PDA

View Full Version : Just curious, when you run out of fuel...



Scragbat
08-17-2007, 06:58 AM
In Il-2 if I'm careless enough to let this happen or unfortunate enough to have a punctured tank and it empties prematurely, I can usually manage to get it back down to earth in one piece by gliding it down and going full flaps. It rarely ends in disaster.

Is this realistic? Something tells me that when the engine dies, without the pull of the prop you would drop like a brick! This is always at the back of my mind when it happens...

So should we be able to glide these birds down this easily when the engine dies???

Scrag

JG52Uther
08-17-2007, 07:13 AM
I would imagine it depends on the aircraft.I have read for example,that if the engine quit on a FW190 then all you could do would bail out,as it would drop like a stone.

Spaturnio
08-17-2007, 07:22 AM
So should we be able to glide these birds down this easily when the engine dies???

Scrag
Usaf train pilots to glide down with engine out inside an F-16, and it can be done as far as enegy power is supplied to the fly by wire, so you can figure out yourself comparing wingload of a bisonic jet and, say a Spitfire.

The only plane which required bailout in case of engine stop was the F104, because much of it's lift comes from engine blown air on the wing surfaces...

No engine = bricklike gliding path http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
08-17-2007, 07:50 AM
Glide Ratio rocks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

My little Cessna has a 7:1 GR. While I'm sure the WWII birds GR is considerably less (I think it's about 3:1) it's still enough to get down ok in most circumstances.



TB

p-11.cAce
08-17-2007, 08:06 AM
All aircraft can glide and successfully land - including the F-104. Airplanes fly by moving through the air - as long as they are moving through the air at the proper speed they fly just fine, regardless of the source of that speed - be it engine or gravity. The F-104 did use "blown flaps" to improve low speed handling but the aircraft could be (and was) successfully dead-sticked in without them.
The real question is finding an appropriate space to land on and get slowed to a stop without killing yourself. No problem in most WWII aircraft. The F-104 touches down at 190kts and needs a paved surface - unless you are up high and over a long runway you are safer ejecting.

csthopper
08-17-2007, 08:19 AM
What isn't very realistic is the almost always perfect terrain you get to land/ditch onto in IL2. It would cool in future Maddox sims if the terrain only had a couple textures that you could land on, like a road, or a farmer's field.

Part of me always likes the part where your plane is shot to hell and you're force to make a crazy landing, or ditch it into the ground. I alway laugh at the panic the ensues when you're gas tank is smoking, then 200 yards from the landing strip it catches on fire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

rnzoli
08-17-2007, 08:26 AM
It rarely ends in disaster. Is this realistic?
Running out of fuel happened in WWII as well. Usually the reason was getting lost in weather. But it rarely ended in disaster, as long as a suitable place was found for an emergency landing. Most disasters occurred when no such place was available. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

T_O_A_D
08-17-2007, 09:15 AM
Hmm we discussed this a while back about the 109.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/682...821068675#6821068675 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6821068675?r=6821068675#6821068675)

I can usually find a way to salvage it.

carguy_
08-17-2007, 09:20 AM
It`s far too easy to bring back the plane to earth in a calm manner.

Even if the gliding part is relatively realistic, the crash with earth is not.In the game, crashlandings are easy for a veteran. I can do one anytime.

In real life, even a shallowest belly landing would make your bones break, set the plane on fire, or flip over and explode.Anyone who wanted to pull one out from a situation that at the start gave him chance to bail, was a very brave pilot.

tomtheyak
08-17-2007, 09:21 AM
Paul Richey in his book 'Fighter Pilot' describes a good deadstick - tghough not from lack of fuel, incidentally... he went a bit too high without oxygen and realising this came down a bit too quick, letting his old wooden bladed prop overrev and disintergrate! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

He switched off the engine and as he was quite high he managed to make it back to his own a/f. Pre-war RAF flying technique was very focused on deadstick landings (probably as a result of some unreliability of first and 2nd generation aero-engines) and no doubt helped in him making a very accomplished approach and landing!


The famous Spitfire test pilot Alex Henshaw once had a bad one when the skew gear in a Mk. V he was flying stripped and left his engine devoid of ignition bang over the industrial depths of Birmingham! He daren't bail because of the aircraft crashing and no doubt killing people in the densely built-up area below so he elected to ride her in and aimed for an allotment garden on the banks of a canal behind a row of terraced houses - unfortunately someone had left the camera door on the port wing open and it caused the wing to stall early. The resultant 'arrival' left the Merlin in the kitchen of one abode, the rear fuselage in one garden and the centre fuselage cockpit section miraculously intact in yet another with a somewhat surprised Henshaw escaping with only cuts and bruises!

