Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Blagard on May 14, 2011, 12:14:32 PM
-
Ignoring the variables of real world aircraft, is there any way to increase an aircrafts range in Aces High for a fixed quantity of fuel?
On occassions, I have tried reducing RPM to minimum and lower throttle to maintain around 160knots straight and level instead of flying maxed out at close to 300 knots straight and level. I have not really noticed any improvement in range. At higher altitudes your true airspeed will increase but I don't know if the fuel burn rate remains the same as low altitude. - It all comes down to the way the code is done, so unless anyone knows already, I suspect HT will have the answer.
-
Ignoring the variables of real world aircraft, is there any way to increase an aircrafts range in Aces High for a fixed quantity of fuel?
On occassions, I have tried reducing RPM to minimum and lower throttle to maintain around 160knots straight and level instead of flying maxed out at close to 300 knots straight and level. I have not really noticed any improvement in range. At higher altitudes your true airspeed will increase but I don't know if the fuel burn rate remains the same as low altitude. - It all comes down to the way the code is done, so unless anyone knows already, I suspect HT will have the answer.
don't know how you didn't notice a difference with the RPM's reduced gives me a lot more range :headscratch:
-
Have you bothered to look at your e6b? that pretty much tells you straight up the answer to your question.
-
Ditto. Reducing manifold pressure and RPM equals increased range; in game and real world. :salute
-
Have you bothered to look at your e6b? that pretty much tells you straight up the answer to your question.
I had quite forgotten about that on the clipboard in flight - So bothering about it did not come to mind.
Ink,
It is quite possible that when on a 1/4 tank and trying to scrape home I didn't notice. Hence the question.
I will give it a try and measure the effects. Thanks.
Edit: Did a low level run in a Spit 16 Got 2 1/2 sectors on 0 Boost around 1200RPM at 160 MPH 1.6k Alt
Got 1 3/4 sectors on Full Boost and Max RPM at around 315 MPH 1.6k Alt
Hi level Got 3 + sectors on 0 Boost around 1600RPM at 160MPH (indicated) and 20K Alt
So yes, makes a significant difference. I ended flights on 7 gallons remaining after a 1/4 tank start (drop tank to get to 20k).
-
flying at your plane's best altitude for fuel mileage and usage of "cruise" throttle settings is what I do.
Your mileage varys greatly with altitude.
-
High altitude (less resistance on the plane) and lower RPM's (prop takes a bigger bite of air each revolution) are primary. Might also have to lower throttle setting to reach max cruise setting of any individual plane. Might not have enough gas to do much climbing if you're low, as climbing takes lots of energy to accomplish.
-
After carry out the exercises edited into my earlier post I have come to the conclusion that if low on Gas, level off, chop throttle and reduce RPM to min. When at 160 MPH, go to full throttle, increase RPM to keep speed at 160 (indicated). Do not climb - the benefit of altitude is not worth it because you burn too much fuel climbing (stay high if you are there already!). Interesting that I was on Full throttle in all three tests. On both lower RPM tests at high and low level the throttle was max, boost at 0 at the same indicated speed of 160 (True - 164 low lvl 220 high lvl)
OK I appreciate this is probably not the best setting, for the Spit 16, but I do know what to expect of it.
160 is a safe low speed for the aircraft and keeps drag low.
It all goes out the window if you have an engagement to worry about.
-
Get to cruising speed, then decrease throttle/Manifold Pressure and what speed when it drops 1-2 Knots increase throttle slightly. Usually 30 lbs is pretty close for most AC I fly. :salute
-
30 inches
-
You can reduce fuel consumption so much you slow down too much to cover any real ground.
The real secret is to find the lowest amount of fuel burn that still gets you rtb.
Really, though... just take more fuel! You have no excuse to complain about lack of fuel when you start with 1/4 a tank. In a spitfire, for example, it's a rare instance you should take ANYthing less than a full tank.
-
some planes glide much better than others, (trial and error :))
If i'm in a heap you have to go for maintaining speed. Something that glides well, try and retain as much height as possible then when you know your on your last drops gun it.
Everything else max cruise on E6B.
-
Is it true switching off combat trim helps when gliding?
-
Really, though... just take more fuel! You have no excuse to complain about lack of fuel when you start with 1/4 a tank. In a spitfire, for example, it's a rare instance you should take ANYthing less than a full tank.
It's a near a quarter tank when I head for home base (on those times when its around a couple of sectors between bases). Anyway the answer to the question was already given early on thanks.
