oleg and his team simply don't want to correct it, then they don't but it's bogus nonetheless.

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 02:45 AM
I don't know much about aircraft of that era, all I know about is the small single-engined aircrafts of the seventies, and you're right, pulling the throttle or the mixture gives an immidiate reaction on the aircraft in the way it starts to descent to maintain speed, depending on the trim or you pulling back in the stick, I'd say that many of the aircrafts in the sim seem to be able to maintain altitude and speed for quite a while, making the approach circle very large..

But if the engines are supposed to react like new, big jetengines, that also lack response, well fine with me, I only complain when about to land or trying to stay behind AI-aircrafts

rgds

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 02:57 AM
GR142-Pipper wrote:


- Respectfully, this isn't the issue. It's not a
- matter of simply how much time each plane takes to
- slow down in a straight and level situation, It's an
- issue of whether or not power gets reduced in a
- timely manner (immediately as it should be, but
- isn't on <u>some</u> aircraft) after the
- throttle is cut. With the Yaks, LAs, P-47s (others
- too maybe) power doesn't get reduced until 7-10
- seconds after throttle cut which is nonsense.

But Pipper, wouldn't you agree that testing them in a straight line shows the effect of throttling alone, whereas the tests you are suggesting such as scissoring etc. is throwing energy bleed into the mix? Generally all LW planes bleed off more speed than their VVS counterparts.

Smokin256 and Fillmore have both demonstrated (and I've tested it myself in QMB) that reducing throttle has a similar effect on many planes including the G2 as it does to the La7 and Yak3. I disagree that these two planes are being unfairly disadvantaged under the current CEM in version 1.11.




<CENTER>http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/FB_JG27.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 04:33 AM
Chadburn wrote:
-
- GR142-Pipper wrote:
-
-
-- Respectfully, this isn't the issue. It's not a
-- matter of simply how much time each plane takes to
-- slow down in a straight and level situation, It's an
-- issue of whether or not power gets reduced in a
-- timely manner (immediately as it should be, but
-- isn't on <u>some</u> aircraft) after the
-- throttle is cut. With the Yaks, LAs, P-47s (others
-- too maybe) power doesn't get reduced until 7-10
-- seconds after throttle cut which is nonsense.
-
- But Pipper, wouldn't you agree that testing them in
- a straight line shows the effect of throttling
- alone, whereas the tests you are suggesting such as
- scissoring etc. is throwing energy bleed into the
- mix? Generally all LW planes bleed off more speed
- than their VVS counterparts.

Yes, I would agree but that doesn't focus on the point being made. The test conditions that you are illustrating (and I'm fully willing to believe the results of your tests, btw) really don't present the situation where it counts...in an engagement. This is where POWER response is critical. It's not critical if your landing approach is longer. It's not critical if you are simply decelerating from high speed to a lower speed flight condition. It IS critical when engaged.

- Smokin256 and Fillmore have both demonstrated (and
- I've tested it myself in QMB) that reducing throttle
- has a similar effect on many planes including the G2
- as it does to the La7 and Yak3. I disagree that
- these two planes are being unfairly disadvantaged
- under the current CEM in version 1.11.

Again, the laboratory for the testing is in engagement arena. I've flown the BF-109G-2 sufficiently to know it's ability to cut the throttle and have the response be immediate is a critical to its competitiveness. Otherwise, it would be (and should be) easy pickins' for a Yak-3 or the LAs.

I do appreciate you and others taking the time to comment.

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 06:41 AM
Power reduction doesn't immediately translate itself to decceleration - much the same as power addition does not immediately translate itself to acceleration.

The interlinked throttle-RPM systems of the German planes have exactly the same drawback as VVS systems in exactly opposite manner - it takes time to get prop revolutions up, with just throttle control alone. This is very evident during take-off runs: people complain German planes are too slow in acceleration while VVS planes are racing along the runway with the same throttle amount.

Of course they're different - one plane starts a take-off run with max RPM possible with the current throttle setting, while the other flies with reduced RPM at the same throttle setting.

......

You can't complain about German planes being more responsive in power control than VVS planes, since German planes reduce and increase RPM along with throttle, while the planes you have brought up do not.

If you would have brought up something that suggests, that even when VVS planes reduce RPM rates along with throttle they do not deccelerate well, then it would have made sense. But of course, the VVS planes deccelerate well with RPM reduced, much the same as German planes.

However you may want to think the plane should handle, a system which effects both RPM and throttle, will always, be more responsive than a system which handles the throttle alone. If you want to see the same effect in VVS planes, then you'll have to do the same thing as done in German planes - except you'll have to change the engine RPM manually via "prop pitch" control.

What you are requesting is a decceleration rate of VVS planes being on par with German ones, when German planes directly cut down thrust amount by reducing RPM along with manifold, while the VVS planes do not - which of course, makes no sense.

Granted, the decceleration rate by cutting manifold alone, could be too low - but that is up to you to prove, except I've seen no actual proof related to aero-physics so far in this thread.


Besides, even if the decceleration rate is indeed too low, you cannot expect it to be on par with German planes.


You have mentioned to 'forget about RPM' - and that, is exactly why you aren't understanding this matter.








-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

Message Edited on 10/30/0302:43PM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 06:58 AM
"Do you know what happens in the real world when you simply "lower the prop pitch RPM"? You overboost the engine, it quits working and the prop stop spinning...all in very short order."

