PDA

View Full Version : Zero engine probs...



rauparaha
06-21-2006, 02:26 AM
Anyone out there know why whenever in the hot seat of a zero the engine often cuts out??

rauparaha
06-21-2006, 02:26 AM
Anyone out there know why whenever in the hot seat of a zero the engine often cuts out??

rnzoli
06-21-2006, 02:43 AM
probably negative G, fuel starvation, also mentioned at
"My plane's engine dies when I push forward on the stick."
http://www.airwarfare.com/sturmovik_101/faq_index.htm#083

JG53Frankyboy
06-21-2006, 03:06 AM
when you still have negG Cut outs in the A6M you should patch your game.

it was fixed in think in the first patch for PF, at least in the second.

actual version number for PF standalone is 4.04.

RCAF_Irish_403
06-21-2006, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rauparaha:
Anyone out there know why whenever in the hot seat of a zero the engine often cuts out?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

patch up to the current version (see sticky at top of forum)...you won't be sorry.....Lots of bug fixes...but the big thing is that there are tons of free planes to fly

Feathered_IV
06-21-2006, 07:02 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/8681014732/p/1

rnzoli
06-21-2006, 09:27 AM
this Pacific Fighter review appeared in 2004 October:

"Some of the game's fans have expressed valid concerns about the flight models, though I found them to be still fun to fly. The planes are much more resistant to stalls, but they can still fall easily into spins. The F4U Corsair lives up to its reputation; it's a joy to fly, but when it departs, it really departs. The A6M Zero is agile as it was historically, and under negative g-force the engine will cut out -- a nice touch. "

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/pacific-fighters/569159p1.html

rauparaha
06-21-2006, 01:49 PM
Looks like it's time to get patching, thanks for the info.

VW-IceFire
06-21-2006, 04:01 PM
Yep, the negative-G thing was based on a U.S. test where they put some stuff in incorrectly and the engine didn't get fuel like it was supposed to.

No adverse negative G cutouts with the Zero.

leitmotiv
06-21-2006, 05:11 PM
Hm, Lundstrom in the first volume of THE FIRST TEAM noted the A6M2 (not A6M3-on) was prone to neg-G cut-out. His research is usually impeccable. I was wondering why the Zero 21 did not suffer from this. Does anybody have a citation from a reputable authority on the Zero 21's supposedly having fuel injection?

JG53Frankyboy
06-21-2006, 05:33 PM
not clear what you want to know ?!?!

A6M2 Model 11
A6M2 Model 21
A6M3 Model 32
A6M3 Model 22

?
the americans tested a Model 21 , that had negG cut outs - because they made a mistake with its carburetor....

a later tested Model 32 had no NegG cut outs - even in american "hands" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

and actually fuel injection is not the question when it comes to negG cut outs - very few engines had fuel injection in WW2.............

berg417448
06-21-2006, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Hm, Lundstrom in the first volume of THE FIRST TEAM noted the A6M2 (not A6M3-on) was prone to neg-G cut-out. His research is usually impeccable. I was wondering why the Zero 21 did not suffer from this. Does anybody have a citation from a reputable authority on the Zero 21's supposedly having fuel injection? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OLEG addressed the issue here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/8681014732/p/2

VW-IceFire
06-21-2006, 05:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Hm, Lundstrom in the first volume of THE FIRST TEAM noted the A6M2 (not A6M3-on) was prone to neg-G cut-out. His research is usually impeccable. I was wondering why the Zero 21 did not suffer from this. Does anybody have a citation from a reputable authority on the Zero 21's supposedly having fuel injection? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its not fuel injection, its just a design thats less prone to negative G engine cut due to the fuel not making it to the engine. The Spitfires got a makeshift version of this during The Battle of Britain called "Mrs Schillings Orifice". The stopgap solution quickly became standard production.

None of them had a negative G cut out problem. They had that problem licked.

leitmotiv
06-22-2006, 02:04 AM
Whoa now. Alfred Price goes into the matter of the Spitfire's neg-G/positive-G cut-outs in his Spitfire history. Problem was due to the use of a carburettor as opposed to fuel injection used in the 109. Supposedly the initial solution was the use of a modified carburettor in the Mk V which did not cease functioning in diverse G maneuvers. Later the Spitfire had fuel injection. The Zero 21's problem, as defined by Lundstrom, was the very same carburettor difficulty the Spitfire had. Noticed Oleg didn't exactly nail down any real sources for his info. Frankly, I'm more convinced by Lundstrom because his research was in Japanese sources not hearsay.

joeap
06-22-2006, 02:28 AM
The fact that Zero 21 pilots used neg g manuevers (as pointed out in that thread) to escape pursuit means nothing I suppose. Anyway authors can be wrong.

leitmotiv
06-22-2006, 04:45 PM
I haven't seen one bit of documentation to refute Lundstrom who relied on Japanese technical sources for his Zero 21 data---the fuel-injected Wildcat's advantage over the Zero 21 was the ability to tip over into a dive without having to roll on its back to dive as was necessary in a carburettor fighter like the early Spitfire or the Zero 21. A great deal of jabbering on a thread isn't documentation.

joeap
06-23-2006, 03:37 AM
Right, so the US did not install the carberator upside down in the captured Zero, and the Maru magazines are wrong. So send on your info then maybe we can get it fixed again.

stansdds
06-23-2006, 04:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Right, so the US did not install the carberator upside down in the captured Zero, and the Maru magazines are wrong. So send on your info then maybe we can get it fixed again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems to me carburetors only work in one direction, so installing one upside down would result in an engine that won't start, so I am not buying into that line. You can believe in historical evidence and the technical documents or you can believe in heresay and little green aliens.