Chuck Yeager also had many deadsticks in all sorts of types including fast jet prototypes.

I only do it when I'm confident or feeling particularly lucky - indeed, the last time it happened I was online; I glided gently back to base, did a nice circuit, a greaser of a landing - flukey! - and was just letting a smug grin crease my features when some ignorant twit - despite my repeated warnings of my situation and requests for others to hold off - landed in the opposite direction and collided with me... (sigh) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

It seems most pilots are the same - deadsticks are a one mistake deal, you dont get another chance so you gotta be feeling pretty good to give it go, even if you think you can make an airfield; without the latter option I think most would bail.

rr9
08-17-2007, 09:24 AM
"Most disasters occurred when no such place was available."

Like above the sea. During BoB Germans lost quite a few Me109s that ran out of fuel and never made it cross the channel.

Sergio_101
08-17-2007, 09:24 AM
Realistic, no.
Only because there is nearly always a air base or flat terrain in this game.

Glide ratios in this game are a bit silly though.
Most of these planes would drop like a brick with engine out (depending on air speed).
The reason is that big prop. A dead engine acts
as an air brake.

Yes, F-104 Starfighter(s) have been succesfully dead sticked.

sergio

djetz
08-17-2007, 09:29 AM
I've read a number of true accounts from WW2 where planes ran out of fuel or had their engine disabled and managed to glide in for a safe landing.

As for terrain, I've also read accounts of four engined heavy bombers like the Lancaster and the B17 making successful emergency landings in fields and so on. If a heavy could do it, a fighter could do it a lot easier.

Landing in a field to rescue a shot-down comrade also happened. It sounds like the sort of thing you'd see in a movie, but there are documented cases of it actually happening.

stanford-ukded
08-17-2007, 10:05 AM
Indeed, I believe twin engined Beau's of 227 squadron actually landed in the North African desert to pick up ditched aircrew.

rnzoli
08-17-2007, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
In real life, even a shallowest belly landing would make your bones break, set the plane on fire, or flip over and explode.Anyone who wanted to pull one out from a situation that at the start gave him chance to bail, was a very brave pilot.
True for the risks of landing in the field, but let's not forget the risks of bailing! That was way more risky than sky diving today. I feel from the accounts I read that lots of pilots preferred to stay inside even seriously damaged aircraft, as long as a realistic chance was available to get way with minor injuries.

rnzoli
08-17-2007, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by djetz:
If a heavy could do it, a fighter could do it a lot easier.
A fighter flips over easier (lighter) and disintegrates easier (smaller). The only advantage of the fighter is the lack (or easy disposal) of bombs before landing.

rnzoli
08-17-2007, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
The reason is that big prop. A dead engine acts
as an air brake.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif "Feathering" the prop solves this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Although I wonder, if this is modelled in the game.

GreyFox5
08-17-2007, 10:25 AM
I was in a Coop this past Tuesday and I had a punctured tank in a A6M5 Zero. Got the Engine Out of Fuel message and the prop stopped I was at 3,000m at the time and I glided almost halfway across the island I was over and successfully landed dead stick at the assigned base for the Blue planes. I just floated it was a little strange. And I think I touched down at 90km/s I was really slow. In a Bf-109 it is heaver so it is harder to dead stick. The Bf-110 is a brick and you have to have lots of speed to get it on the ground safely.

Sergio_101
08-17-2007, 10:33 AM
B-17 and Lancaster (Manchester) were designed for
rough fields, note the HUGE tires.

They are so large on a B-17 that they look like a cartoon character.

No WWII single engined fighter that I am aware of had the ability
to feather the prop.

Sergio

slipBall
08-17-2007, 10:34 AM
Glide her in.........I remember when in flight school, we were tought to shear off the wings using two tree's when needed...I hope sow damage model will allow this, it would be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

carguy_
08-17-2007, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
True for the risks of landing in the field, but let's not forget the risks of bailing! That was way more risky than sky diving today. I feel from the accounts I read that lots of pilots preferred to stay inside even seriously damaged aircraft, as long as a realistic chance was available to get way with minor injuries.