The results on my testing suprised me until last night that I noticed the Burn Multi in the MA is 2 as opposed to 1 off line. So the range will probably be half of what I found out offline. I would imagine it is always 2 in the MA.
Is it true switching off combat trim helps when gliding?
It should not really make any difference but, I have found that using auto speed(climb) gives an excellent glide coupled with setting RPM to Min which makes a huge difference. You can see the change RPM makes if you glide with auto speed(climb) because it trims the plane to around 160 MPH and you can actually see the difference in the glide angle when you alter the RPM
Edit: I should have said 160 MPH for the spit - It varies from plane to plane and in any event you can tweek the actual speed using the .speed XXX command where the XXX is the speed you want. The low RPM setting gives a course prop pitch and is as near to feathering a prop as you will get in AH
-
It should not really make any difference but, I have found that using auto speed(climb) gives an excellent glide coupled with setting RPM to Min which makes a huge difference. You can see the change RPM makes if you glide with auto speed(climb) because it trims the plane to around 160 MPH and you can actually see the difference in the glide angle when you alter the RPM
Edit: I should have said 160 MPH for the spit - It varies from plane to plane and in any event you can tweek the actual speed using the .speed XXX command where the XXX is the speed you want. The low RPM setting gives a course prop pitch and is as near to feathering a prop as you will get in AH
The best glide for the Spitfire is around 130 (the actual number depends on the model, Spit14 has it at 135). As a matter effect the best glide is lower than auto climb in most airplanes.
What you are saying about the prop RPMs is correct, but if you manage to stop the prop completely (by increasing your RPMs and slowing down to almost stall) your glide distance will significantly improve.
See this thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,308176.msg3976745.html#msg3976745 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,308176.msg3976745.html#msg3976745)
-
Is it true switching off combat trim helps when gliding?
Combat Trim trims your aircraft for straight & level flight at mill. power, compensating for the torque. When you are gliding you have no torque so you want to trim all your controls straight (besides the elevators, trim those for best glide). If you usually glide on autopilot than don't worry about combat trim.
-
The results on my testing suprised me until last night that I noticed the Burn Multi in the MA is 2 as opposed to 1 off line. So the range will probably be half of what I found out offline. I would imagine it is always 2 in the MA.
Yeah, it's always 2 in MA.
-
The best glide for the Spitfire is around 130 (the actual number depends on the model, Spit14 has it at 135). As a matter effect the best glide is lower than auto climb in most airplanes.
Thanks, that's useful to know. I used to fly sailplanes amd hanggliders so I became reasonably accomplished in understanding glide performance dependant on what you are trying to achieve in different conditions.
In AH it's worth getting to know a few basics in performance that can make the difference between just scraping in to base and ditching a few yard short!
-
Combat Trim trims your aircraft for straight & level flight at mill. power, compensating for the torque.
Whoa! - That does not sound right - I think combat trim is constantly changing the trim to suit the atitudes you are putting the aircraft in. In game, it affects the amount of stick movement you have to input.
Using the period(dot) trims out current stick deflections for adjustments within the trim range and the othertrims are Auto as in "Auto pilot" for speed(climb), angle and level. And finally there is the manual trims. Sorry, I digress on my own thread!
-
Whoa! - That does not sound right - I think combat trim is constantly changing the trim to suit the atitudes you are putting the aircraft in. In game, it affects the amount of stick movement you have to input.
Using the period(dot) trims out current stick deflections for adjustments within the trim range and the othertrims are Auto as in "Auto pilot" for speed(climb), angle and level. And finally there is the manual trims. Sorry, I digress on my own thread!
Try flying the airplane at mill power, then cut the throttle. While doing that look at your trim indicators, they will not move and you will feel the airplane really wanting to bank.
Also try flying with flaps while combat trim is on, it just does not work so you have to trim it your self.
-
Try flying the airplane at mill power, then cut the throttle. While doing that look at your trim indicators, they will not move and you will feel the airplane really wanting to bank.
True, but now try flying without combat trim on. Put the aircraft in to a steep climb (after getting some steam up) and hold the angle steady using the stick adjustment. Then try putting the aircraft into a steep dive and keep it there with stick adjusment.
Put the combat trim on and do the same. - You will find you don't need anywhere near the same amount of stick input after changing your attitude because the combat trim will move your trims to compensate.
Combat trim is definately not an autopilot and will not compensate for the aircraft wanting to change attitude. It's actually a rather special trim unique to AH and not of the real world (as the world was in WWII). It's more of a playablity aid used in conjuction with the limitations of the virtual world created.
