25% Fuel in the 262 not Really 25%

[eskimo2]

I did a fuel burn test in the 262 last week before a squad mission.  With a fuelburnmult of 2 offline, this is what I found.  I wrote it all down, but lost the sheet of paper, going on memory...

262 full throttle:
25% = 10 min.
50% = 28 min.
75% = 48 min.
100% = 72 min.

There are other planes that I also suspect may have fuel loads that are not true multiples of 25%.  The Arado for one.

On the other hand I know that some are right on.  The 109s, for example, are 6 min. 10 sec per each 25%.  


Thanks,
eskimo

[Citabria]

shhhhhh!!!

be quiet!

hehe

[eskimo2]

Oops, mene to go in bug reports.

eskimo

[Vruth]

I do believe reading some where that the Junkers Jumo jet engine burned fuel better at higher altitudes than at lower ones.

Pryo modelled at in the Arado - it burns fuel a lot faster at low levels than at higher. I also know the Junkers burned a lot of fuel when the engines were cold. Is this a facotr? Question is, did Pyro model that as well?

Try testing this off line by timing your flight with 25% at 1000ft and again at 20000ft.

V.

[ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Vruth ]

[Zigrat]

all jet engines have better sfc at high altitudes. it is roughly proportional to the root of theta, where theta is the ratrio of t(alt)/t(sl). thats just approximate of course. also thrust lapse means you are producing much less thrust at allt, but since drag is also less your fuel consumption rate to travel say 500 mph at 25,000 ft in a jet will be much much much lower than that speed on the deck.

[Blue Mako]

Originally posted by Vruth:
Try testing this off line by timing your flight with 25% at 1000ft and again at 20000ft.

V.

If eskimo's test was a straight and level flight comparison then altitude will not change the relative percentages of flight time you get per 25% of fuel.