Just because an aircraft can push over into a dive doesn't necessarily mean that the engine does not cut out. The Zero was highly maneuverable, more so than U.S. aircraft. I'm sure the Japanese pilots were well aware of that and would use any manuever that would get a Wildcat off of their tail.

joeap
06-23-2006, 05:12 AM
Look don't want to get into name calling contest...either the fix was wrong and it should be corrected or the tech documents are wrong. Can we get the sources straigtened out once and for all here? No comment from the others on this thread??

Feathered_IV
06-23-2006, 07:15 AM
Sorry to spread confusion. It was me that originally said the carburettor was the miss-installed component. That was my supposition only and the result of poor memory of the actual component.

The original source of information (for me) was an interview with Saburo Sakai. When questioned about how he dealt with neg-g coutout on the model 21, he became irritated, recounted the Koga testing and stated emphatically that the model 21 did not cut out under negative gee.

berg417448
06-23-2006, 07:54 AM
I figured that if there was a negative g cut out in the Zero then there would be comments from the pilots who actually flew them in combat just like the comments from the RAf pilots about the Spitfire. I've never read anything like that and Sakai's comment seems to be significant evidence.

JG53Frankyboy
06-23-2006, 08:07 AM
did anyone read olegs comments in the given old topics ?
his japanese dokuments are telling him that the Sakae 21 had no negG cut outs..........

joeap
06-23-2006, 11:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
did anyone read olegs comments in the given old topics ?
his japanese dokuments are telling him that the Sakae 21 had no negG cut outs.......... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently not. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

leitmotiv
06-23-2006, 09:46 PM
THE FIRST TEAM: PACIFIC NAVAL AIR COMBAT FROM PEARL HARBOR TO MIDWAY. John B. Lundstrom. United States Naval Institute, Annapolis, 1984. Page 339:

"So far Crommelin [in an F4F-3 during the Coral Sea battle] had been the hunter, shooting at four Zeros in succession and claiming two of them. As he leveled out, he heard gunfire and jerked his head back to see a Zero dancing in firing position close behind. He utilized his own standard defensive maneuver, a high-speed dive, and left the Zero behind. Evidently the Grumman's quick pushover, a maneuver that could cause a Zero's engine (served by a float-type carburetor) to cut out, had been sufficent to shake the Japanese riding his tail."

Now I will check Jiro Horikoshi's design history of the Zero. I still haven't seen one source refuting Lundstrom. The estimable Oleg, as all of us know, has made howlers in the past---what was his source? Somebody mentioned a MARU Zero monograph. Which one? I have Japanese sources on the Zero, but I can't read Japanese. As for Sakai, where did he make his claim? Another matter, old fighter pilots sometimes have agendas. He has never discussed his unit's delight in strafing Allied pilots in their parachutes, for example.

leitmotiv
06-24-2006, 02:21 AM
THE FIRST TEAM AND THE GUADALCANAL CAMPAIGN: NAVAL FIGHTER COMBAT FROM AUGUST TO NOVEMBER 1942. John B. Lundstrom. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 1994. Page 535 (regarding the September 1942 tests of the captured A6M2 in San Diego): "Another detrimental factor involved quick pushovers into Negative G, which caused the Zero's engine to cut out momentarily." His sources for this information (note 4): Memorandum for Flight Test Officer, U.S. Naval Air Station San Diego (29 Sept. 1942) and Endorsement by ComF AirWest to Commander, Air Force, Pacific (1 Oct. 1942).

EAGLES OF MITSUBISHI: THE STORY OF THE ZERO FIGHTER. Jiro Horikoshi (translated by Shojiro Shindo and Harold N. Wantiez). University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1981. Page 109: Horikoshi, designer of the Zero, notes the follow-on to the A6M2 Model 21, the A6M3 Model 32, had a "carburetor," thus I have no doubt the earlier aircraft had the "float-type carburetor" Lundstrom states it had.

I also checked the best-selling in Japan:

ZERO FIGHTER. Akira Yoshimura (translated by Retsu Kaiho and Michael Gregson). Praeger, Westport, 1996. See A6M5 cutaway opposite title page: this version also had a carburetor.

JG53Frankyboy
06-24-2006, 03:45 AM
just to avoid a missunderstanding:
you dont think that if an engine has a carburetor its sure that this engine has negG cut outs ?

