Fuel Range

[joeblogs]

Mako - read my post to the thread that Jconradh pointed you to.  Using actual flight test data for production models of the La-7 and F6f-5 it is pretty easy to show the endurance of these planes over pretty much the entire range of power settings.  

The results are clear for at least these two planes, the endurance of the La7 relative to the f6f-5 and F4u1-D is two times higher than it should be, regardless of the fuel multiplyer one uses.  

I am gathering the necessary data for planes using the cyclone and the allison engines and, while I don't have all I need, it looks like the phenomenon applies to more than the La7 and the F6f.

-Blogs

Originally posted by Blue Mako
I did read it (at the time).  I remember that F4UDOA was trying to say that because the La7 and the F6 had such and such horsepower they shouldn't have such and such range.  He completely neglected any consideration at all of aircraft fuel loads, aircraft weights, engine efficiency, propeller efficiency, aerodynamics, you know, those little things that determine how well and how far a plane will fly...

Apples and oranges.

The other posts following the initial one were better thought out and there was some good info and they served to highlight the above mentioned points...

[Blue Mako]

Originally posted by joeblogs
The results are clear for at least these two planes, the endurance of the La7 relative to the f6f-5 and F4u1-D is two times higher than it should be, regardless of the fuel multiplyer one uses.

What I don't understand is why people keep trying to compare different aircraft.  The endurance/range/firepower/speed/maneuverability of a plane is an absolute and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with another aircraft's performance.

If you want to show by test data that an aircraft does not match it's real life figures then that is fine.  Trying to show that and La7 shouldn't go as far as an F6 or F4U is worthless.  Tell me that the La7 has half the fuel consumption it should have, based on real world figures and I'll take notice.

Also, I apologise if there is information in the other thread that I missed when reading it through before, I couldn't be bothered reading it again though...

[joeblogs]

Look, if you read the posts you see the endurance of the La-7 is not modeled properly in an absolute sense - range, time in flight, etc.  

The problem with that kind of comparison is that in a game it is nearly impossible to get the absolute performance of all planes correct.

Because planes are combatants, what matters for game play is relative performance, which is why I also show that the performance of a light, short range fighter is not correct relative to a heavier long range fighter.

The fuel adjustment factor is currently set to cut flight times in half relative to the actual performance of these planes.   When Flying the F6 at high power settings the game is just about right.

But at high power settings, the game is twice as generous to the La-7 as it is to the F6.  The reason is that the modeled endurance of the La-7 is off both absolutely and relative to the F6, which is modeled relatively well at high power settings.

THE INFERENCE THEN IS THAT THE GAME HAS MODELED THE ENGINE OF THE LA-7 TO HAVE TWICE THE FUEL EFFICIENCY OF THE BEST AMERICAN RADIAL ENGINES.  This is simply impossible.  

I used the flight test data to show that the relative difference in endurance of these two planes either does not change, or changes in favor of the F6 at lower power settings.  And yet if you fly these two planes at low power settings in the game, you would reach exactly the opposite conclusion.

So in both absolute and relative terms, something is amiss.  There may be good reasons to model the planes in this way, but I've not heard one.

-Blogs