As far as I see it, I am able to destroy the engines when I handle them bad. But I read somewhere that there is no wear and tear like on the NGX. But what will the green dots on the maintenance 2D panel show? Only green for running and maybe red for destroyed, because there is no "intermediate" damage? 

This leads me to the question why I am able to Service the props independently... Do I understand the DC6 damage/wear and tear philosophy wrong?

Is there something like wear and tear or is it only "Running" and "Destroyed" so to say on one flight, not as a result of handling the engines bad over several flights?

Thank you very much! 

Well, after my KLM601 (1954) flight Amsterdam--Glasgow--Gander--New York the engines were marked amber. 

So there is wear after about 17h of flight. 

There are 4 stages: green-yellow-amber-red

 With every stage to the right more problems occur until being destroyed.

Thank you guys! Very nice that there is wear! Do you know about other systems? Hydraulics, electrics...

More to the point is you get accelerated wear with abuse. For example, 17hr engine time and already amber is a clear sign that the engines were mistreated.  Typical mistreatments include improper handling of cowl flaps, moving throttles and prop controls in the wrong order, improper mixture use, mishandling the engines during descents, etc.  I've no idea what the developer set up for ideal wear but i would expect it to be along the lines of a 1000 hr TBO.

Average TBO for a Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine is about 1,200 hours, but if treated well that can stretch to as much as 1,600 hours before it would be prudent to tear it down.

It would also depend on which exact engine model it was and its application (there are three main variants of the R-2800 - A, B and C, and at least 40 of sub variants of final C variant, and since some parts are interchangeable, such as the ignition wiring harnesses, there are probably a huge amount of varieties beyond the original production model specs). The latter C model of the R-2800 is known to run much more smoothly than the earlier versions too, so that is going to help since that is the version found on post-war airliners.

In a warplane using water injection and being flown at the kind of revs you'd expect to see in combat, particularly in the Korean War, where Corsairs with R-2800s were going up against jets, an engine would certainly be getting some abuse since you are unlikely to be worrying about subsequent maintenance issues with a MiG-15 crawling all over the arse of your Corsair lol, but since it was generally expected that you'd get about 50 hours out something like an entire F4U Corsair airframe (including the engine) in a combat theatre operating off a carrier before the thing would be lost in attrition anyway, the long-term reliability of the early versions of the R-2800, in combat at least, was unlikely to be a concern. As far as the DC-6 and its R-2800s are concerned however, you could expect a lovingly-restored aeroplane, or an airliner with such an engine, or engines, to be treated a lot more kindly, so around 1,200 hours TBO should theroetically be achievable if you are doing things right.

Incidentally, you can see an R-2800 up close on this video I shot today at an air fair at the old Woodford Aerodrome site (the R-2800 engine is at 43 seconds in the vid, but if you FF to there you'll miss a flyby from a Lancaster and an Avro Anson). There are a couple of other radial aero engines being cranked up on this same video which are worth a look if you like old radial engines. The big one you see cranking up is an eighteen cylinder Bristol Centaurus, which was used in the Airspeed Ambassador and the Hawker Fury, and is comparable to the R-2800 in power output and configuration, the smaller one, closer to my camera, is an nine-cylinder Alvis Leonides, used in a number of helicopters such as the Sycamore and Dragonly and in the SA Pioneer and some dH Beavers. Notice how much smoke and oil they throw out, the oil ends up all over the lens of my camera, and that was from a good 10-15 feet in front of the thing, so now you know why those old airliners had their wings near the engine and their cowlings painted in dark colours most of the time, because they'd be covered in oil and smoke stains after a few hours of operation:

 

2 hours ago, 19AB67 said:

Well, after my KLM601 (1954) flight Amsterdam--Glasgow--Gander--New York the engines were marked amber. 

So there is wear after about 17h of flight. 

How did the flight go? Especially the Glasgow to Gander leg. Did you take off with full tanks (most probably you did)? What was your (initial) cruising altitude? What was your final cruising altitude (if you did any step climbs)? How long did this leg take? How much fuel remained in the tanks upon arrival?

Sorry about the many questions. I am thinking about doing such a long flight too but I don't wanna waste 8 hours or so by running out of fuel. :-)

22 hours ago, downscc said:

For example, 17hr engine time and already amber is a clear sign that the engines were mistreated. 

Thanx, Dan, for the hint,

I try to fly mostly without AFE...

21 hours ago, kityatyi said:

How did the flight go? Especially the Glasgow to Gander leg.

First, I chose the wrong stop-over airport, LOL, thanks to Mike G., not EGPF/GLA Glasgow, but EGPK/PIK Glasgow Prestwick would have been right one, but regarding flight times the difference should be negligible. 

21 hours ago, kityatyi said:

Did you take off with full tanks (most probably you did)?

Yes, after my SIMBRIEFing. 

21 hours ago, kityatyi said:

hat was your (initial) cruising altitude? What was your final cruising altitude (if you did any step climbs)?

14000 as initial and final cruising altitude. No step climb. I should have checked a variation in skyvector. My 14000 optimised routing was: 

CLYDE3A CLYDE L602 TIR GOMUP 5815N 5820N 5825N 5830N 5735N 5540N 5345N 5150N BUDAR YQX    

21 hours ago, kityatyi said:

How long did this leg take?

Pure flight time was 8h 19m. 

 

21 hours ago, kityatyi said:

How much fuel remained in the tanks upon arrival?

Well, cough, cough, 1300 lbs minus 1600 lbs, means at 5150N I refueled 4x400 lbs into my main tanks 

Let's say, KLM used the 10 tank DC-6... 

But as Kyle explained, optimum altitude is 8000-14000 ft, I will try again with 8000ft (less wind). 