..

If you reduce "prop pitch" - let's say from 100% to 20% - in VVS planes in FB, it means you alter the prop angle to INCREASE not DECREASE, so the RPM is reduced.

When you "reduce prop pitch" in VVS planes, it means you reduce the RPM, by increasing the blade angle. German planes do that automatically with throttle input. VVS planes have to do that manually.







-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 08:06 AM
kweassa wrote:
- Power reduction doesn't immediately translate
- itself to decceleration - much the same as power
- addition does not immediately translate itself to
- acceleration.

Quite wrong. Perhaps your laws of physics are different from those of Newton.

- The interlinked throttle-RPM systems of the German
- planes have exactly the same drawback as VVS
- systems in exactly opposite manner - it takes
- time to get prop revolutions up, with just throttle
- control alone. This is very evident during take-off
- runs: people complain German planes are too slow in
- acceleration while VVS planes are racing along the
- runway with the same throttle amount.

The issue is POWER REDUCTION TIME. Pull power in a 109G-2 and it comes off immediately; pull power in a Yak, LA, or P-47 and you wait...and wait...and wait for power to be reduced.

- Of course they're different - one plane starts a
- take-off run with max RPM possible with the current
- throttle setting, while the other flies with reduced
- RPM at the same throttle setting.

- You can't complain about German planes being more
- responsive in power control than VVS planes, since
- German planes reduce and increase RPM along with
- throttle, while the planes you have brought up do
- not.

Yes they do. In EVERY plane I've ever flown, when power is pulled, the response is immediate...except on certain aircraft in this sim.

- If you would have brought up something that
- suggests, that even when VVS planes reduce RPM rates
- along with throttle they do not deccelerate well,
- then it would have made sense. But of course, the
- VVS planes deccelerate well with RPM reduced, much
- the same as German planes.

You seem to not understand the relationship between power and RPM. They are not the same as you seem to infer.

- However you may want to think the plane should
- handle, a system which effects both RPM and
- throttle, will always, be more responsive than a
- system which handles the throttle alone.

Not so. RPM is not the issue here...it's POWER.

- If you want
- to see the same effect in VVS planes, then you'll
- have to do the same thing as done in German planes -
- except you'll have to change the engine RPM manually
- via "prop pitch" control.

The only thing I should need to do is to pull the throttle.

- What you are requesting is a decceleration rate of
- VVS planes being on par with German ones, when
- German planes directly cut down thrust amount by
- reducing RPM along with manifold, while the VVS
- planes do not - which of course, makes no sense.

What makes no sense is your lack of understanding of the concept of power yet you're trying to give me a tutorial.

- Granted, the decceleration rate by cutting manifold
- alone, could be too low - but that is up to you to
- prove, except I've seen no actual proof related
- to aero-physics so far in this thread.

- Besides, even if the decceleration rate is indeed
- too low, you cannot expect it to be on par with
- German planes.

There's no reason for it not to be.

- You have mentioned to 'forget about RPM' - and
- that, is exactly why you aren't understanding this
- matter.

Too funny. Oh well.

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 08:13 AM
Help me out here guys, chop power in the G2 - power is off 1 second later.

Chop in the other planes, I'm a glider.

Thank you.



"We will welcome them with bullets and shoes."

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 08:21 AM
If I put a 109 in the sim into manual mode then drop the throttle while holding alt, the engine slows right down. It's not about linked controls.


Perhaps in a CSP plane in the sim, the revs stay up by coarsening pitch even though the power is cut and that's what Oleg wrote about? If you are losing alt then it will appear as if power is not being lost. Somehow I don't think this is waht Pipper is writing about.

I still wonder if there's reason for a delay between pilot throttle control and change of fuel flow to the engine for the La's and Yaks. It should be easy enough to find out about the P-47's though!


Neal

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 08:25 AM
kweassa wrote:
- "Do you know what happens in the real world when
- you simply "lower the prop pitch RPM"? You overboost
- the engine, it quits working and the prop stop
- spinning...all in very short order."
-
- ..
-
-
- If you reduce "prop pitch" - let's say from 100% to
- 20% - in VVS planes in FB, it means you alter the
- prop angle to INCREASE not DECREASE,
- so the RPM is reduced.
-
-
- When you "reduce prop pitch" in VVS planes, it
- means you reduce the RPM, by increasing the blade
- angle. German planes do that automatically with
- throttle input. VVS planes have to do that manually.

Greetings Kweassa!
Yeah he knows all that. But in real life if you reduce rpm at a given throttle setting, manifold pressure increases!
If the throttle setting is high enough & you reduce rpm enough you could overboost the engine. These engines wouldn't tolerate this for more than a few seconds & then boom! This is not modeled currently. nor is correct manifold pressure response.

Let's hold it together guys! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers....Smokin256

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 01:01 PM
"If I put a 109 in the sim into manual mode then drop the throttle while holding alt, the engine slows right down. It's not about linked controls.


Perhaps in a CSP plane in the sim, the revs stay up by coarsening pitch even though the power is cut and that's what Oleg wrote about? If you are losing alt then it will appear as if power is not being lost. Somehow I don't think this is waht Pipper is writing about.

I still wonder if there's reason for a delay between pilot throttle control and change of fuel flow to the engine for the La's and Yaks. It should be easy enough to find out about the P-47's though!"