-
True, but now try flying without combat trim on. Put the aircraft in to a steep climb (after getting some steam up) and hold the angle steady using the stick adjustment. Then try putting the aircraft into a steep dive and keep it there with stick adjusment.
Put the combat trim on and do the same. - You will find you don't need anywhere near the same amount of stick input after changing your attitude because the combat trim will move your trims to compensate.
Combat trim is definately not an autopilot and will not compensate for the aircraft wanting to change attitude. It's actually a rather special trim unique to AH and not of the real world (as the world was in WWII). It's more of a playablity aid used in conjuction with the limitations of the virtual world created.
OK, my definition of combat trim was incorrect but my original point (using combat trim in glide) is right. :)
I do not understand why would it compensate for the pitch, but not compensate for the power & flaps. I guess we should just call it "Various Pitch at Military Power in Clean Configuration Trim", shortened to "VPMPCCT". :D
-
Also try flying with flaps while combat trim is on, it just does not work so you have to trim it your self.
This is a different problem because flaps have different effects on different aircraft. I suspect combat trim is optimised for use without flaps, so you are going to have to compensate for the difference manually. It does not help if you loose a wing tip either, again you have to manually trim that out.
For what it is intended for, it does OK - Just remember it is a game aid not a real world equivalent trim.
OK, my definition of combat trim was incorrect but my original point (using combat trim in glide) is right.
I was not debating that point. but combat trim is of very little use in the glide because you do not change attitude much if at all. The poster wondered if it had any effect on the glide and the practical answer is no it doesn't.
-
This is a different problem because flaps have different effects on different aircraft. I suspect combat trim is optimised for use without flaps, so you are going to have to compensate for the difference manually. It does not help if you loose a wing tip either, again you have to manually trim that out.
For what it is intended for, it does OK - Just remember it is a game aid not a real world equivalent trim.
Loosing a wing tip is not normal, using flaps is normal. If it was meant to be used in combat than it should compensate for flaps as well.
I guess your right, it's "OK". I personally don't really use combat trim (only in high speed fights) so I have my trim controls at my fingertips while flying.
-
Loosing a wing tip is not normal, using flaps is normal. If it was meant to be used in combat than it should compensate for flaps as well.
Ah! - A valid point - I agree that as a normal control surface used in combat by some aircraft it should compensate. I think this is just a question of how complicated the coding gets when you introduce that factor! - So it would seem they have not done so.
Thanks for the debate though :cool: it is always a good change to have sensible one on this forum.
-
As a matter effect the best glide is lower than auto climb in most airplanes.
No, hardly ever will this be the case. Best glide speed will almost always be higher than your best climb rate speed. I won't get into the actual mechanics of it unless someone wants it, but a couple of points. First, best glide speed changes with weight and altitude. Second, for a rough estimate of best glide speed (without testing it), add 10-15% to your Alt-X climb speed. If you're heavier (say a shot up engine with a good amount of fuel and ammo remaining) go for the 15% figure. If you're light (ran out of gas and no ammo) go for the 10% figure. This will get you closer to the actual. Third, the easiest way to glide home, is to use the [.setspeed xxx] command. If your Alt-X climb speed is 160, use the .setspeed 175 (adding 10% to your best climb speed) command line in the text box, and then hit Alt-X. The game will trim the plane for 175 mph IAS, and it will keep you from scrubbing off distance from manual flying. These are not exact, and may not be the best glide speed, but they're close approximations. If you really want to know your favorite ride's best glide speeds, you'll have to do some testing in-game.
Now, to increase your overall range, you need to (1) only climb as high as you absolutely need to, and (2) pull power and RPM back below the "cruise" settings in the E6B. If you have a long distance to travel, the best fuel economy occurs if you fly at that minimum power setting, as low as you can, and then at some point before you enter the combat area, climb to your desired altitude at full power, using your normal alt-x speed. Once you get to your desired altitude, level off and accelerate to your chosen cruise/loiter speed, then pull power and rpm back to some combination that will give you the absolute minimum fuel consumption necessary to maintain that speed and altitude. Once you're ready to RTB, descend back to the deck at idle, using your best glide speed, and then level off at some safe altitude above the terrain, and resume that min-power setting on your throttle/rpm. Now, some of this may not be practical from a tactical standpoint, and it will either require some testing for you to figure out your best power settings, or you can look them up in a POH for your favorite aircraft. You'll want to look for something like "Minimum Specific Fuel Consumption" on the engine charts for that aircraft, such as this one for the earlier P-47s:
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p61/stonewall74/47SEFC.gif)
I personally use the 1800 rpm / 32" MP setting in all of the P-47s in-game at most altitudes. These numbers won't be exact for each model, since they used different versions of the R-2800 engine, but they're close enough for the girls I date. I can usually fly 3 or sometimes 4 sectors home on 25% fuel in a P-47 using this setting. Most of the American ride's have charts like this you can find--I don't know about the non-American rides, as some lack a lot of documentation online. But, hopefully you get the idea. Also, if you want to take the time, you can do some testing on or off-line with a stop watch, using different power/rpm settings and timing your plane over a set distance to see what settings give you the best fuel economy. Remember though, that fuel economy is a function of minimum fuel consumption over a timed distance. Simply setting for minimum consumption that keeps you airborne will only give you your maximum endurance setting, meaning that you'll maximize your time in the air, but not the range.
