Author Topic: a fuel proposal (simple)  (Read 1432 times)

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
a fuel proposal (simple)
« Reply #30 on: May 30, 2004, 11:03:49 AM »
Virgile if you're against MIL getting used all time why are you againts my proposal ?

the 1st line of my 1st post is : multiplier at 2.


Next I don't see your 1st post a critic perhaps it's
because of my bad english but I read it as a rant nothing more.

Btw I tried to expose a design flaw Tilt have seen but you refuse to see.

correction Munkii  didn't understood either.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2004, 11:10:04 AM by straffo »

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7357
      • FullTilt
a fuel proposal (simple)
« Reply #31 on: May 30, 2004, 11:07:13 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Munkii
How about percentage of fuel available has no effect on amount of fuel you get.. how about it affectes a percentage of the range available at full tanks?? 125% means you get 100% of your full range plus DT's...  


This is what we have now........... if you base it as a % of the ac's own range then you may as well base it as a % of the AC's max fuel capacity.......

If you were to look at range independant of ac type and allocate sufficient fuel for say 1000 miles or 500 miles or 100 miles then this would be more equitable.
Ludere Vincere

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
a fuel proposal (simple)
« Reply #32 on: May 30, 2004, 11:20:36 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by straffo
Virgile if you're against MIL getting used all time why are you againts my proposal ?

the 1st line of my 1st post is : multiplier at 2.


Next I don't see your 1st post a critic perhaps it's
because of my bad english but I read it as a rant nothing more.

Btw I tried to expose a design flaw Tilt have seen but you refuse to see.

correction Munkii  didn't understood either.


Why? Because you want to use fuel as the limiter and I think it shouldn't be fuel.

The limit keeping planes from cruising at military power should be engine overheating and not fuel.

You read it as a rant for your own reasons. I explained why I think you are wrong to use fuel to attempt to limit use of military power.

I see plenty of flaws in the HTC system, but your system has a big one as well as far as I'm concerned. You suggest the use of fuel to limit the ability of planes with range from using military power for cruise. If your true agenda is not to give your chosen plane a greater percentage of its range when fuel is short, but rather to prevent planes with plenty of fuel from using it to cruise at military power, then the solution is to add a feature to engine management, not to mess with fuel loads.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline ergRTC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
      • http://bio2.elmira.edu/DMS/index.pl?table=content&faculty=1&page=1
a fuel proposal (simple)
« Reply #33 on: May 30, 2004, 12:52:07 PM »
But virgil this has been discussed, and it is the impression of HTC (and RL i guess) that overheat is in fact not the problem with mil.  WEP yes, but really it is just engine wear (which they dont model) and fuel consumption.  If you would like to read what pyro said about this you can see it here.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/foru...nt&pagenumber=2

Offline ergRTC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
      • http://bio2.elmira.edu/DMS/index.pl?table=content&faculty=1&page=1
a fuel proposal (simple)
« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2004, 12:52:57 PM »
or here is a snippit
pyro says
"
Erg, I think the accounts you're talking about are referring to emergency power which is a much bigger deal than military power. There you are really talking about running the engine at its limit. Like on the aforementioned P-51 where they talk about exceeding military limits as a long term maintenance concern rather than an inflight concern, it's not the same case with WEP. You have to snap a breakaway wire to get to WEP and log the numbers of minutes at WEP after the flight. A different maintenance procedure has to be followed after the flight.

I would like to see a reason not to use mil power so much but I don't want to blow up or damage your engine for doing it. I don't buy the assumption that it's realistic, because it's not realistic as I've already outlined. It's arbitrary. Yes, there are instances where you turn to arbitrary solutions, but I don't view this as one. So that takes us back to an original idea that we couldn't get working well and left half abandoned, and that is a good fuel consumption model. But now we have it working like we wanted it to and can make it a central feature. That's a big difference. Grab a P-51 manual and setup some cruise conditions in the beta. You'll get the right speeds and the right fuel consumption at the various altitudes and cruise settings.