Not 500 lbs per hour, rather 600 lbs/h was my average per engine. 

21 hours ago, kityatyi said:

I don't wanna waste 8 hours

Speed up FSX to 4x time compression by and then...

30 minutes ago, 19AB67 said:

Thanx, Dan, for the hint,

I try to fly mostly without AFE...

First, I chose the wrong stop-over airport, LOL, thanks to Mike G., not EGPF/GLA Glasgow, but EGPK/PIK Glasgow Prestwick would have been right, but regarding flight times the difference should be negligible. 

Yes, after my SIMBRIEFing. 

14000 as initial and final cruising altitude. No step climb. I should have checked a variation in skyvector. My 14000 optimised routing was: 

CLYDE3A CLYDE L602 TIR GOMUP 5815N 5820N 5825N 5830N 5735N 5540N 5345N 5150N BUDAR YQX    

Pure flight time was 8h 19m. 

 

Well, cough, cough, 1300 lbs minus 1600 lbs, means at 5150N I refueled 4x400 lbs into my main tanks 

Let's say, KLM used the 10 tank DC-6... 

But as Kyle explained, optimum altitude is 8000-14000 ft, I will try again with 8000ft (less wind). 

Not 500 lbs per hour, rather 600 lbs/h was my average per engine. 

Speed up FSX to 4x time compression by and then...

Thank you for taking the time and replying.

Indeed they used the 10-tank variant - if we had that you could easily cross the pond without "refueling" in the air. For now I am restricting myself to shorter flights, maximum 6-7 hours. I am hoping that the 10-tank variant will be offered as an expansion pack at some point.

39 minutes ago, 19AB67 said:

Thanx, Dan, for the hint,

I try to fly mostly without AFE...

First, I chose the wrong stop-over airport, LOL, thanks to Mike G., not EGPF/GLA Glasgow, but EGPK/PIK Glasgow Prestwick would have been right, but regarding flight times the difference should be negligible. 

Yes, after my SIMBRIEFing. 

14000 as initial and final cruising altitude. No step climb. I should have checked a variation in skyvector. My 14000 optimised routing was: 

CLYDE3A CLYDE L602 TIR GOMUP 5815N 5820N 5825N 5830N 5735N 5540N 5345N 5150N BUDAR YQX    

Pure flight time was 8h 19m. 

 

Well, cough, cough, 1300 lbs minus 1600 lbs, means at 5150N I refueled 4x400 lbs into my main tanks 

Let's say, KLM used the 10 tank DC-6... 

But as Kyle explained, optimum altitude is 8000-14000 ft, I will try again with 8000ft (less wind). 

Not 500 lbs per hour, rather 600 lbs/h was my average per engine. 

Speed up FSX to 4x time compression by and then...

Thank you for that Trip Report!

1 hour ago, kityatyi said:

Thank you for taking the time and replying.

1 hour ago, Rhinozherous said:

Thank you for that Trip Report!

Welcome!

1 hour ago, 19AB67 said:

Well, cough, cough, 1300 lbs minus 1600 lbs, means at 5150N I refueled 4x400 lbs into my main tanks

Did they take along fuel to an alternate by then? 

And 600 instead of 500 lb/h would mean a fuel factor of P20...

PLANNED FUEL
---------------------------------
FUEL ARPT FUEL  TIME       NEW TRIAL?
---------------------------------
TRIP YQX  15529 0730       18635 (P20)
CONT 5%     776 0023         932
ALTN YDF   1284 0037           0 huh!
FINRES     1500 0045         165 0005
---------------------------------
MINIMUM T/OFF FUEL 19089 0915
---------------------------------
EXTRA       500 0014
---------------------------------
T/OFF FUEL 19589 0930
TAXI GLA 200 0020            200
---------------------------------
BLOCK FUEL GLA 19789

The 600 vs 500 lb/hr puzzle me too. Did you not set the mixtures to autolean? Or did you fly with too high engine settings. Arround 34/2000 should give you 210 indicated at 6000 ft.

1 hour ago, metzgergva said:

The 600 vs 500 lb/hr puzzle me too. Did you not set the mixtures to autolean? Or did you fly with too high engine settings. Arround 34/2000 should give you 210 indicated at 6000 ft.

Have to check this again. 

IMHO it was auto lean, rather 35/2200. IAS 230kts

5 hours ago, 19AB67 said:

Have to check this again. 

IMHO it was auto lean, rather 35/2200. IAS 230kts

By now you have found the cruise tables.  My recommended 8000 ft cruise at 1000 HP would be 1870RPM/151BMEP (about 30 inHg I think).  Big difference.  TAS 230 and IAS about 200 kts but only 439 lbs/hr/eng.

Hi all -

I'd like to get some more info on the "engine health" markers. I can't find in the manual what specifically happens to the engines when their "health" deteriorates. I.e. are the various systems of the engine modeled and there's an increasing chance of any of them failing (with of course different results depending of the system failed), or is there just an increased likelihood of the engine not starting or quitting in flight? I hope and assume it's the former...

If so, would it be possible to make these specific failures available to the user, as in the wonderful failure systems of the PMDG Boeing series?? Really learning to fly an airplane does involve knowing how to deal with the various things that can go wrong, and being able to model that flexibly (with service-based failures, etc) is one of the great features of the Boeing series. I admit that I really miss that in the DC-6. It's a wonderful plane and great fun to fly, but I'd like my failure system to be a bit more sophisticated than "green-yellow-amber-red"!  I understand from a previous post on this topic that a detailed failure system is not feasible in XP, but it should be in FSX-SE, right?

I know that others have brought this up as well, but I would like to make a plea again for an update that includes a PMDG-caliber failure system...

Thanks for bringing us these wonderful simulations!

Marcel Durieux