There's a lot of aerodynamic theory involved with this stuff, which if you're interested, we can get into, but:
TL;DR: Best glide speed is always higher than your best climb speed by about 10-15% and maximum fuel economy is achieved by flying low and slow to and from the target area. This is how Lindbergh got across the Atlantic.
-
Stoney, Very interesting data, but on this occassion I agree with MachFly. It seems to work his way around in AH which is what we are looking at.
I did a test using a Spit 16 at 130mph, 160mph(default) and 180mph. with glides from 2000
130 was the longest then 160 and finally 180 the shortest.
From 2000 feet they would all just about make the same distance to land due to the additional "float" the higher speed glides give at the end of the flight. All were with prop on min RPM.
I think I might try them all with the same initial energy state of 180MPH at 2000 and capture the landing on screen shots rather than glide to impact!
Edit: I have just done it again with the same energy state at the beginning. The slower speed 130 covers the greatest distance. So the answer is convert your speed to altitude with a gentle climb and then glide at the slower speed. Perhaps the P47's in AH behave differently. That I have not checked.
-
Stoney, Very interesting data, but on this occassion I agree with MachFly. It seems to work his way around in AH which is what we are looking at.
I did a test using a Spit 16 at 130mph, 160mph(default) and 180mph. with glides from 2000
130 was the longest then 160 and finally 180 the shortest.
From 2000 feet they would all just about make the same distance to land due to the additional "float" the higher speed glides give at the end of the flight. All were with prop on min RPM.
I think I might try them all with the same initial energy state of 180MPH at 2000 and capture the landing on screen shots rather than glide to impact!
Edit: I have just done it again with the same energy state at the beginning. The slower speed 130 covers the greatest distance. So the answer is convert your speed to altitude with a gentle climb and then glide at the slower speed. Perhaps the P47's in AH behave differently. That I have not checked.
Never climb to reach the slower speed--you will never recover the energy you use to increase your altitude. Go auto-level and wait for the plane to decelerate to the best glide speed, then begin to descend.
So what were the exact distances covered? I don't know that the alt-x speed for the Spitfire is Vy, but it is pretty close for the U.S. rides. What is almost always true is that Vglide is greater than Vy.
What I'd suggest is to test the glide speed this way:
1. Level off at 6,000 feet. Set fuel burn to 0. Use .setspeed xxx to set the glide speed you want to test. Once stabilized at 6,000 feet, with as little deceleration as you can manage, hit alt-x and reduce power to idle. For the first 1,000 feet, check your gauges to make sure the rate of descent and speed are stable, and get ready with the stopwatch. If your rate of descent and speed are stable, start the clock as you pass through 5,000 feet. Stop the clock as you arrive at 4,000 feet, and note the number of seconds it took for you to glide 1,000 feet. Make notes of your tested speed and the time. Write down both the TAS and IAS of the tested speed at that altitude, or you can do the conversions from IAS later.
2. Repeat step 1 at least 2-3 times for each speed tested in order to make sure your data is consistent. I used 5mph intervals for my P-47 testing, starting at 20 mph slower than alt-x speed and going all the way up to about 40 mph above. Once you have consistent data for each speed tested, we can start to crunch the numbers.
3. You need to do a couple of things here. First, convert your IAS (or the speeds you used for the .setspeed xxx command) into TAS (because in AH2, TAS = Ground Speed unless winds are active) by using a online conversion website, or from your notes. If using an online conversion, use the TAS at 4500 feet, standard conditions (59 degrees F and 29.92 pressure). Now, using the time it took to descend 1,000 feet, and your converted speeds, you can determine how far horizontally you flew in feet, over the course of that descent. Chart the result, and look for where the DeltaTime X Vtas is maximized, and that's your best glide speed, for that weight. It should look something like this:
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p61/stonewall74/Windmill.png)
-
Never climb to reach the slower speed--you will never recover the energy you use to increase your altitude.