Maxgunz, when the 109s are reverted to manual, the props don't stay "Constant Speed" any more. It effectively becomes a fixed pitch prop with manual control(actually, a variable, but manual prop). That's why when the "Prop Pitch" setting is 100%(meaning full fine, in ONLY German planes) when automatic control is turned off, the engine goes bust due to overrev.

If you would want to simulate what's happening to VVS planes when they retain 100% "Prop Pitch"(in this case, meaning "full RPM", not "full fine pitch angle") but pull back on the throttle, with the Bf109, then you have to:

1) turn off manual, lower "Prop Pitch"(coarsen the prop angle) so it doesn't instantaneously over-rev..

2) then gradually increase "Prop Pitch"(decrease prop angle) again so it retains the set RPM level as longs as it could..

3) and when the "Prop Pitch" is set to 100%(full fine) but the engine cannot hold the revolution rate any longer, then the plane will begin to deccelrate..



..


"Yeah he knows all that. But in real life if you reduce rpm at a given throttle setting, manifold pressure increases!
If the throttle setting is high enough & you reduce rpm enough you could overboost the engine. These engines wouldn't tolerate this for more than a few seconds & then boom! This is not modeled currently. nor is correct manifold pressure response."


Does he? I'm not sure if I see any indication he does. There is a huge gap of confusion in the terminology "Prop Pitch Control" used by this game, which is imprecise, and frankly subject to a lot of controversy.

The response you have wrote, I'm well aware of. The problem is that the CEM mode is not to be considered as an actual representation of how the engine works - nor, should the terms referred to in percentage such as "100%" or "20%" be understood as their real equivalent revolution rates.

For instance, when you cut down the RPM to 50% with the Prop Pitch command in VVS planes, at a certain given throttle, you will see that if the RPM is set to something like 2500 at 100%, it doesn't necessarily mean that 50% will lower the RPM rate to 1250. It is actuall a lot higher than that at 50%.

It might as well mean that the "percentage" given from 0% to 100%, may mean only the RPM range which the engine system in VVS planes can safely manage at a certain given manifold.. for instance, if at 75% a VVS plane gives out 2200 RPM, and the 'safety line' of reducing RPM rates suddenly is only about down to 2000, it may mean that reducing the pitch to 0% will cut down only 200 RPM initially. <- This, is not what I think happens in the game, but just an example of how little we know how the CEM in FB actually works.

As I said, it is actually very possible, that the VVS planes as portrayed, could be too low in decceleration rates - but at any rate 1) it would always be less responsive than how the German planes work, and 2) proving this fact, still needs hard evidence we may compare - such as data, or analysis on how aerodynamical drag kicks in at a certain situation with a certain plane.

As mentioned, the second requirement, I've yet to see any. It's all speculations, or loose comparisons with modern day CSP planes which fly much slower than any of the WW2 war planes.

A decrease in speed from a small civilian craft which flies 150km/h, and dumps 50km/h of speed, accounts for 33% loss in speed and may seem signigicant, but for a plane flying at 500km/h and dumping 100km/h, it's still only 20% even when the actual loss of speed is double than that of the smaller, civilian plane.

Oleg has already spoken that it's not wrong, and it'd damn help if he explained to us how VVS planes worked actually.


A more practical request, than insisting that there's a bug with what we don't fully understand, would be the request to employ the actual mechanical linkage systems as seen in some VVS/USAAF craft like the P-39 or the P-47 - which the end result would be pretty simular to the German planes.








-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 01:43 PM
Here's a quick test you might find interesting(which I, certainly found interesting).


Test conditions:

* Smolensk
* Start at 3000m
* engage "lock stabilizers"
* accelerate plane to 450km/h IAS using highest throttle
(boost included, if testbed has such)
* upon reaching 450km/h IAS, immediately cut throttle to 0%
* check decceleration time required to 350km/h IAS


Testbed:

* Yak-9U(100% fuel)
* Bf109G-6/AS(100% fuel)


Note:

* Testing the Yak-9U was straightforward and easy
* The Bf109G-6/AS, used MW50 + 110% throttle for acceleration to 450km/h
* The Bf109G-6/AS, required constant manual "pitch" adjustment to maintain initial RPM rate of 2700~2800 RPM when throttle was cut down to 0% - this, is required to put both the Yak-9U and the Bf109G-6/AS to simular conditions where the former, the CS Unit automatically tried to maintain initial RPM when throttle was cut - whereas the latter, required manual "pitch control" to do so, since disengaging auto in the Bf109 renders the propellers non-automatic, fixed angle propeller which the angle may be manually changed upon "prop pitch" control input.

..

Results - decceleration time from 450km/h to 350km/h IAS

1. Yak-9U: 27 seconds
2. Bf109G-6/AS: 27 seconds

...


This was only a loose testing, and more precise methods would be desirable, such as checking decent rates upon throttle cut, trimming the plane into perfect level upon reaching 450km/h IAS and etc., but the result of the first test, as one may see, is not radically different. Identical, actually. Both planes lost 100km/h IAS at the same given time of 27 seconds.

Another thing to note, is that even when continuously "increasing Prop Pitch"(thus, reducing prop angle) in the Bf109, the Prop Angle increment never reached 100%(full fine) during the whole time.

..

What it suggests, is that the difference is accounted for - just how much the prop angle effects revolution rates in the game, is quite astounding.

