The Mossie's flight endurance still seems too short

[Tumor]

F4UDOA..... I gotta spare egg or two if ya need one

[BUG_EAF322]

I smell overworked frustrations.

Now u all smoke a big joint and everything gets peacefull again.

[joeblogs]

Do you want to test fuel burn rates with the engine running on WEP?  

I would think you'd want to test it at military power and at the best cruise setting for the engine.  That way you know if the model correctly matches fuel consumption on auto lean and auto rich.

Setting aside all the emotion earlier in this thread, I'd like to point out there is some pretty good evidence that fuel consumption on the La-7 at military power is off.  There have been at least three threads on this in the last year where I have gone through a variety of calculations and data sources to show the implied specific fuel consumption of the engine in that plane, at military power, is simply too low to reflect any non turbocharged high output piston engine built in that era.

You are welcome to email me to go over this.  If I am proven wrong, I'll gladly start a post conceding the point.


-Blogs

Originally posted by hitech
Swoop is correct fuel burn rate in the MA is 2.0.

When testing fuel burn rates, test first at full throttle. If you are testing at a lower power setting you are testing 2 things at once.

We are looking into the mos.


HiTech

[joeblogs]

If you have data for the Merlin and DB601/605 Please send it to me.  I am trying to assemble a data set of the major engines for comparison.

I already have good data on the fuel economy of most high output engines AT THEIR BEST CRUISE SETTINGS.  In general, for non-turbosupercharged engines specific fuel consumption (lbs fuel per HP per hour) varies from about 0.40 to about 0.48.  Most of the good engines are on the low side of this range.

Trouble is, for the game, we are interested in fuel consumption at high output - normal rated power, military power, and WEP.  Here I've found less data.  I know the US radials well and I have some engineering materials that suggest what the lower bound of fuel consumption should be at high outputs.  But I need more data on the British and German engines to compare. Variations in avgas and fuel injection are part of the equation and I need to have examples that reflect this.

What I would say is there appears to be one or two instances where the disparities in fuel economy in Aces seems to be too large to be explained by variations in the engineering data I have been able to find.  I can't say more without more data.

-blogs

Originally posted by 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?

[HoHun]

Hi Joe,

Here's the DB601A (early):

http://www.x-plane.org/users/hohun/DB601tab.jpg

"Kraftstoffverbrauch g/PSh" is the specific fuel consumption.

"Spielraum g/PSh" is the tolerance (only up, because the engine might be adjusted suboptimally. "Superoptimally" is impossible :-)

The remark "Schmierstoffverbrauch 4 - 7 g/PSh je nach Höhe und Drehzahl" translates as "lubricant consumption 4 - 7 g/PSh depending on altitude and revolutions".

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[joeblogs]

Thanks Hohun! - Blogs

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Joe,

Here's the DB601A (early):

http://www.x-plane.org/users/hohun/DB601tab.jpg

"Kraftstoffverbrauch g/PSh" is the specific fuel consumption.

"Spielraum g/PSh" is the tolerance (only up, because the engine might be adjusted suboptimally. "Superoptimally" is impossible :-)

The remark "Schmierstoffverbrauch 4 - 7 g/PSh je nach Höhe und Drehzahl" translates as "lubricant consumption 4 - 7 g/PSh depending on altitude and revolutions".

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Scootter]

Originally posted by Karnak
The problem is that it puts high fuel capacity aircraft at a rather large disadvantage.

Right now the Mosquito needs to take at leats 75% fuel, and that weighs (IIRC) about 2,700lbs to get the same range as a Spitfire with 75% (basically to an enemy base, fight and return home) which weighs a mere 600lbs.

That much extra weight is a big penalty and it doesn't bring with it the advantages that it should, only the disadvantages.

seems it burns that weight of a lot faster also, so less of a disadvantage on arrival

[F4UDOA]

Scooter,

That makes no sense.

If I have to carry 2400lbs of fuel to fly the same time as you do with 700lbs of fuel who has the advantage?

It's like flying with a Volkswagon on your back.

[Scootter]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Scooter,

That makes no sense.

If I have to carry 2400lbs of fuel to fly the same time as you do with 700lbs of fuel who has the advantage?

It's like flying with a Volkswagon on your back.

No question something is porked, my point is the darn thing burns fuel so fast that it is lighter faster then it should be. Still when you compare indurence the thing must have leaks.

[Karnak]

Scooter,

Only to a point.

For example, right now I have to take 75% fuel in a Mossie to attack the next base over.  100% if I want any loiter time.

By the time I reach the enemy base at an altitude of 13,000ft (Mossie best speed alt) I will be down to 50% fuel, or down to 75% if I took 100%.

However, the trip over takes longer because climb performance declines significantly with that much fuel.  Level speed is also a bit lower.  What it boils down to is that it takes even longer to get to the fight, and given that I don't fly the speed demon La-7, Tiffy, Fw190D-9, P-51 or Bf109G-10 I want to minimize my non-fighting transit time as much as possible.

In addition I have been bounced on climb out more than once and carrying all that extra fuel doesn't make it any easier to survive.

Now the thing is these fuel percentages are exactly the same as the percentatges I took back when I flew Spits, even though the Mosquito should have more than twice the range of the Spit.  The Mosquito (and other long range aircraft) should have the ability to strike enemy assets that the Spitfire (and other short range aircraft) could never contemplate hitting.

[Aaron_G_T]

Originally posted by Karnak
These are the flight durations of the Spitfire Mk IX and Mosquito Mk VI when the Fuel Consumption multiplier is set to 2.0.

Spit_9 -- 35/+21=56  
Mossie -- 34/+16=50
 

This is disturbing. I basically fly
Allied types exclusively, so the Mosquito
is a good heavy fighter option (good
6 view too) but I find that 25% fuel is
never enough for anything but the shortest trips. Maybe this is why. It is
a shame as 25% fuel means a lighter
plane, which helps the Mossie.

[Karnak]

Aaron_G_T,

Hitech said they're looking at the Mossie fuel consumption.  Hopefully they find the same thing.