Yes,although the fact that many of them choose to land the aircraft does not neccesary mean that it was any more dangerous.Many other factors influenced such a decision.While we can`t judge those,we can say that certain planes were much more ditch-friendly than others.Clostermann recalls a pilot trying to land a deadstick Typhoon which unfortunately fell into the ground like a rock.He had a chance to bail in that particular situation.

rnzoli
08-17-2007, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
No WWII single engined fighter that I am aware of had the ability to feather the prop.

I don't recall any fighter pilot doing that either. But how about prop pitch? Even if not completely feathered, a lower pitch would induce less drag, me thinks.

edit: some info I found on this:


P-38 pilots relate the story of an apparently new-in-theater pilot who
called over the radio, "Mayday! I've been hit and am losing coolant. What
should I do." To which a P-38 pilot replied, "Calm down. Just feather the
prop and trim for single-engine flight and you'll get home okay." There is
a long pause, and then the first pilot says, "Feather it, hell! I'm in a P-51."



One observation on the P51H. On the screen shots I've been seeing of this version on the Shockwave website, the prop pitch with the airplane parked looks to be almost in feather. This is an impossible pitch for this propeller.
The prop on the H was an Aeroproducts hollow blade A542B2 propeller with a low pitch of 23 degrees. This prop, even in low pitch couldn't be placed in the angle shown.

Scragbat
08-17-2007, 11:47 AM
Very informative replies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Never heard of a GR before. I thought a deadstick was loss of surface control.

<shuffles away embarassed>

Always learning!

Thanks
Scrag

Choctaw111
08-17-2007, 11:51 AM
Even in a 190 you can put it in a dive and have plenty of speed left over when you pull out close to the ground for a landing. You can do that in any of the planes I have tried in Il2. As far as the pogo grass, that is another matter. With those tail draggers...sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't.

p-11.cAce
08-17-2007, 11:55 AM
While you may not be able to feather the prop - going to coarse pitch and slowing the a/c to stop the prop from windmilling is almost as good as being feathered. Its the windmilling prop that is a giant airbrake- once its stopped the resistance is minimal.

DKoor
08-17-2007, 11:58 AM
I would bail out cos there are trees and other objects unlike in game where you just find the area without forest and those few trees (near towns) and you can land at least 9/10 successfully with just about any crate.
Things is.............you can suffer great injuries in tumbling, ac can be set on fire all kind of messy things can happen.
And are likely to happen unlike in the game where there is absolutely no damage at all to the crew............they can only die from burning or ac explosion, no other possible accidents.

You can even survive by ditching hundreds of miles from nowhere in Pacific ocean...............which is about 80% unreal. At least.
In most such cases aviators just died.

OD_
08-17-2007, 12:46 PM
Having flown gliders and having completed a few engine off landings in powered aircraft you can glide anything...even a 747 if you feel so inclined. Picking the right spot to land is the hard part. What looks flat from the air can be very very bumpy when you get closer to it! Persoanlly when I was supposed to be picking a place to land on simulated engine failures I was tempted to choose the River Trent to land on...a bit softer than some of the farmland around the airfield. Didn't think the instructor would have approved though!

OD.

rnzoli
08-17-2007, 03:24 PM
even a 747 if you feel so inclined

Or the 156-ton Gimli Glider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider)
You can find similar incidents at the end of the article. I glanced through it, it is pretty well written.

WhtBoy
08-17-2007, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
In real life, even a shallowest belly landing would make your bones break, set the plane on fire, or flip over and explode.

Totally and completely untrue IF you can find a nice place to land. There were hundreds and hundreds of successful fighter and bomber belly landings during the war and there have been many more since.

--Outlaw.

mortoma
08-17-2007, 04:36 PM
A Boeing 767 was dead sticked to a abandoned military airfield in Canada a few years back. Somehow the pilot/copilot took off with insufficient fuel. The 767 is considered a "heavy" airliner and if you can dead stick one of those, you could do it with any aircraft. The Space Shuttle does not have a very good glide ratio and they have never crashed one due to not being able to glide one in.

SeaFireLIV
08-17-2007, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Scragbat:


Is this realistic? Something tells me that when the engine dies, without the pull of the prop you would drop like a brick! This is always at the back of my mind when it happens...

So should we be able to glide these birds down this easily when the engine dies???