At level flight 450km/h IAS with maximum throttle + MW50, the Bf109G-6/AS at automatic CSP control seems to fly, and reach that speed with a prop angle with the FB increment of about 55~60%. Anything higher than that(any prop angle finer than that), will overrev the engine.

If the CSP systems aren't radically different between the Bf109Gs and Yak-9Us, we can also assume that the Yak-9U also flies with simular prop angle. Upon reaching 350km/h, decceleration of 100km/h IAS, the prop angle of the Gustav was still at the increment of 80~85%, and still have not reached full fine status.

When the two planes were exposed to almost identical conditions, with the throttle cut to 0%, and propeller angle controlled to retain initial RPM rate(one through a CSP unit, and the other through manual prop angle control), they deccelerated at the same rate.


Try the test yourselves.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

Message Edited on 10/30/0309:53PM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 02:31 PM
OHHH! Oleg Shut you DOWN!

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>It's your fault... <center>
Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW
http://www.uploadit.org/files/220903-Boosher%20Sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 07:50 PM
kweassa wrote:
-
- ..
-
-- WWMaxgunz wrote:
--
-- "Yeah he knows all that. But in real life if you
-- reduce rpm at a given throttle setting, manifold
-- pressure increases!
-- If the throttle setting is high enough & you reduce
-- rpm enough you could overboost the engine. These
-- engines wouldn't tolerate this for more than a few
-- seconds & then boom! This is not modeled currently.
-- nor is correct manifold pressure response."
-
-
-
-
- Does he?

Yes, I do.

- I'm not sure if I see any indication he
- does. There is a huge gap of confusion in the
- terminology "Prop Pitch Control" used by this game,
- which is imprecise, and frankly subject to a lot of
- controversy.

The reason that you don't see any indication of this is that you don't seem to understand the question that was initially asked. To be clear, this is a POWER issue, not an RPM issue. It doesn't matter if the prop is fixed, manual-variable or constant speed. When power is pulled, it should be immediately felt with a time delay. THAT is the issue..no more, no less.

- The response you have wrote, I'm well aware of. The
- problem is that the CEM mode is not to be considered
- as an actual representation of how the engine works
- - nor, should the terms referred to in percentage
- such as "100%" or "20%" be understood as their real
- equivalent revolution rates.

Again, RPM isn't the issue...POWER is (and specifically the tine delay in FB 1.11 when power is removed from certain aircraft).

- For instance, when you cut down the RPM to 50% with
- the Prop Pitch command in VVS planes, at a certain
- given throttle, you will see that if the RPM is set
- to something like 2500 at 100%, it doesn't
- necessarily mean that 50% will lower the RPM rate to
- 1250. It is actuall a lot higher than that at 50%.
-
-
- It might as well mean that the "percentage" given
- from 0% to 100%, may mean only the RPM range which
- the engine system in VVS planes can safely manage at
- a certain given manifold.. for instance, if at 75% a
- VVS plane gives out 2200 RPM, and the 'safety line'
- of reducing RPM rates suddenly is only about down to
- 2000, it may mean that reducing the pitch to 0% will
- cut down only 200 RPM initially. <- This, is not
- what I think happens in the game, but just an
- example of how little we know how the CEM in FB
- actually works.
-
-
- As I said, it is actually very possible,
- that the VVS planes as portrayed, could be too low
- in decceleration rates - but at any rate 1) it would
- always be less responsive than how the German planes
- work, and 2) proving this fact, still needs hard
- evidence we may compare - such as data, or analysis
- on how aerodynamical drag kicks in at a certain
- situation with a certain plane.

Not so. When power is pulled the effect should be instantaneous. It's not as currently modeled in selected aircraft. But it USED to be in versions prior to 1.11.

- As mentioned, the second requirement, I've yet to
- see any. It's all speculations, or loose comparisons
- with modern day CSP planes which fly much slower
- than any of the WW2 war planes.

Nonsense. EVERY aircraft (civilian and military) I've ever flown behaves in the manner in which I've described. There are NONE that behave differently...except in this sim.

- A decrease in speed from a small civilian craft
- which flies 150km/h, and dumps 50km/h of speed,
- accounts for 33% loss in speed and may seem
- signigicant, but for a plane flying at 500km/h and
- dumping 100km/h, it's still only 20% even when the
- actual loss of speed is double than that of the
- smaller, civilian plane.
-
-
- Oleg has already spoken that it's not wrong, and
- it'd damn help if he explained to us how VVS planes
- worked actually.

No, Oleg stated that it isn't a bug. What's patently clear is that it's a conscious programming gimmick with no relevance in the real world. Again, this condition was introduced in FB 1.11. It didn't exist before that.

- A more practical request, than insisting that
- there's a bug with what we don't fully understand,

But I do understand. Respectfully, your remarks showcase that you neither understand the initial question being asked nor have a grasp regarding how power (not RPM) in aircraft works.

- would be the request to employ the actual mechanical
- linkage systems as seen in some VVS/USAAF craft like
- the P-39 or the P-47 - which the end result would be
- pretty simular to the German planes.

All of which have nothing to do with the fact that power reductions in Yaks, LAs, P-47s (and maybe others) take a lot of time to be realized while those in 109G-2s do not.

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 08:25 PM
"Pull power in a 109G-2 and it comes off immediately; pull power in a Yak, LA, or P-47 and you wait...and wait...and wait for power to be reduced."

