The Mossie's flight endurance still seems too short

[Batz]

When we did the BoB scenario ( I was Axis Co) we tested the ju88 at different power settings. Unfortunately I deleted all the stuff I had for that event but I think esme may still have it.

The ju88 became a real problem in the guadalcanal event because we used it as a stand for the Betty. It was a real challenge to get to target and back with out running out of fuel.

I dont know that it matters much in the main but in events it really effects planning and restricts how you can use it.

[F4UDOA]

HT,

No flame intended. You may wish to switch to decaf.

Also I had a 200 plus post thread on SFC's and endurance with Joe Blogs, Tilt and HoHun amoungst others contributing very heavily  on the La-7 several months ago and you never responded. Hence my surprise now.

And yes there are many questions about fuel consumptions in multiple A/C.

Here is my criteria.

1. HP power produced - I start looking at about 1500HP

2. Internal fuel - 150 Gallons or less

3. Duration- greater than 27 minutes in the MA at 2.0 fuel multiplier.

Based on that


1.  The La-7, 109G10, YAK9, Spit IX, Spit XIV, FW190A8/D9, Moss, P-51D and Ki-61 all need to be looked at because of the amount of HP produced and fuel on board. So instead of listing these A/C I just said "the whole planeset". My bad.

I am not saying I'm right on all of them or even most. They just look strange and based on the criteria I stated above.

The P-51B/D is an exception but still stands out because of this.

The P-51D chart for fuel consumption I have shows 180GPH for mil and 210 for combat power posted in the upper left hand corner. A little blury but very readable.

[hitech]

F4UDOA: Look at page 109 Sea level entry.

HiTech

[F4UDOA]

I don't have the full manual.

Just pieces from the Mustang III manual and F-51D.

Can you post it? Whay would it contradict that chart??

My point is that every A/C requires a certain amount of HP to produce HP.

Many of the A/C we have produce high HP without the use of comparable amounts of fuel. American A/C are easier to check but A/C like the La-7 are not so easy.

Please look at this issue further. Especially the La-7.

I will dig up the old post and restart it. There is a ton of data there.

[Furball]

Originally posted by hitech

I post to a thread and get slamed, I don't post to a thread I get slamd?

Just lock every thread you reply to

[TheCage]

How did this discussion about aircraft endurance turn into a flame fest towards HT.   All the man did was clarify the burn rate in the MA.   Thank you for that information HT.   My best guess why the endurance in the MA is so short, would be because it’s scaled to the arena.   Where as in real life we would have to fly hours to get to a target, in the MA it’s only a few minutes to get there.    The longest distance I have ever flown to get to a target in a fighter has been six sectors.  
Average distance to a target is one to two sectors.   Lets say that the plane your flying could fly 4 hours in real life.   That would mean when you got to your target one or two sectors away your fuel gauge would most likely still be touching the full mark.   If you were in a TnB type aircraft you couldn’t turn to save your life with a full fuel load.    

Now if you only needed to take 25% fuel load to fly to that same target, cap it for an hour, then RTB, then the amount of fuel at the base would be irrelevant.    You could bomb a base into the dust and the fighters there taking off would not be effected by the low amount of fuel.   So as long as the fighter hangers were up, they could take off with an hour of fuel.    

So IMHO it’s just a matter of a balance based on a scale from some point of reference.   I am sure though that HTC while doing the remodeling of the aircraft are looking into endurance that may or may not be effected by the new flight model.    Personally I find all the posted information interesting from a personal view.   Knowing the current endurance helps greatly in a decision of how much fuel do I need to make it to the target, and back.   Leaving enough to spend more then a couple of minutes over the target.

[F4UDOA]

Flamefest? Really, what is so imflamatory exactly?

And BTW I have the document that shows 180GPH.

There is so much data collected on the La-7 and posted already it makes me tired just thinking about reposting it.

JoeBlogs did the hard work. Maybe he has the stuff handy to repost.

[hitech]

And I have the entire document F4UDOA. The 180 Is only max at certain alts.

And YOU are turning it into a flame fest simply by telling me how to do my job.

Do you realy belive it is acceptible to tell me that HTC should look at all the fuel burn rates of all planes?

Do you belive it is acceptible to critise me when I do respond to a thread simply because I havn't responded to ones you wish?

Once again F4U GO SUCK AN EGG.


HiTech

[GRUNHERZ]

Was there different fuel effeciency vs power for some engines compared to others?  For example is it possible that a DB605 or Merlin was more fuel efficent per given power output than a PW R2800?

[TheCage]

F4UDOA I would like to see some of that data you have.   How ever I will expound on my theory of the fuel consumption rates.   In order for the aircraft if a scale is used to achieve a true fuel consumption rate, the MA arena would have to be approximately three times the size of the Trinity map.   That would be around 80 sectors square or 2048 X 2048.  Bases would have to be located much further apart and quite a few bases less.    Average flight times to the nearest base would be around 30 minutes of flight time.   Much longer for bases deep in enemy territory.

At the same time this would limit what planes could actually make deep strikes and many TnB fighters would be regulated to home defense because of limited range.       CV’s would take a week or two to even get close to the enemy controlled areas.   If you were willing to make an attack deep into enemy territory, the time it would take would only allow you one mission a night.    So you would end up with hours of boredom and minutes of fun.   As a compromise the arena is scaled down, which would increase the fuel consumption rate.   Some planes would how ever end up with a higher then normal fuel consumption rate, and others a lower then normal rate due to the scaling.  

To come up with a very accurate scaling system would take some very complex equations which would have to be applied to each type of aircraft, and the effects would only tend to slow down the game play.   So at best guess a generic type of equation is most likely used.    Knowing what the true fuel consumption rate is, helps a player know what type of fuel load to take for the pending mission.    That same information will let a player know how long he can loiter over the target, and when he has to RTB.   Not really sure however if that scaling changes with the different maps sizes.    But that is something I will be checking out as the maps rotate.

[F4UDOA]

How did tell you how to do your job?

Why are programmers all so bizarre?

[hitech]

Now I'm bizzarre?

F4UDOA, You might wish to throw away that shuvel


HiTech

[Mathman]

I like chorizo burritos.

[Furious]

Chorrizo burrito gas production is porked.  HTC should look into the gas duration of all burritos.

[Frost]

You would think that people would just be smart enough to drop it and move on, but...