Engine management lies in the throttle and prop controls. People chase red herrings like mixture control, supercharger control, etc., in the quest for more complexity, but the shocking revelation is that designers didn't want their planes to be complex and eliminated any pilot load they could. To get an insight into how manufacturers and military brass looked at airplane systems design and the capability of the average military pilot, I highly recommend reading the transcripts of the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference published by Schiffer. Look at the P-51 and look at all the systems that people request. Mixture- automated. Supercharger- automated. There was manual override, but this was to do ground checks and the switch is spring-loaded to the automatic position. Cooling flap- automated. There was a manual override for this, but that was in the event of a malfunction with the temperature sensing circuit or something. As pointed out, even the Germans didn't want to deal with requiring the pilot to make separate prop adjustments from the throttle. If anybody is really hot and heavy on this subject, do yourself a favor and plop down $10 a pop for some flight manual reprints and re-examine what you think is necessary to the model. Like I said before, I once was in that school of thought but found a lot of my assumptions to be incorrect."

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
a fuel proposal (simple)
« Reply #35 on: May 30, 2004, 01:24:49 PM »
It MAY have been discussed, but it is still WRONG.

I'll do some more research, but just for example, the P-38 is in real life limited to 15 minutes of military power (54" manifold) and 5 minutes of WEP (60" manifold BEFORE the restrictions were removed in mid 1944). The limit was due to overheating.

I'm pretty sure most if not all other liquid cooled planes had the same limits. With regard to air cooled radials I'm not sure.

While they may not WANT to damage an engine due to overheating, the fact is it happens. If you can't read a temp guage you don't have any business flying a high performance plane.

The P-51 also had a VERY limited cooling capacity. With any real coolant leak, the P-51 would quickly overheat, and in fact the engine will sieze very soon. Several P-51s have been lost this way even lately.

While they may not LIKE to, and they may not WANT to, and they may not anyway, they SHOULD be limiting the use of military power by overheating.

It is FAR more fair than doing something messing around with fuel loads to handicap one plane or the other.

With all due respect to Pyro and HiTech, and the rest of their staff, and whether or not this has been discussed and vetoed before, overheating because of excessive use of military power is a fact of real life for many planes. It should be here as well.

Not only would restriction of military power due to overheating stop planes from cruising endlessly just because they can, but it will also stop planes from being able to engage and then run forever, since they will quickly run out of military power even after they run out of WEP. In fact, the engine(s) will be so hot after WEP they won't support military power for long either.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Ecliptik

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 515
a fuel proposal (simple)
« Reply #36 on: May 30, 2004, 02:33:30 PM »
I like Tilt's range-rationing.  That sounds like a good compromise.

Offline ergRTC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
      • http://bio2.elmira.edu/DMS/index.pl?table=content&faculty=1&page=1
a fuel proposal (simple)
« Reply #37 on: May 30, 2004, 05:36:02 PM »
Virgil find the information leading to overheating due to mil power, and present it.  I am all for realistic engine damage, but I have not found anyone with evidence of engine overheat.  I know it happened in mustangs, but only when the auto cowl would sieze closed.

As far as the p38 this is news to me, but I have never heard much about the p38.

The 15 minute limits were all engine wear as far as I knew.  This has been tossed around by some pretty big historian types in here, and I have not seen any evidence provided for an overheat model.  If you can find some that would be excellent.  For example in the stories I have read about linbergh in the pacific with the p38s, overheat was not an issue.  His low rpm high manifold treatment worked great, when all of the pilots thought it would blow up the engines.


I went to school with a couple of kids that put a brick on the gas pedal of a 1984 4cyl mustang, and let it go redline for as long as it would run.  After an hour it somehow slipped into gear and crashed into a garage.  I know there was no load on the engine, but still, its a ford 2.4 liter.  Not exactly a good engine.