KIMURA
06-24-2006, 04:33 AM
Franky, I guess Leitmotiv don't know that none of the great Allied engines ever had fuel injection.

V-1650 series - carburetor
Merlin series - carburetor
R-2800 - carburetor
R-2600 - carburetor
R-1830 - carburetor

none of them (eccept early Merlins) were prone to negative cutouts. And so the the Sakae too. IIRC the Sakae engine was a licence built P&W R-1535 and never suffered problems as mentioned above. Au contraire the Sakae was a really reliable engine.

joeap
06-24-2006, 05:40 AM
*Slaps forehead* Whoa, forgot about that an argument staring me right in the face, thanks for the reminder Kimura... still some radials (I-16) could cut out but if I understand you this tended to be an inline problem (for some engines) IIRC.

While I have a lot of respect for Lundstrom, the sources he used were the early 1942 technical tests which were said to be mistaken.

leitmotiv
06-24-2006, 06:05 AM
Float-carburetors were the troublesome variety. At one point the Spitfire was fitted with a modified carb which did not cut out under Neg G before it was given fuel injection. If somebody could show me a source other than what somebody wrote on a forum without citing anything other than somebody else, I'd have a crisis of faith. Meanwhile, I'll stick with Lundstrom because he stuck to the documents.

KIMURA
06-24-2006, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Float-carburetors were the troublesome variety. At one point the Spitfire was fitted with a modified carb which did not cut out under Neg G before it was given fuel injection. If somebody could show me a source other than what somebody wrote on a forum without citing anything other than somebody else, I'd have a crisis of faith. Meanwhile, I'll stick with Lundstrom because he stuck to the documents. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's say the other way. The R-2800-10 (F6F) had the same layout as the Sakae 21 --&gt; downdraft carbeture, while the R-2800-8/8W/18W/32W (F4U) had updraft carbeture like the Sakae 12. Both carbeture type weren't prone to cutout.

heywooood
06-24-2006, 09:25 AM
and all this time I thought any carb. intake style would cut out under neg.G - Heywooood learnt a new thing.

rnzoli
06-24-2006, 02:17 PM
lol, you too? Me too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv
06-24-2006, 02:47 PM
Gentlemen, you won't learn a new thing from unsubstantiated, impressionistic forum-babble. I went to the experts on the j-aircraft boards, and this is what I found---all scrupulously documented:

http://tinyurl.com/ktm9y

JG53Frankyboy
06-24-2006, 05:06 PM
forum-babble ?!

ok, if you think so. i would like to see sources that a F4F-3, -3a or 4 had a fuel injected R-1830 as you stated.
otherwise it was only a carburator system able to work under negG (for some time) - like the most others in WW2 !

and as im no Merlin expert, i would like to see that RR put a fuelinjection to them - in a Spitfire or Mustang.

and the given comments are so far from the Report 85.................. true , this special A6M2-21 had negG cut outs. no doubts.
"just" Maddox said the carburator in a Sakae 12 were able to mantain fuelsuplie during negGs.


but hey, who cares- Maddox will doubtly make any changes - PF developement is at his end http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG53Frankyboy
06-24-2006, 05:30 PM
found this about the Merlins:
"Carburettor design
One of the great problems as discerned by pilots was the tendency for the carburetted engine to cut out under negative 'g'. Luftwaffe pilots learned to escape by simply pushing the nose of their aircraft down into a dive, as their fuel- injected engines did not cut out under these circumstances. Many authors have criticised this aspect of the Merlin design. In reality, like most engineering, it resulted from a design compromise- the drop in temperature developed in a carburetor results in an increase in the density of the fuel-air mixture when compared to that of a fuel injection system. As a consequence the Merlin produced a higher specific power output (horse power per pound) that the equivalent German engine. It was felt that this gave a higher power to weight ratio for the fighter and (rightly or wrongly) that this outweighed the disadvantages. By 1941 Miss Tilly Shilling in Farnborough had developed a partial cure for the problem. A diaphragm across the float chambers with a calibrated hole (the infamous "Miss Shilling's orifice"!) allowed negative 'g' manouvres, and was fitted as standard from March 1941. Sustained zero 'g' manouvres were not sorted out until somewhat later. In 1942 an anti-g version of the SU carburetor was fitted to single and two-stage Merlins. 1943 saw the introduction of the Bendix-Stromburg carburetor which injected fuel at 5psi through a nozzle direct into the supercharger and was fitted to the Merlins 66, 70, 76, 77, and 85. The final development was the SU injection carburetor which injected fuel into the supercharger using a fuel pump driven as a fuction of crankshaft speed and engine pressures, which was fitted to the 100 series Merlins. "

little bit different from tzhe gemrn kind of direct fuel injection... but i would call it ok naming this also one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

leitmotiv
06-24-2006, 06:12 PM
Yeah, it was just the lousy float-type carburetor which was causing the trouble---I am no mechanic, but isn't a float-type carb an automotive carburetor?! You got the Spitfire history down right, JG53Frankyboy.