Scrag

I have no actual aeronautical experience at all, but it`s always felt logical that something with a broad flat area should act better in the air than something not! for example, throwing paper gliders made at school always flew better than a screwed up piece of paper. Also, seeing actual gliders glide without power said much also.

So, I came to IL2 and earlier sims fully expecting to be able to glide if my engine had gone, the aircraft was air worthy and I had enough energy and altitude...

Now, a helicopter is another matter, being very unglider-like...

carguy_
08-17-2007, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by WhtBoy:
Totally and completely untrue IF you can find a nice place to land. There were hundreds and hundreds of successful fighter and bomber belly landings during the war and there have been many more since.

--Outlaw.

Well you don`t saaaay?Really?Have there been any succesful em. landings?I don`t believe it!

Well go ahead, go fetch a WWII warbird, take it into the air, shut the engine and electronics off and go land on a perfectly smooth field.Go back and tell me you didn`t #### your pants doing it.

slipBall
08-17-2007, 04:50 PM
I'm not sure how it work's but a helicopter has stored energy or something like that "autorotate",...that in case of engine failure it can still set down

SeaFireLIV
08-17-2007, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
I'm not sure how it work's but a helicopter has stored energy or something like that "autorotate",...that in case of engine failure it can still set down

It`s autorotation. This is where the rotors are disengaged from the engine. If done quickly at time of failure, the rotors will keep spinning, giving `bite` and allowing the pilot a chance to make an emergency landing. It`s not gliding.

Miss the autorotate and you drop like a stone.

mortoma
08-17-2007, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
I'm not sure how it work's but a helicopter has stored energy or something like that "autorotate",...that in case of engine failure it can still set down

It`s autorotation. This is where the rotors are disengaged from the engine. If done quickly at time of failure, the rotors will keep spinning, giving `bite` and allowing the pilot a chance to make an emergency landing. It`s not gliding.

Miss the autorotate and you drop like a stone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually you're right and wrong. You do have to disengage fast but if you push the cyclic forward you do indeed get a kind of glide going as you descend forward. The air rushing through the rotor blades helps keep them going fast and it keeps the glide ratio to a reasonable level. That's how the old autogyros worked. They had no power going to the blades at all, nor did they have much of a wing. Instead there was a regular prop just like an airplane and as you rolled on takeoff the rotor blades would start rotating from the air rushing through them. Some autogyros had a small motor that applied some intital power to them to get them rotating first, so as to reduce the takeoff distance. This is called a prerotate, IIRC. But after takeoff, that motor could be stopped and disengaged from the rotors. But just air rushing through unpowered rotors does indeed provide lift. So you can glide a helo, just that most do not glide very well. My fixed wing instructor was both a fixed wing and helo pilot in Viet Nam. He flew small fixed wing Cessna types for forward air observation to detect enemy and direct fire and then later switched to helos as they need them badly. Mortoma explains all once again.

WhtBoy
08-17-2007, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Well you don`t saaaay?Really?Have there been any succesful em. landings?I don`t believe it!

Well go ahead, go fetch a WWII warbird, take it into the air, shut the engine and electronics off and go land on a perfectly smooth field.Go back and tell me you didn`t #### your pants doing it.

I never said it wouldn't have a high pucker factor or risk, nor that I, having a grand total of 6 hours of dual instruction in single engine GA aircraft could do it. However, given a suitable spot to perform the operation, some luck, and a trained pilot, it's pretty obvious that...


In real life, even a shallowest belly landing would make your bones break, set the plane on fire, or flip over and explode.

is NOT true, or there would have NEVER been ANY successful landings.

--Outlaw.

flaming_onion
08-17-2007, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by WhtBoy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Well you don`t saaaay?Really?Have there been any succesful em. landings?I don`t believe it!

Well go ahead, go fetch a WWII warbird, take it into the air, shut the engine and electronics off and go land on a perfectly smooth field.Go back and tell me you didn`t #### your pants doing it.



I never said it wouldn't have a high pucker factor or risk, nor that I, having a grand total of 6 hours of dual instruction in single engine GA aircraft could do it. However, given a suitable spot to perform the operation, some luck, and a trained pilot, it's pretty obvious that...


In real life, even a shallowest belly landing would make your bones break, set the plane on fire, or flip over and explode.

is NOT true, or there would have NEVER been ANY successful landings.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In 1989 Sir Tim Wallis, due to unfamiliarity with his aircraft's fuel system, had to belly land his Mk XVI Spitfire in a field. He walked away unaided, and the aircraft was salvaged and is still flying today. If a civvy pilot with a prosthetic leg can do that, with no emergency services present, then a trained military pilot should be able to.