This statement simply isn't true. Chopping throttle in a G2 with auto pitch has practically the same effect as chopping throttle in a Yak3 with prop pitch 100%, actually the Yak3 will decelerate slightly quicker over a long time (over 20 seconds).

I don't care what the engine sounds like. For one thing you actually hear the propellor more than the engine (why I dunno, goofy sound engine).

I don't particularly care what the guages read (in a completely different thread a beta tester said he understood that the guage reading were window dressing and did not necisarily reflect what the FM was doing).

All I care about is deceleration. Without power the plane decelerates. If a Yak3 didn't lose power from chopping the throttle then it wouldn't decelerate. But it does decelerate from chopping the throttle, in fact it decelerates more from chopping the throttle than does a G2.

Pipper's original complaint was based upon the G2 decelerating quicker than the Yak3, but his tests were flawed because they involved means of deceleration other than just chopping the throttle. If you make a test so that the only means by which the plane decelerates is the chopping of the throttle then you see all planes are pretty similar.

I'm not saying the G2 doesn't decelerate batter than a Yak3 in a scissors, i'm saying the fact that it does has nothing to do with differences in throttle response.


-----------------------------------------------------------


The other day I had another experience in a 109E4 where the throttle did not respond.

-moving the throttle changed the throttle % diplayed in the lower right, but had no effect on actual throttle.

-"shift-0" should be "toggle auto pitch" but it did not work, no message, no pitch change, nothing, no pitch control at all.

-both my engine and my elevatorcontrols were damaged, as was the case when this happened in the He111 and the other time in the 109E4.

-i am wondering if it is the elevator control damage that does this, rather than engine damage, as it has never happened in a 190 (no control cable damage in that plane)

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 09:31 PM
GR142-Pipper wrote:
-
- No, Oleg stated that it isn't a bug. What's patently
- clear is that it's a conscious programming gimmick
- with no relevance in the real world. Again, this
- condition was introduced in FB 1.11. It didn't exist
- before that.

Hi Pipper,

There are some 'manifold' system changes marked for version 1.2, don't know if you've heard of it. As well as some remodelling work for the 109 series generally. Part of what makes this forum so fun is the tendency people have to demand answers or explanations from Oleg and then not listen once they're given.

You have received an answer - that this is not actually considered a bug. There was recently a number of threads noting that Oleg tends to turn up a lot less often when people act in a hostile manner towards him. You might want to consider that before you take any more of the cheap shots.

Frankly I have no idea as to why the power drop off might vary between plane models - people have suggested reasons to you. When people indulge you in a non flaming, extended reply it's generally considered good manners to return the favour. The impressions I've gotten so far from your posts are:

a) you have no intention of actually producing any documented proof of what you claim. You have not even produced so much as a log of speeds, let alone a track file. When people provided you with a log of speeds at times from power dropoff you seem to have dismissed them out of hand and then moved the goalposts quite considerably.

b) you don't seem to actually have a clear idea about the 'bug' you think is occuring in the game. First it's a problem with the engine systems, next it's a problem with E retention during scissors. For some reason you seem to hold people in quite low intellectual regard for not having magically figured this out from your first post.

c) people who have taken a great deal of time to explain what they think might be happening have been treated rather harshly by yourself. However stupid you seem to think you're making them look, I assure you that the only thing you are accomplishing is to make people remember not to bother being civil with you in future.

- All of which have nothing to do with the fact that
- power reductions in Yaks, LAs, P-47s (and maybe
- others) take a lot of time to be realized while
- those in 109G-2s do not.

Where is the evidence of this? There have been a few comparisons done about E-retention in planes - Alex Voicus work on La7 vs 109K4 comparisons is available here: http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004160#000000 - if you can't do at least as good a job as that I think you'd best close your mouth lest someone stick something nasty in it.

People have actually taken the time needed to test your claims and found that they simply don't match up with in game behaviour - all planes seem to decelerate at similar rates. During hard scissors and instant turns they lose energy at different rates - what you need to do is log and analyse what you think is happening. Like Alex did.

Not make wild claims, get a reponse from the developer, insult him, have people help you out with your testing, insult them, and then say you were claiming a different thing all along than what you said in your first post.

Hope this helps.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:05 PM
GR142-Pipper wrote:

"- All of which have nothing to do with the fact that
- power reductions in Yaks, LAs, P-47s (and maybe
- others) take a lot of time to be realized while
- those in 109G-2s do not.
-
- GR142-Pipper"

Man I'm really sorry but I have to agree with Chadburn & Fillmore. I just don't see it. I tried out an LA-7 last night & found that in level flight when you pull power it does take a little longer than other planes to lose it's first 10kph. But the speed does start decreasing immediately. It loses speed much faster if you pull power while maneuvering. Maybe you could post a track showing the problem? When I get home from work tonight I'll make one in the Bf-109 & the La-7 & post them up. If you don't have any place to host them email them to me & I can post them. I really believe it's more of an aerodynamics/e-bleed/wingloading problem than a power problem. I don't mean to be argumentative but I really believe that with your real world pilot experience the manifold pressure & engine sound expectations are so ingrained that they're scewing your perception of the problem.

Kweassa as I understand you, you contend that since the german planes in FB reduce rpm & throttle at the same time they should slow down more quickly? This is wrong.