So what were the exact distances covered?
I figured to store the excess energy in altitude because I get away from the higher drag quicker. I most certainly do recover the energy from altitude, thats one very fundamental ACM issue but note you may mean I don't recover all the energy used.
I did not measure overall distance as such. I compared the end point of each whilst using the same start point.
Method was to climb to 2000, use .speed 180 command (btw it's not .setspeed) and engage auto speed(climb). Use throttle to fine tune altitude and maintain 2000. On reaching a set point (the Radar tower in my case), cut engine and drop RPM to min. You are on auto pilot fixed at a 180 glide all the way down.
For slower speeds you loose some energy because of the climb. At the set start point you have to be quick after the engine cut and Min RPM to hit level auto trim and then type in the command .speed 130 (or 160) and hit auto speed (climb) again.
In all cases the auto pilot is keeping you straight. At 100 feet I came out of auto pilot to skim the ground as far as possible at less than 50 feet alt until you can stay up no longer. (Landing gear up). I used F3 and a vertical look down for passing over the radar tower start point.
-
30 inches
yup :uhoh
-
No, hardly ever will this be the case. Best glide speed will almost always be higher than your best climb rate speed. I won't get into the actual mechanics of it unless someone wants it, but a couple of points. First, best glide speed changes with weight and altitude. Second, for a rough estimate of best glide speed (without testing it), add 10-15% to your Alt-X climb speed. If you're heavier (say a shot up engine with a good amount of fuel and ammo remaining) go for the 15% figure. If you're light (ran out of gas and no ammo) go for the 10% figure. This will get you closer to the actual. Third, the easiest way to glide home, is to use the [.setspeed xxx] command. If your Alt-X climb speed is 160, use the .setspeed 175 (adding 10% to your best climb speed) command line in the text box, and then hit Alt-X. The game will trim the plane for 175 mph IAS, and it will keep you from scrubbing off distance from manual flying. These are not exact, and may not be the best glide speed, but they're close approximations. If you really want to know your favorite ride's best glide speeds, you'll have to do some testing in-game.
I have not flown a single airplane who's glide speed is greater than Vy, and don't think I know of any airplane who's glide speed is greater than Vy.
I am not aware of such rule of thumb but it seem that your mixing something up with the 10%, -10% from Vy seems to make more sense.
I have done some test in AH for this and take a look at what I came up with:
I made a series of tests today to figure out Spit14's best glide speed. I took a Spit14 with 50% fuel and used the SW spawn at A22 in the training arena. Prop RPMs were set to minimum.
TEST 1: Used 175mph for the first test (HTC's programed autoclimb speed for Spit14). After landing, I asked someone to serve as a reference point for my further tests. Had him put his airplane right where my is in order to measure distance for further tests.
TEST 2: 200mph, landed 5K before the reference point.
TEST 3: 165mph, landed 3.1K after the reference point.
TEST 4: 140mph, landed 3.3K after the reference point.
TEST 5: 130mph, landed 3.3K after the reference point.
TEST 6: 135mph, landed 3.8K after the reference point.
135 mph is the best glide speed for Spitfire mk XIV is this configuration.
I know in reality the plane will glide further with prop stopped than feathered. So I decided to test if HTC implemented this in AH.
TEST 7: Used the same 135mph as before. With the engine ignition off I had pitch up and reduce my airspeed beyond stall to 20mph which caused the airplane to climb another 2000ft, then since the airplane was already in the stall I had to dive down to initial altitude to recover from the stall. Then I continued the glide. I landed beyond 6K from the reference point so I do not know the exact distance. Since in test 6 I landed 3.8K from the reference point I this test proves that the plane glides better with the prop stopped. Additionally in test 6 I overflew the reference point at 2000ft MSL, in test 7 I overflew the reference point at 4000ft MSL, which additional proves that gliding with prop stopped results in a longer & more efficient climb.
This demonstrates that the energy lost due to maneuvering to get the prop to stop can pay of assuming that the glide is from a relatively high altitude.
Note: It will not necessarily pay off if the glide is from a low altitude.
WARNING: DO NOT DO THIS AT LOW ALTITUDE AS YOU MAY NOT RECOVER FROM THE STALL.
Special thanks to Electric for dedicating his time acting as a reference point.
