One of the guys I fly with had read on another forum that one of the Bristol models had an engine problem since the latest patch. Just wanted to post that he had done some testing and determined that the only time the Bristol engine blew up was after an extended run at full power. If power is reduced slightly after take off and temps are kept in the proper range, there is no problem with the engine.

I know a lot of people take off and fly at full power for their entire sortie, but this isn't the way a real airplane is flown. Power is reduced after take off and cruise is usually somewhere between 60 and 80% throttle. Instead of a problem, I see more realism here. In fact, most of the aircraft should probably experience engine problems running at full power continually.

Jason (if you read this), is this a new feature in this patch, or something unintentional? If it is a new feature, is it something we'll see in more aircraft later?

Power is reduced in a real aircraft to extend the life of the engine, not to prevent it from immediately breaking. This is a bug that has already been reported, though there hasn't been any official response from 777, yet.

P.S. Strange engine break downs are being observed in other aircraft, too.

Actually no. If you keep engine at max rpm, it will cause failure - sooner or later. It's called limitation for a reason.

I'll believe the pilots with military aviation experience who have explained this to me, thanks.

Agreed, but generally not within the scope of one mission. There are so many things that are not modeled and IMHO do not need to be modeled. Engine degradation over missions, engine replacement, etc. IRL the pilots flew the plane to the edge of the envelope and beyond if their life depended on it and engine be damned. Witness the front line reports of the use of the altitude throttle at low alt - against all recommendations but very necessary in a pinch. If the engine blew then it got replaced, but it usually didn't. Better that chance than the otherwise inevitable lead breakfast.

I never said that power was reduced to prevent 'immediate' damage. Flying around at full power continually wasn't done by WWI pilots. Yes, engines and airframes got abused in combat, but it wasn't from take off to landing. This was something that was debated a lot in Il-2 'back in the day' as well. Keep in mind that in WWI engine technology was in it's relatively early stages as well. Durability and reliability were both a bit sketchy.

ORLY? LOL.

Well, with regard to turbine engines in helicopters, we never fly them at 100 % power all the time. The only time we use all of the available power is during takeoff and to a lesser extent, landing. Most modern helo's have what's referred to as a "five minute takeoff limit" which allows us to use up to the equiv. of 100% available power. The cruise power setting that's used in the majority of the helos I fly averages around 80% power.

Flying in the Army was the same thing-generally speaking. Sometimes the rules go out the window when you find yourself in an area occupied by people who don't qualify as your friends. In the civilian world, the rules are the rules---unless you're flying a twin-engined helo and one of the engines takes a poop. Then we generally go by the saying "the engine that failed belongs to the company-the engine still running belongs to ME and I'll do whats necessary to get this aircraft on the ground in one piece to include whatever power is required to get this thing down safely.

LOL! I'm SO stealing that quote! :-D

Sim is a qualified pilot in the US Air Force.

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.