You also seem to be under the impression that the purpose of the automatic prop control systems on the german planes was to somehow make them more responsive? This is also incorrect. The sole purpose of the Kommandogerat on the Fw-190 & the automatic prop controls on the Bf-109 was to make the planes easier to fly & to lessen the pilots work load. They were never about making the planes more responsive.

Cheers.....Smokin256

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 12:18 AM
clint-ruin wrote:
- GR142-Pipper wrote:
--
-- No, Oleg stated that it isn't a bug. What's patently
-- clear is that it's a conscious programming gimmick
-- with no relevance in the real world. Again, this
-- condition was introduced in FB 1.11. It didn't exist
-- before that.
-
- Hi Pipper,
-
- There are some 'manifold' system changes marked for
- version 1.2, don't know if you've heard of it.

No, I haven't heard about this.

- As
- well as some remodelling work for the 109 series
- generally. Part of what makes this forum so fun is
- the tendency people have to demand answers or
- explanations from Oleg and then not listen once
- they're given.

The only answer that I've received is that he responded that the condition "isn't a bug". Given that it wasn't present in 1.1 or previous versions, then it's clear that it was a conscious programming decision.

- You have received an answer - that this is not
- actually considered a bug. There was recently a
- number of threads noting that Oleg tends to turn up
- a lot less often when people act in a hostile manner
- towards him. You might want to consider that before
- you take any more of the cheap shots.

Easy there, cowboy. To be clear, I don't take any cheap shots. I call them like I see them...no more, no less. If Oleg doesn't want to show up, that's his business.
-
- Frankly I have no idea as to why the power drop off
- might vary between plane models - people have
- suggested reasons to you. When people indulge you
- in a non flaming, extended reply it's generally
- considered good manners to return the favour. The
- impressions I've gotten so far from your posts are:
-
- a) you have no intention of actually producing any
- documented proof of what you claim. You have not
- even produced so much as a log of speeds, let alone
- a track file. When people provided you with a log
- of speeds at times from power dropoff you seem to
- have dismissed them out of hand and then moved the
- goalposts quite considerably.

It's amazing how some people (take you, for instance) offer your commentary without seemingly even bothering to read the thread. Here's what I've stated in summary:

1. I've made it chrystal clear that there's an issue with the power reduction that not only I but others have seen as well.

2. I've offered FIRST-HAND commentary that NOT ONE civilian and military propellor-driven aircraft that I've flown has exhibited the time delay when pulling power.

3. I've asked if anyone can offer ONE example where this was the case in ANY piston-engined fighter they're aware of (none have thusfar).

4. I've given five scenarios where this condition is readily observed.

- b) you don't seem to actually have a clear idea
- about the 'bug' you think is occuring in the game.

Chrystal clear.

- First it's a problem with the engine systems, next
- it's a problem with E retention during scissors.
- For some reason you seem to hold people in quite low
- intellectual regard for not having magically figured
- this out from your first post.

There's only ONE issue...power reduction time. The scenarios are those in which this condition is easily observed.

- c) people who have taken a great deal of time to
- explain what they think might be happening have been
- treated rather harshly by yourself.

I haven't treated anyone harsly. Many of those who have commented don't understand the difference between power and RPM.

- However stupid
- you seem to think you're making them look, I assure
- you that the only thing you are accomplishing is to
- make people remember not to bother being civil with
- you in future.

No one is trying to make anyone look stupid. All I'm trying to do is to bring this matter to the attention of the programmers. If they want to fix it they will; if they don't then they won't.

-- All of which have nothing to do with the fact that
-- power reductions in Yaks, LAs, P-47s (and maybe
-- others) take a lot of time to be realized while
-- those in 109G-2s do not.
-
- Where is the evidence of this?

Christ, play the game, test the aircraft and find out. Geez.

- There have been a
- few comparisons done about E-retention in planes -
- Alex Voicus work on La7 vs 109K4 comparisons is
- available here: <a
- href="http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/
- bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004160#000
- 000"
- target=_blank>http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims
- /boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=00
- 4160#000000</a> - if you can't do at least as good a
- job as that I think you'd best close your mouth lest
- someone stick something nasty in it.

C'mon...grow up a little.

- People have actually taken the time needed to test
- your claims and found that they simply don't match
- up with in game behaviour - all planes seem to
- decelerate at similar rates. During hard scissors
- and instant turns they lose energy at different
- rates - what you need to do is log and analyse what
- you think is happening. Like Alex did.

The only test that was done were straight line deceleration tests. Those that have done the landing tests (one of the 5 that I suggested people try), the argument is in my favor.

- Not make wild claims, get a reponse from the
- developer, insult him, have people help you out with
- your testing, insult them, and then say you were
- claiming a different thing all along than what you
- said in your first post.

No claims were wild. All have been backed up by my (and my other pilot friends) first-hand experience and the fact that this power reduction condition was first introduced in 1.1.

- Hope this helps.

Why should it help? You haven't said anything.