Sergio_101
08-17-2007, 11:27 PM
I remember a story from a ANG P-51H driver
where he lost power due to a failed Simmons
boost/Throttle control.

He managed to land it, but he said the prop
went to "flat pitch".
Also he said after the failure it was "like flying a brick".

By flat pitch he must have ment idle pitch.
His engine was still running but providing no
thrust, it went to idle speed.

Engine out may cause the same problem with the
automatic pitch control going to a idle pitch.

Sorry i can no longer ask him to provide the details. ;-(

Perhaps we have a P-51 driver who hit's this message board
to fill in the details.
He also told me the worst thing you could do in a H model
was to pull the power back suddenly at high speeds.
It would result in a sudden engine over speed
while your head got shoved violently twords the gunsight.
Props make great airbrakes, especially wide chord "paddle plades" like that on a P-51H.

Sergio

papotex
08-17-2007, 11:29 PM
in lockon theres the SU-25t, that one is the most realistic landing feel there is in any sim.

ground handling is realistic too to the point where one can blow a tire if you turn the plane too hard while taxing to the tarmac

ake109
08-17-2007, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by papotex:
in lockon theres the SU-25t, that one is the most realistic landing feel there is in any sim.

ground handling is realistic too to the point where one can blow a tire if you turn the plane too hard while taxing to the tarmac

I like the way IL2 models the collaspe of the landing gear if you yaw the plane too hard on the ground while taxiing at high speed.

triad773
08-18-2007, 12:18 AM
Just a comment that any crate with a belly radiator ( like Hurri, or P-51 ) will have a harder time of it belly landing in a field than others- otherwise it's a manner of energy (IMHO) for near-field (and making it to the runway) out of fuel landings.

Also- the experiences I have had had not very much problems with prop pitch. I was toooo caught up in moment.

captainbong1970
08-18-2007, 02:32 AM
I've had bad experiences with Stukas trying to land in the field (fixed gear).

I've also belly landed a plane after bailing out, somehow it came down on the back of a hill.

so I should stayed onboard

djetz
08-18-2007, 03:11 AM
Good point about the weight and the big tyres of heavies vs fighters.

My point, though, was that heavies need a lot more room to land. In real life, unlike this game, farms and fields tend to have fences and other obstructions. More likely to cause problems for a fighter than a bomber, but not good in either case. Heavies have huge wingspans, too. They need a lot of clear space to make a safe emergency landing, a lot more than fighters.

And yet, they did. The Luftwaffe had something like 40 airworthy B-17s over the course of the war, all salvaged from planes that had made rough landings. Plus several B24s, Lancasters, and Halifaxes, and many more types. They also had Spits, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Mosquitos, etc etc.

Clearly, rough landings in fields and on roads were survivable regularly enough that it was worthwhile trying. As I said, there are also many stories of pilots landing in fields and being able to take off again, including the cases where they picked up downed comrades, which would make a single engine plane dangerously overweight.

The fact that these things happened proves that rough landings were not a suicidal risk. They were risky, of course, but not so dangerous that nobody would try.

I think we do get an easier time of it in the game than real aircrew did in real life, but I don't think that the idea that any non-airfield landing was a suicidal risk is realistic either.

As for wheels-up landings, a fairly flat surface and no serious obstructions is all you'd need. Not completely safe, by any means, but generally survivable. I reckon I'd be willing to give it a shot if it was necessary. Given that bailing was also risky, and that if you didn't have sufficient altitude it was suicidal, a rough landing, even without engine power, wasn't a bad choice.

If you could reduce to near stall speed at around the same time you touch down, you'd be walking away a lot more often than you'd be carried away.

NAFP_supah
08-18-2007, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by Spaturnio:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So should we be able to glide these birds down this easily when the engine dies???

Scrag

The only plane which required bailout in case of engine stop was the F104, because much of it's lift comes from engine blown air on the wing surfaces...

No engine = bricklike gliding path http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd stone who ever told you that lie, I personally know three RNLAF F-104 pilots who did a engine out landing with their starfighters and not only did they survive but the planes flew again after having their engines replaced. The glide ratio may suck but if you are close to base you can still make it back. If you are too far from base even a glider doesn't make it back.