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
a fuel proposal (simple)
« Reply #38 on: May 30, 2004, 06:02:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ergRTC
Virgil find the information leading to overheating due to mil power, and present it.  I am all for realistic engine damage, but I have not found anyone with evidence of engine overheat.  I know it happened in mustangs, but only when the auto cowl would sieze closed.

As far as the p38 this is news to me, but I have never heard much about the p38.

The 15 minute limits were all engine wear as far as I knew.  This has been tossed around by some pretty big historian types in here, and I have not seen any evidence provided for an overheat model.  If you can find some that would be excellent.  For example in the stories I have read about linbergh in the pacific with the p38s, overheat was not an issue.  His low rpm high manifold treatment worked great, when all of the pilots thought it would blow up the engines.


I went to school with a couple of kids that put a brick on the gas pedal of a 1984 4cyl mustang, and let it go redline for as long as it would run.  After an hour it somehow slipped into gear and crashed into a garage.  I know there was no load on the engine, but still, its a ford 2.4 liter.  Not exactly a good engine.


It really wasn't the pilots who thought high boost low RPM auto lean would hurt engines, it was the mechanics. The mechanics felt it would melt the plugs and burn the valves. What they didn't realize was that actually, the settings they used before were in fact fouling plugs and causing other problems. PJ Dahl said the engines ran MUCH better with high boost, low RPM, and auto lean.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7357
      • FullTilt
a fuel proposal (simple)
« Reply #39 on: May 30, 2004, 07:20:43 PM »
I can give you an actual story where the reverse was tried.........

My farther was flight engineer with the Canadians  on Halifax  Mk III's and VI's with the Hercules radial engines. (the Canadians brought over full crews except for flight engineers who were always Brits)

Any way the forward cowl of the Hercules was also the exhaust collector and it could on occasion give off a slight glow....... which for night bombers wasa disadvantage............

The fuel system was the soul responsibility of the flight engineer indeed the pilot could not even reach the fuel mixture control systems. In fact they were usually preset during preflight and not touched again.

Some where over Germany  (on a return leg) dad had an engine unexpectedly lose power and begin to sound really bad.

He shut it down a feathered it.

Then another started to go the same way and eventually he had to shut it down too.

AS a third began to show the same signs.. the crew was understandibly concerned that dad should find the fault and rectify it.

It was then that he remembered being approached by the pilot and some of his fellows from their mess about enriching the fuel to run the engine cooler and so not have "glowing" exhaust pots..........

So he checked the mixture controls and sure enough they were not set to std they were set to rich...... the engines were being "choked"......... ressetting them he was eventually able to fire up all the Halifaxes engines and make it home.

The only other crew member who could have reached these controls  (easily)was the navigator, who by co incidence was a close freind of the pilot. Both denied doing such a thing and the pilot denied ever hearing of such a theory to reduce the pots glowing...............
Ludere Vincere

Offline ergRTC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
      • http://bio2.elmira.edu/DMS/index.pl?table=content&faculty=1&page=1
a fuel proposal (simple)
« Reply #40 on: May 30, 2004, 09:04:25 PM »
hehehe.  I wouldnt want a glowing plane either.  My opel used to run cold and run bad after a few hours driving as well.  In this case it was a bad dwell setting on the distributor, but half burnt fuel and oil will do terrible things to a spark plug after a while.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
a fuel proposal (simple)
« Reply #41 on: May 31, 2004, 04:19:31 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Why? Because you want to use fuel as the limiter and I think it shouldn't be fuel.


Wrong, you didn't read closely.
Did you notice that in AH the short range fighter are not long range fighter becasue of the multiplier and not short range fighter because of the inequity/unjustness/ bias/one-sidedness/partiality of the percentage system ?

Quote
If your true agenda is not to give your chosen plane a greater percentage of its range when fuel is short, but rather to prevent planes with plenty of fuel from using it to cruise at military power, then the solution is to add a feature to engine management, not to mess with fuel loads.


