1. #1
    Can anyone help me out here? I want to fly with complex engine management on (not because its more effective but because its more fun) but I don't know where to begin. How do I use prop and mixture controls? What do I need to know in order to properly change mixtures and prop pitch? Perhaps some of you know a site I can go to that explains how to use prop and mixture controls? Thanks all!

    Jon E.
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Can anyone help me out here? I want to fly with complex engine management on (not because its more effective but because its more fun) but I don't know where to begin. How do I use prop and mixture controls? What do I need to know in order to properly change mixtures and prop pitch? Perhaps some of you know a site I can go to that explains how to use prop and mixture controls? Thanks all!

    Jon E.
    Share this post

  3. #3
    You can find scads of info on it all here:


    http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il...uide/intro.htm
    Share this post

  4. #4
    BaldieJr's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    this don\'t make no sense!
    Posts
    4,282
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ace_Eloff:
    I want to fly with complex engine management on (not because its more effective but because its more fun) but I don't know where to begin.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    But how do you know if it is more fun?
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Awsome! Thanks a lot .
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Well, i've studied the whole guide on CEM you gave me, and i've started implementing what i've learned, but there is somthing supicious happening.

    I seem to be able to stay within recommended rpm 95% of the time without having to change my prop. pitch. Is this normal? I do some pretty steep dives but by throttleing back I find I don't even need to reduce prop. pitch %.

    Occasionally in an extended steep dive I need to throttle back and lower the pop. pitch % but most of Il2 FB dogfights occur within a fairly narrow range of altitude and thus, there are no real extended steep dives to speak of.

    So I find myself mostly modifying prop. pitch to make more efficient use of the engine during cruise - then when transitioning from cruise to climb I somtimes need to increase prop. pitch % and throttle to maintain a more constant rpm. Is there somthing i'm not getting, or is prop. pitch not really somthing you need to change very often?



    Also i've noticed that in the LaGG-3 1941 I can go through a turn without any sideslip requireing correction with rudder. I looked at the slip ball in the turn and bank indicator on the LaGG-3 1941 all through some pretty tight turns and nothing, the ball stayed center the whole time without any use of the rudder... anyone know anything about that?
    Share this post

  7. #7
    F19_Ob's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,535
    The prop pitch works a bit differently depending on wich plane u fly because there are different systems.

    The 109 engines are the ones quickly damaged by minor mistakes with the adjustment in manual mode and therefore should be left on auto exept for economycruise.
    The germans recommended to use manual pitch on landings but the Finns seemingly disobeyed this rule after some damaged engines and flew on auto all the way.

    Earlier there has been some discussion on the forum about the use and benefits of manual prop-pitch in combat, but mainly in the 109.
    I haven't yet heard about any 109 pilot using manual prop pitch in dogfights, although I still investigate this and have got some help from researchers and people who have interviewed surviving 109 pilots (nothing yet but auto though).
    (if anyone have info or tip on this plz PM me or post a link)

    Atleast regarding the 109 From atleast F-model and up U can safely use the autosettings to be historically accurate. Still dont feel too sure if the E-models had auto-pitch function, although I have been told Both yes and no.

    The Finns used the 109 like this:
    1. Radiator fully opened while taxiing and take-off so u dont overheat.

    2 after take-off set radiator to auto and leave it there for the rest of the flight. (adjust only in emergency)

    3. Prop-pitch left on auto from start to landing. Set only to manual pitch if u cruise longer periods so u save fuel.

    Sounds too simple? This is one reason why the 109 had such success and remained dangerous until the end. The autofunctions helped the pilots to concentrate on the important matters.
    It was modern.

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

    Golodnikov gives some examples of a problem with a linked system in allied fighters:


    "A. S. What about the propeller?

    N. G. The P-40 had two types of propeller. With the electric propeller, the pitch was regulated by an electric motor, and with the mechanical propeller, conventionally with levers and rods. The electric propeller was automatic, with combined control by the throttle and pitch. The throttle quadrant had a rheostat and the movement of the lever automatically regulated the pitch. The Tomahawk had the electric propeller, while the latest Kittyhawks had mechanical propellers. Both types of propeller were reliable.

    I did not fly with the mechanical propeller because by this time I had transitioned to the Cobra. Regarding the linked control I can say the following: sometimes this linked control was a hindrance.

    A. S. Strange. German fighters had a system of linked control of throttle and pitch. In fact, this system was considered a great advantage of German fighters. The pilot was less distracted in combat.

    N. G. So they say. Normally, pitch and throttle are coordinated in the following manner: more RPMsāā‚¬"¯reduce pitch. This is how the linked system worked. However, when we were trying to overtake the enemy in a dive or conversely to break away, for maximum acceleration we needed to increase RPMs sharply. Initially the propeller was loaded up and only later was pitch reduced. If in a dive, with the increase of RPMs the propeller pitch was reduced immediately, the propeller would begin to function as a brake. German aircraft were good in the dive. In a fighter with a linked throttle-pitch system in a dive we either fell back or he caught up to us. Therefore we always preferred a separated or de-linked system."
    -------------------
    The Golodnokov articles give some insight regarding I-16, hurricane, p40's, p39 and some others.
    Read all 4 parts here:
    http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...ikov/part1.htm
    ------------------

    There is a good site explaning the different propellers and pitch-systems but I cant find it at the moments....

    A few thoughts....
    Share this post

  8. #8
    Tully__'s Avatar Global Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    16,970
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ace_Eloff:
    Well, i've studied the whole guide on CEM you gave me, and i've started implementing what i've learned, but there is somthing supicious happening.

    I seem to be able to stay within recommended rpm 95% of the time without having to change my prop. pitch. Is this normal?.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    If you're in an aircraft fitted with a "Constant Speed" propellor, yes. Most (all?) of the allied aircraft are so fitted. An article that includes some history and a brief description of the various types of propellor control can be read here.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    F19_Ob's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,535
    Thnks Tully that was one of the the sites I was looking for.
    Share this post

  10. #10
    I don't know how to figure out if its a CSP prop, but I suspect the LaGG-3 1941 is a CSP?

    Thanks for the tip, looks like my particular craft doesn't need a tonne of prop adjustment... somthing i'm not too clear on tho:

    Is there any problem with reducing the throttle % well below the rpm %?

    If you create a low throttle high rpm situation with the thottle and prop. pitch controls is there any realistic engine damage, or engine explosion modelled in Il2:FB? In PF?

    How rigid are the highest recommended rpm settings? I suppose that depends on the craft, but in Il2:FB is engine damage from overspeeding the engine accurately modelled? In PF?

    Thanks, also, from the CEM guide, I was lead to believe that mixture should basically stay 100% unless you're flying at altitude at which point you should lean the mixture (lower %) and 120% is somtimes used for take off and cooling the engine. There was also some talk about leaning the mixture to save fuel, and enriching it to cool the engine, is this basically the application for mixture?

    Thanks all . The prop guide (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182082-1.html) you linked was very interesting, mostly the same info that was already present in the CEM guide tho.
    Share this post