Now, to increase your overall range, you need to (1) only climb as high as you absolutely need to, and (2) pull power and RPM back below the "cruise" settings in the E6B. If you have a long distance to travel, the best fuel economy occurs if you fly at that minimum power setting, as low as you can, and then at some point before you enter the combat area, climb to your desired altitude at full power, using your normal alt-x speed. Once you get to your desired altitude, level off and accelerate to your chosen cruise/loiter speed, then pull power and rpm back to some combination that will give you the absolute minimum fuel consumption necessary to maintain that speed and altitude. Once you're ready to RTB, descend back to the deck at idle, using your best glide speed, and then level off at some safe altitude above the terrain, and resume that min-power setting on your throttle/rpm. Now, some of this may not be practical from a tactical standpoint, and it will either require some testing for you to figure out your best power settings, or you can look them up in a POH for your favorite aircraft. You'll want to look for something like "Minimum Specific Fuel Consumption" on the engine charts for that aircraft, such as this one for the earlier P-47s:
I disagree, you need to know what altitude your airplane performs best at and the speed difference. For example normally all I need is 10K of alt but Spit14 is a lot faster at 12K than 10K, so I climb to 12K. Than you want to stay at mill power for some time to gain your speed and only than throttle down to cruise, if you throttle down to cruise right away than it will take you more time to teach your cruise speed so you will be waisting time and fuel. Also you mentioned that ones your at your cruise altitude you should throttle down the the minimum speed that will let you maintain that altitude, this will increase your endurance but will decrease your range, as you don't normally care about your endurance and it's the range that matters I recommend you use your cruise speed & power.
Take a look at this chart. See it's not logical to fly at 10K when your so much faster at 12K and it takes you so little time to get there.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/b/b8/Spit14spd.jpg)
-
I have not flown a single airplane who's glide speed is greater than Vy, and don't think I know of any airplane who's glide speed is greater than Vy.
If you've flown a P-47 in-game, you've flown a plane who's best glide speed is higher than Vy. There are others. Like I said in my last post, I don't know that the alt-x speed of the Spits = the Vy speed. I haven't tested them to know, nor looked up the numbers in a Spit POH. Could be that the alt-x speed of the Spit is a lot higher than the actual Vy.
I disagree, you need to know what altitude your airplane performs best at and the speed difference. For example normally all I need is 10K of alt but Spit14 is a lot faster at 12K than 10K, so I climb to 12K.
The altitude you determine is required is up to you, based on whatever tactical considerations you have. If you decided 12k is what you want, only climb to 12k. You misunderstood what I posted, as well as with what's quoted in the next part. You don't want to gain excess altitude if you're trying to use the least amount of fuel possible.
Than you want to stay at mill power for some time to gain your speed and only than throttle down to cruise, if you throttle down to cruise right away than it will take you more time to teach your cruise speed so you will be waisting time and fuel. Also you mentioned that ones your at your cruise altitude you should throttle down the the minimum speed that will let you maintain that altitude, this will increase your endurance but will decrease your range, as you don't normally care about your endurance and it's the range that matters I recommend you use your cruise speed & power.
No, if you go back and read my post, I said very purposefully "Once you get to your desired altitude, level off and accelerate to your chosen cruise/loiter speed, then pull power and rpm back to some combination that will give you the absolute minimum fuel consumption necessary to maintain that speed and altitude." [emphasis added]
Take a look at this chart. See it's not logical to fly at 10K when your so much faster at 12K and it takes you so little time to get there.
Like I said, you determine what amount of altitude will be best. If its 12k instead of 10k, that's your choice. Just don't climb to 14k if 12k is all you need.
-
If you've flown a P-47 in-game, you've flown a plane who's best glide speed is higher than Vy. There are others. Like I said in my last post, I don't know that the alt-x speed of the Spits = the Vy speed. I haven't tested them to know, nor looked up the numbers in a Spit POH. Could be that the alt-x speed of the Spit is a lot higher than the actual Vy.
By "flown" I meant actually flown, not in AH. I have a copy of P-47N's POH, could you tell me where exactly it tells you the glide speed and Vy. I just don't want to read though the whole thing and I'm sure if you looked at it before you know.
I just have very hard time believing that the number the P-47 POH gives you for best glide is higher than Vy. Vy changes with weight just as well as best glide so perhaps you looked at the low weight for Vy and a high weight for best glide?
The altitude you determine is required is up to you, based on whatever tactical considerations you have. If you decided 12k is what you want, only climb to 12k. You misunderstood what I posted, as well as with what's quoted in the next part. You don't want to gain excess altitude if you're trying to use the least amount of fuel possible.