It's in the tittle of the thread : (simple)

In my proposal there is a little code to add to AH to make it work ,
something like a 1 hour work (unit test included).

It's not it's technicaly impossible to implement I needed less than 10 min to do the pseudo code.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2004, 05:01:01 AM by straffo »

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
a fuel proposal (simple)
« Reply #42 on: May 31, 2004, 05:30:54 AM »
Setup :
FBM set at 2
Long Range Fighter (abv : LRV) : 1 gallon per mile and 100 gallon in tank + 25 in drop tank
Short Range Fighter (abv : SRV): 1 gallon per mile and 50 gallon in tank
Manual Fuel Management (abv : MFM)

With a Target at 25 miles

Starting field at 125%
-LRV can choose : 100% + DT , 100% ,75% + DT,75%, 50%+DT  in this cases MFM is not necessary
 with 50% or 25% + DT MFM is mandatory
Availlable fuel is 125 to 25 gallon
-SRV can take 100% and fuel MFM is mandatory
75% ,50% ,25% loadout are just useless.
Availlable fuel is 50 to 12.5 gallon

Starting field at 75%
-LRV can choose : 75%  in this cases MFM is not necessary
 with 50% or 25% + DT MFM is mandatory
Availlable fuel is 75 to 25 gallon
-SRV can take 75% and won't make it back
Availlable fuel is 37.5 to 12.5 gallon)
So question is why the LRV can still have 75 gallon when the SRV can't have more than 37.5 ?

You still find this rationnal and  FAIR, JUST, EQUITABLE, IMPARTIAL, UNBIASED, DISPASSIONATE, OBJECTIVE ????
« Last Edit: May 31, 2004, 08:18:11 AM by straffo »

Offline hitech

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12344
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
a fuel proposal (simple)
« Reply #43 on: May 31, 2004, 11:38:56 AM »
Quote
You still find this rationnal and FAIR, JUST, EQUITABLE, IMPARTIAL, UNBIASED, DISPASSIONATE, OBJECTIVE ????


Yes I do.

Straffo, I've been reading your arguements. It seems to me you are trying to argue that short range should not be a problem for short range fighters, and all you argurments are based on that 1 idea.

Your arguements are that longer range fighters are not effected as much by the fuel multiplier. In a way thats exactly what we want to accomplish. We want to give the detriment or adantages to each plane that they had. Just like we do with performance and weapons.

You discuss one specific case of attacking another field. Thats not all the planes are used for in AH. Lots of times there is deffencive rolls or between field fights.

Could it be you wish to use the short range fighters in a roll that they are not well suited?

Now as to your last post about the damage fuel system fair.
All planes are effected equal. Each has had it range cut the the same %.

Under a limited fuel quatinty i.e. gals system you be hurting the hi fuel consumption planes. Take 2 planes = range but vastly different fuel consumptions and both short range. 1 would not be effected at all the other would. Under the % system all planes are effected, they just are not all effected for the role you discribe.


HiTech

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
a fuel proposal (simple)
« Reply #44 on: May 31, 2004, 01:13:35 PM »
1st I'm sorry to have writen in caps screamed and so on ...
Nothing more frustrating then having the impression of pissing in the wind.

For this and my outburst I apologise (even to Virgil :p)


2nd in my reasonning the fuel multiplier is here to take into account the range differences as it exacebate (put emphasis on ?) the difference range.


What make me scream is the double punishement the short range fighter have when fuel strat is destroyed in this current setup.

I think it's not fair because I'm reasonning not in percentage but in quantity of availlable fuel.


Imagine the following :
A after their father death the 4 sons have to resolve  the inheritance (the father had an infinite fortune)
Son 1 and 2 have each one a car with a 100 gallon.
Son 3 and 4 have each one a car with a 50 gallon.

The Will of their father is :  each one of my sone should recieve 25%.

Your interpretation is :
sons 1&2 should have 25 gallon and sons 3&4 should
have 12.5.
my interpretation is each son should have 25 gallon.