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 01:11 AM
Fillmore wrote:
- "Pull power in a 109G-2 and it comes off
- immediately; pull power in a Yak, LA, or P-47 and
- you wait...and wait...and wait for power to be
- reduced."
-
- This statement simply isn't true. Chopping throttle
- in a G2 with auto pitch has practically the same
- effect as chopping throttle in a Yak3 with prop
- pitch 100%, actually the Yak3 will decelerate
- slightly quicker over a long time (over 20 seconds).
-
- I don't care what the engine sounds like. For one
- thing you actually hear the propellor more than the
- engine (why I dunno, goofy sound engine).
-
- I don't particularly care what the guages read (in a
- completely different thread a beta tester said he
- understood that the guage reading were window
- dressing and did not necisarily reflect what the FM
- was doing).
-
- All I care about is deceleration. Without power the
- plane decelerates. If a Yak3 didn't lose power from
- chopping the throttle then it wouldn't decelerate.
- But it does decelerate from chopping the throttle,
- in fact it decelerates more from chopping the
- throttle than does a G2.
-
- Pipper's original complaint was based upon the G2
- decelerating quicker than the Yak3, but his tests
- were flawed because they involved means of
- deceleration other than just chopping the throttle.
- If you make a test so that the only means by which
- the plane decelerates is the chopping of the
- throttle then you see all planes are pretty similar.

Actually, my original issue was with the fact that Yak/LA aircraft don't lose power for up to 7-10 seconds after a throttle cut while others (I used a 109G-2) did.

- I'm not saying the G2 doesn't decelerate batter than
- a Yak3 in a scissors, i'm saying the fact that it
- does has nothing to do with differences in throttle
- response.

Respectfully, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. Engine power affects directly affects an aircraft's maneuvering parameters in a first-order way. There are specific reasons to cut power and when this is artificially prohibited, then the flight characteristics of the aircraft in question are adversely impacted. You see it otherwise, so be it.

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 06:38 AM
I just had a little play with the Yak 3 and the G2. They seemed to decelerate at roughly the same speed despite the Russian aircraft holding it's revs much longer - and thus the sound of the engine staying more prominent. I could also bleed speed off as much as the G2 in those situations that demand it so it looks like power is being dropped even though the engine is still spinning quickly.

Something did bother me though regards the engine but i'll leave you in suspense until i've tested it online.


Lixma,

Blitzpig.

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 07:14 AM
"Actually, my original issue was with the fact that Yak/LA aircraft don't lose power for up to 7-10 seconds after a throttle cut while others (I used a 109G-2) did."

But they do lose power, they lose it immediately, and to the same extent that a G2 does. You want it tested in a scissors, but that will result in speed loss from factors other than power loss. I tested it in such a way that power loss was the one and only thing that resulted in deceleration and it showed that Yak3 and G2 were very similar.

Today I was flying a Stuka on a landing approach. I cut the throttle and my immediate reaction was omg, the throttle isn't responding, nothing is happening, i'm sure I didn't take damage, what's going on? Well, what was going on was that I was in a slight descent, the engine was still at high RPM (constant speed prop) and it seemed for all the world that cutting the throttle had done nothing. But when I looked at my speed I could see it was slowly decresing (remember that cutting throttle doesn't slow any plane down near as much as shutting off engine). The fact that the engine sound is tied to the prop's RPM and not to the throttle can be very disorienting.

I would be interested in why/how/if it is correct - the *huge* difference between setting throttle to 0% and shutting off the engine, but I see no evidence whatsoever that reducing throttle to 0% results in significantly different power for different planes (yes the RPMs are different, yes the sounds are different, but measuring power output by relative rates of deceleration has shown them to be similar).

I think you see the RPMs stay the same, and hear the engine sound the same, and think the engine is still putting full power when it isn't. You get in a G2 and the RPMs go down, and the engine sound changes immediately and you think it lost power where the LA didn't. But if you test the power output you will see that they both lose the same amount of power, it's just that planes with CSP don't give the proper feedback that the power has been reduced.

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 07:48 AM
The yak, La, and most russian aircraft have a constant speed propeller. You are not going to lose engine RPM if you pull the throttle to idle, your going to lose manifold pressure. Your engine wont "slow down" because your CSP is attempting to maintain the set RPM, and the engine will not decrease RPMs until the prop does not have enough energy to continue spinning at the set speed.

Before you say something is a 'bug' maybe you should do a little more research on your topic.

-EDIT-
And the reason the German aircraft lose RPM very soon after decreasing throttle is due to a control system that maximises performance for the prop (RPM) at a given throttle setting (manifold pressure, in atmospheres, ATA gauge), ie, Kommandgrat (spelling) on the Fw-190. It controls the propeller pitch until you go into a manual mode.

Message Edited on 10/30/0309:53PM by CARBONFREEZE

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 08:07 AM
Here are a couple of tracks.

http://home1.gte.net/res0rrxk/files/test_tracks.zip

One thing I found very interesting is that in the La-7. If you cut the throttle while you are descending even slightly, it doesn't lose any speed at all. it just begins to descend a little faster. If you are flying straight & level & hold the nose up or are maneuvering while you cut the throttle it loses speed as other planes do. The Fw-190A8 acts this way also. The Bf-109 loses speed & then begins to descend even if you've started out in a very slight descent. Wierd!



Cheers.......Smokin256

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 08:10 AM
Hey! Thanks for poppin' in Carbonfreeze but you really gotta read the whole thread!........ Yep the whole thing /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers......Smokin256

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 08:28 AM
I attempted to simplify it to the maximum for Pipper, due to the fact that he is not playing with a full deck.

BTW I won't be looking at this thread anymore. No point.