The higher you go the greater your speed while your fuel consumption does not change much. You said "only climb as high as you absolutely need to", so I'm trying to say that sometimes it's good to climb higher than you need to in order to save fuel (all relative to how far your going and how the specific airplane reacts to a few thousand feet).
No, if you go back and read my post, I said very purposefully "Once you get to your desired altitude, level off and accelerate to your chosen cruise/loiter speed, then pull power and rpm back to some combination that will give you the absolute minimum fuel consumption necessary to maintain that speed and altitude." [emphasis added]
Your right you said that, I just added a bit more explanation to it for everyone else.
-
After reading about MachFly getting the prop to stop windmilling, I tried it using my base energy state of 180 MPH at 2000 Alt. You really have to get the nose very high to get the prop to stop. Almost straight up!
Even from the 2000 start I recovered (in line thank goodness) and got further on a 130MPH glide with the prop stopped compared to previous 130 MPH attempts with it windmilling. I can imagine from greater height the pay off would be even greater. I would not risk doing this as low as 2000 in game because the severe stall is difficult to keep straight.
Unlike MachFly having some-one to help, I used the film recorder and did my attempts along the coastline so the changing shoreline gave clear indicators of the landing points for comparison. (use F5 to get an excellent birds eye view)
I can see myself using this to get home under marginal conditions and saving the last few drops of fuel for landing or defense.
-
By "flown" I meant actually flown, not in AH. I have a copy of P-47N's POH, could you tell me where exactly it tells you the glide speed and Vy. I just don't want to read though the whole thing and I'm sure if you looked at it before you know.
I just have very hard time believing that the number the P-47 POH gives you for best glide is higher than Vy. Vy changes with weight just as well as best glide so perhaps you looked at the low weight for Vy and a high weight for best glide?
The higher you go the greater your speed while your fuel consumption does not change much. You said "only climb as high as you absolutely need to", so I'm trying to say that sometimes it's good to climb higher than you need to in order to save fuel (all relative to how far your going and how the specific airplane reacts to a few thousand feet).
Your right you said that, I just added a bit more explanation to it for everyone else.
Best glide speed was tested in game. Best climb speed of 155 mph is listed in the section about takeoffs. As far as fuel consumption goes, do what you want.
-
Best glide speed was tested in game. Best climb speed of 155 mph is listed in the section about takeoffs. As far as fuel consumption goes, do what you want.
Stoney,
When you talk of Vbg being higher than Vy are you talking in game only? or were you thinking real world also? Like Machfly, I can't think of anything I've flown where Vbg is higher than Vy (real life).
-
Best glide speed was tested in game. Best climb speed of 155 mph is listed in the section about takeoffs.
Found it, but it only says 155mph, it does not give you the weight. So I'm thinking since the Jug can carry a lot of fuel perhaps it gives you a Vy at a lower weight than you tested your glide. That would make sense.
(http://imageshack.us/m/829/5535/p47s.jpg)
-
Stoney,
When you talk of Vbg being higher than Vy are you talking in game only? or were you thinking real world also? Like Machfly, I can't think of anything I've flown where Vbg is higher than Vy (real life).
Maybe I'm all hosed up, but my testing in-game for the P-47 at the weight shown, is correct, and it has a Vbg that is higher than the alt-x speed. And Machfly, I don't know buddy. Normally all listed speeds for an aircraft are for @ gross weight unless otherwise noted, which I figure for a P-47N would be with full tanks, but no ordinance. Obviously, a P-47M is a bit lighter than a P-47N, but also has less wing area, so it is probably close to a wash--I haven't tested that though, so take it with a grain of salt. From my testing, the P-47M had a best glide ratio of 11.6:1 at 175mph IAS with 25% fuel and ammo. I even tested the data I got with this website: http://www.csgnetwork.com/glideratiocalc.html to make sure my math was correct. What am I doing wrong then?
-
I found that draining all the oil from both engines lightens the load and you can fly far with 0 fuel burn.
-
I found that draining all the oil from both engines lightens the load and you can fly far with 0 fuel burn.
How do you drain your oil without exiting the airplane, even in real life I don't think that's possible. Also there is not that much oil in the engine and it's not that heavy, I don't think that something like that can be significant.
How much further do you glide?
-
How do you drain your oil without exiting the airplane, even in real life I don't think that's possible. Also there is not that much oil in the engine and it's not that heavy, how much further do you get to glide with no oil?
The distance varies greatly based on what other parts are missing off the plane.
-
How do you drain your oil without exiting the airplane, even in real life I don't think that's possible. Also there is not that much oil in the engine and it's not that heavy, I don't think that something like that can be significant.
How much further do you glide?
