Author Topic: fuel consumption (Read 520 times)

68DevilM · « **on:** July 06, 2004, 11:29:32 AM »

has any one noticed the spit9's fuel consumption differerance in ah2 compaired to ah1?

burns really fast to me

JB42 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 06, 2004, 11:43:37 AM »

Thats why they called it AH2, because it's different from AH1

fluffy · « **Reply #2 on:** July 06, 2004, 05:08:42 PM »

Well, the fuel burn rate is 25% higher in the AHII MA than it was in the AHI MA. (2.0 now, 1.5 then). In aircraft with small fuel loads this will be more apparent, and the spit has a notoriously small fuel tank. I definitely notice a big difference and practice fuel economy in my spits by using the cruise settings listed in the E6B fuel calculater. I don't take spitfires on long tours either but fly them in the point defence role. This is how they were historically used anyway.

simshell · « **Reply #3 on:** July 06, 2004, 05:31:19 PM »

by far the plane that got hurt the most was the LA7\LA5 is that a good thing i dont know

after take off its got i think 21 mins at full fuel and full throttle you can bring that back but thats still very tiny

LYNX · « **Reply #4 on:** July 06, 2004, 11:25:09 PM »

My spit 9 is special it's fitted with a drop tank..dunno about yours? So i take 75% + drop tank+ E6B info = loads of smiles per gallon:D

As for my spit 5 it's got E6b info and handles very well with 100% so long as the speed is up.

My spit 1 just goes for ever especially with E6B info. However, it runs outta ammo before the bloody petrol:eek:

68DevilM · « **Reply #5 on:** July 07, 2004, 07:45:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by fluffy
Well, the fuel burn rate is 25% higher in the AHII MA than it was in the AHI MA. (2.0 now, 1.5 then). In aircraft with small fuel loads this will be more apparent, and the spit has a notoriously small fuel tank. I definitely notice a big difference and practice fuel economy in my spits by using the cruise settings listed in the E6B fuel calculater. I don't take spitfires on long tours either but fly them in the point defence role. This is how they were historically used anyway.

is there a reason behind the increased fuel hike? or did someone just decide to make this way?

p.s. if it aint broke dont fix it

SlapShot · « **Reply #6 on:** July 07, 2004, 08:48:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 68DevilM
is there a reason behind the increased fuel hike? or did someone just decide to make this way?

p.s. if it aint broke dont fix it

Cause it's more "real" ... or at least some think it is. Some people were clamoring for "engine management" and this is what they got.

With the E6B caculator on hand, whatever "realism" this burn rate is trying to accomplish, is nullified by it IMO.

hitech · « **Reply #7 on:** July 07, 2004, 09:13:09 AM »

SlapShot: You got my curiosity up. How do you think E6B change anything in realism?

HiTech

Sikboy · « **Reply #8 on:** July 07, 2004, 09:54:33 AM »

I fly another short legged bird, the Yak-9. I have yet to run out of gas in AHII (even that one time when I took a fuel hit early into a flight), but I have had a few close shaves trying to get home lol.

I've heard some folks who are upset because they can't take 50% fuel anymore, and that always makes me laugh, since I've never really had that option, except in extreme defensive postures. But really, I'm the #1 fan of the new fuelburn. Within a week of having them, I had my max cruise setting memorized, and I use it often. Even when the fight is only 1 sector away I usually end up cruising home once I clear the furball.

If I can't effectively use all of my ammo within the ten minutes I have on station, I really need to practice more

-Sik

SlapShot · « **Reply #9 on:** July 07, 2004, 10:24:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
SlapShot: You got my curiosity up. How do you think E6B change anything in realism?

HiTech

Prior to the E6B, when I was running low on fuel, I would need to make a concious decision as to what I thought I had left in my tank, by looking at the analog gauge and knowing approximately how much fuel my plane digested. This would be my guesstimated safe bingo point. Safe bingo point, for me, would be turning around and flying back to the base without worrying about fuel consumption.

With that in mind, I would sometimes be forced to RTB beyond the safe bingo point (in my mind) so I would, by feel, work the throttle and rpms guesstimating what it would take to get back to the airfield. When I did get back, the achivement factor went thru the roof. Many a time, I ran out of fuel on the runway or on final and having the momentum and glide slope to put it down.

Now with the E6B, I can slide that page out and know exactly how far back to throttle and how much rpms to cut back to. In an instant, the E6B tells me how long till I run out of fuel and how far the fuel will take me. Instant and exact info compared to good 'ole guesstimation and feel.

Again, all this relies on loitering around for a period of time after the safe bingo point. If I am 3/4 of a sector away and I only have 1 tick left of fuel on my Spit V, I know there is no way in hell that I am taking that bird home ... E6B or guesstimating wont' get me there.

I do understand that pilots did have the circular E6B sliderule to figure this out, but not only did they have to do that, but they had to fly the plane at the same time and also watch for enemies.

HT ... don't get me wrong ... I have no complaints about the addition of the E6B, I vary rarely use it, I just don't see how it really adds to the "realism" aspect of the game.

If you slid out a page that made us fill in some information (don't know what E6B needs) and then hit a "calc" button ... that to me would be more "real" than the instant feedback that the E6B provides.

Mugzeee · « **Reply #10 on:** July 07, 2004, 03:37:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SlapShot

With the E6B caculator on hand, whatever "realism" this burn rate is trying to accomplish, is nullified by it IMO.

Now in the light of the "Realism" discussion.
This is the most factuall statement i have personally read on the issue since AH2 Release.
Having said this. I will say that the E6B feature could be a very educational tool in helping us to understand the differences in fule burn and how the different throttle, rmp, climb and other factors will drastically effect/change the effeciency of our AC.

Quote

Originally posted by JB42
Thats why they called it AH2, because it's different from AH1

This kind of reply will change a simple question into an argument.
I think we should be more mindful not to make comments that force one to come to his/her defense. It makes for a better allround discussion. Best regards.

68DevilM · « **Reply #11 on:** July 08, 2004, 12:39:01 PM »

noticed tonight that its not just the spit, guess its every aircraft....

even my 262's fuel goes faster

Sikboy · « **Reply #12 on:** July 08, 2004, 01:15:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 68DevilM
noticed tonight that its not just the spit, guess its every aircraft....

even my 262's fuel goes faster

It's not simply a matter of a faster burn, it's a whole new burn model. As far as I understandi it, the new model changes how RPM and MP effect the rate of burn. Also, Altitude effects how much fuel you burn.

I suppose the bottom line is that at MIL power, you burn faster. But reducing MP and RPM has a greater effect on fuel savings.

-Sik

mars01 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 08, 2004, 02:11:33 PM »

Honestly the only ways the new fuel model changed the way I fly are...

I up with more fuel than before so I am still firewalled to burn off enough to fight.

I can check my E6B to see if it's worth trying to make it home or keep on fighting.

At least now when I reduce the RPMs I am actually conserving fuel.

Other than that I think increasing fuel burn rate to force people to manage their engines is silly. It's ineffective.

I think it is cool that we can now reserve fuel when necessary, but thats all it should be. IMO it's about time since we had the option to reduce RPM in AHI but it had no affect on fuel.

Trying to force us into using the so called engine management by increasing the burn rate is a hollow attempt.

As for the realism aspect, that is hollow as well. I am in the camp that if you don't have all the issues that go along with engine management then you don't have the realism.

Oh well my $.02

Sikboy · « **Reply #14 on:** July 08, 2004, 03:17:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mars01

I up with more fuel than before so I am still firewalled to burn off enough to fight.

Yeah, I imagine that my Yak flying has given me a totaly different perspective.

-Sik