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 08:31 AM
CARBONFREEZE wrote:
- The yak, La, and most russian aircraft have a
- constant speed propeller. You are not going to lose
- engine RPM if you pull the throttle to idle, your
- going to lose manifold pressure.

Yes...and POWER. Trouble is that power reduction is very slow to take effect.

_ Your engine wont
- "slow down" because your CSP is attempting to
- maintain the set RPM, and the engine will not
- decrease RPMs until the prop does not have enough
- energy to continue spinning at the set speed.
-
- Before you say something is a 'bug' maybe you should
- do a little more research on your topic.

Perhaps you should understand that this entire thread has nothing to do with props...and everything to do with POWER. Furthermore, I did extensive engagement testing with the Yak-3 and LA-5FN/7. In addition, the G2 was included as an adversary in these tests (because when power is cut in the G2 it reacts immediately and achieves an immediate lowering of its energy state). All tests have confirmed my commentary which is why I bothered to post in the first place.

The testing shows that the G2 is VERY lethal in the close-in engagement scenario when it should be eaten alive, especially by the Yaks. Why? The G2 can cut its power (which reacts immediately) and force the other aircraft to overshoot (because their engines are slow in losing power). I've reversed the scenarios where I've flown the G2 against the Yaks/LAs and I can force them to overshoot nearly every time and quickly gain (and maintain) the offensive.

Yet again, this isn't a prop issue....it's POWER.

--EDIT-
- And the reason the German aircraft lose RPM very
- soon after decreasing throttle is due to a control
- system that maximises performance for the prop (RPM)
- at a given throttle setting (manifold pressure, in
- atmospheres, ATA gauge), ie, Kommandgrat (spelling)
- on the Fw-190. It controls the propeller pitch until
- you go into a manual mode.

Respectfully, props have nothing to do with the power issue being discussed.

Anyway, I've made my point and I know what the reality of this sim is (at present) regarding specific aircraft engine power behavior. If it's fixed, it's fixed; if not, then not.

It's just a game...a terrific game to be sure...but a game nonetheless and I've spent far too much time on this.

Thanks everyone (pro and con) for offering your comments.

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 09:41 AM
"because when power is cut in the G2 it reacts immediately and achieves an immediate lowering of its energy state"

When the throttle is lowered by the throttle lever, the 109s also simultaneously cut down the prop revolution rates by coarsening the prop pitch. The RPM management and power rates, are interlinked into a single lever.

VVS planes, don't do that. They fine the pitch out.

While the throttle is idle, gradually the drag of the props will bring the speed down, acting as a brake. However, you cannot expect Yak with a windmilling prop which continuously fines its prop angle to meet as less air as possible, to deccelerate as fast as Bf109 with a prop which coarsens the prop angle as high as possible, cutting through globs of air like a shovel.

...

I say this again: when the Bf109s are subjected to the same(simulated) control method as the VVS planes - throttle to idle, but prop angle fined out, to retain initial RPM rates before throttle cut, their decceleration rates are NOT that different, from the Yaks and the Las. As quoted in my test, both the 109 and the Yak lost 100km/h IAS speed in 27 seconds.

You're keep saying that you refuse to bring the RPM factor into this discussion, but unfortunately, the tests prove that the differences between certain planes, are caused by how they manage their prop revolution rates - NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH POWER.

What you intentionally leave out from this discussion, is what causes the difference.









-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 09:53 AM
Now, as it is, what Smokin noticed, is very intriguing, as I noticed it also.

Initially, my test was planned to record the time of decceleration from 450km/h IAS to 250km/h - but the problem was, as the power was cut the speed fell down, and as a result, the airspeed was not high enough to retain a level flight with "lock stabilizers" option turned on.

What happened with the Yak, was it entered a slow but steady decent, of probably less than 1000m per minute rate - and this decent rate was windmilling the props to retain speed of 260km/h - it refused to go down under that, even when the engine was running idle.

Now, the same thing happened to the Bf109 also. When throttle was cut, but prop pitch was altered and fined out, to retain 2700rpm, the slight decent rate, kept the plane's speed at near 270km/h, and it refused to go down lower than that. Only when auto was turned back on(thus, props coarsening out to maximum and RPM rates dropping rapidly), did the Bf109 lose speed and stall out.

It could be, either the prop efficiency is too great, or the windmilling causes too much revolutions.

One thing for certain, is when the two different planes were put under the same situation, they both deccelerated at almost identical rate. It is not, a power issue. It's a prop-RPM issue.






-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 10:00 AM
Oh..

Audible sounds are not to be used as a standard for judging power rates. Many games implement a fixed engine sound, and alter it's pitch to depict engine power, according to the RPM rate - since most games assume higher power setting will mean higher RPM rate.


-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 12:38 AM
A fine pitched windmilling prop will present more drag than a coarse pitched windmilling prop. The latter has the blades more faced into the direction of flight and drives the engine less (windmilling) as in slower. I guess it's easy to get turned around when fixated on a goal.

From aviation articles about top speeds in dives there is time and again the statement that a spinning prop presents about the same drag as a disk as wide as the prop. Why would a stopped engine and prop make more drag?

Power is not prop revs or sound. If Pipper has flown as he says then he should know the difference. Maybe his install has some bad bytes? This has been known to happen, bugs that don't or do crash the software and yet disappear with a clean install.

I can see that only one member here has the cojones to post a track supporting his words, btw.


Neal