Early rotaries were full on or full off (blipped). There was no real throttle. When they were flown in level flight they were running flat out. Later rotaries had crude throttles implemented by causing some of the cylinders not to fire. I'm not sure how much this was used. In any case I don't think that a long engine life was expected.

I would guess that inlines were a different beast given that they did have proper throttles. From a game PoV I'm not sure how much it matters. I think that modeling the possibility of failure in combat when the engine is being abused is a good thing. It gives the sim pilot the same option with the same risks as a real pilot had - take a chance on blowing the engine or take a chance on getting shot down.

I am not sure that modeling wear and tear over time is a great idea, unless we start adding facets such as supplies, replacements, etc. to the game. To me that is a bit much. I don't mind the assumption of a functioning engine.

I don't know anything about rotaries .

I suppose I should have clarified my remark; I wasn't talking about engines without throttle control. I would assume that engine designers took this into account, however, and limited the RPM of the engine to a slightly lower range instead of 'all she could do'.

While I am not and never have been a military pilot, I do have some background in aviation. My comments were not based on pure conjecture.

I quoted you because I was responding to your post, not because I was suggesting that you didn't know anything about airplanes. For all I know you might be the Camel pilot at Rhinebeck (wonder if that one is back in the air). But not everybody does know.

When I first learned what a rotary was and how it worked I was blown away. Propeller attached to the engine? The whole engine turns? No throttle? Fuel never stops pumping? Burns fuel and oil and spits it back at the pilot? Camel pilots were recognizable by the oil stains from the shoulders up. That was all new and - for me - interesting.

I don't know who is on these forums. I try not to assume that people know the details of 100 year old aviation technology. I certainly don't assume that I know it all. I would be willing to bet that there are plenty of pilots who don't know what a rotary is or how it works. That technology pretty much died with the last of the WWI vintage scouts. I am not aware of any significant aircraft since 1920 being designed around a rotary.

No offense taken, Patrick. I was just clarifying my previous comment.

On the subject of engines...I thought I was pretty well versed in engines, but I ran across a reference to a new one for me last night. Ever heard of a 'barrel engine'? Second link is a PDF file.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=808

http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2007/AlmenA-4_0.pdf

It's a really interesting concept.

That's different. Makes me wonder why the design wasn't pursued later in the 40s when inline engines were back in style.