He's joking about having both engines shot out in-game and trying to glide home...
-
He's joking about having both engines shot out in-game and trying to glide home...
Umm all seriousness aside.... I am not joking.
-
Maybe I'm all hosed up, but my testing in-game for the P-47 at the weight shown, is correct, and it has a Vbg that is higher than the alt-x speed. And Machfly, I don't know buddy. Normally all listed speeds for an aircraft are for @ gross weight unless otherwise noted, which I figure for a P-47N would be with full tanks, but no ordinance. Obviously, a P-47M is a bit lighter than a P-47N, but also has less wing area, so it is probably close to a wash--I haven't tested that though, so take it with a grain of salt. From my testing, the P-47M had a best glide ratio of 11.6:1 at 175mph IAS with 25% fuel and ammo. I even tested the data I got with this website: http://www.csgnetwork.com/glideratiocalc.html to make sure my math was correct. What am I doing wrong then?
I don't want to say that your tests are wrong because I don't have any other number that contradicts what your saying and you seem to know what your talking about, perhaps the problem is that we just don't have the right number for Vy.
-
The distance varies greatly based on what other parts are missing off the plane.
If you loose something that has a significant amount of weight to it theoretically your glide distance will increase. However if you take drag into account that there should be an opposite effect. If you loose something that means your airfoil is not as smooth any more and creates more drag, that drag significantly decreases your glide distance.
I know the Griffon engine uses 7 gallons of oil, that's 54lb (1gal of oil = 7.7lb). I don't think that's significant compared to an ~8500lb plane.
-
The 38 has much more oil.
The loss of landing gear, a vertical stab, a pint or two of blood all add up.
Add to this the loss of fuel through the multiple airation of the fuel cells....... it is a lot of weight.
I can honestly say that the loss of all of the above has never failed to get me to a single door hangar or a tree in the middle of a beautiful rolling field.
-
The 38 has much more oil.
The loss of landing gear, a vertical stab, a pint or two of blood all add up.
Add to this the loss of fuel through the multiple airation of the fuel cells....... it is a lot of weight.
I can honestly say that the loss of all of the above has never failed to get me to a single door hangar or a tree in the middle of a beautiful rolling field.
38 does have more oil but it is also a lot heavier.
Loss of gear and V-stabilizer is bad for glide because it creates drag. So your right it does add up but in a negative way. The blood that you loose stays in the cockpit so the weight remains.
Loss of fuel is good, but most of the time when you have to glide you already have no fuel. As that is the most common reason why people glide.
Trust me you would have been able to get back without loosing all that stuff.
-
I'd venture to say that most gliding is for loss of oil/engine damage rather than fuel.
Less items stuck out into the air means less drag (stab).
38s have a tube on the left side to drain blood and other liquids.
I've also found that running the blender on med-hi creates an oscellation adding to further my glide.
Note blender must be half emptied through whatever means you can find.
-
you have to know ur engine in the plane also. example, R2800s in P47s F6s F4Us love love RPM reduction for better fuel GPH, Manifold
change has alot lesser benefit. P51s Spits with the merlin love Manifold change but RPM has less affect. So try each and see what the
engine likes, there are some that want both. So just keep track.
-
I'd venture to say that most gliding is for loss of oil/engine damage rather than fuel.
Less items stuck out into the air means less drag (stab).
38s have a tube on the left side to drain blood and other liquids.
I've also found that running the blender on med-hi creates an oscellation adding to further my glide.
Note blender must be half emptied through whatever means you can find.
You fly a P-38, how can you possibly be forced to glide home because of loss of oil? You have two engines. Do you stay in combat after you loose one or something?
I realize that you think that if you loose something it wont be there to make any drag. This is a common assumption but it is wrong, if you loose something that means you have non smooth surface sticking out that creates a significant amount of drag. Take a look at this picture for example:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Damaged_empennage_of_China_Airlines_Flight_006-N4522V.JPG/300px-Damaged_empennage_of_China_Airlines_Flight_006-N4522V.JPG)
-
That 747 went considerably faster than mach .92.......or it had explosive decompression vented into the tail structure.
-
Here is one more picture:
(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x77/jeptoncook/B-17F97thBG.jpg)
-
That 747 went considerably faster than mach .92.......or it had explosive decompression vented into the tail structure.
It lost it's #4 engine causing it to enter extreme unusual attitude, high Gs and high speed caused structural damage.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/747-CA006-1.png/395px-747-CA006-1.png)
[/hijack]
-
It lost it's #4 engine causing it to enter extreme unusual attitude, high Gs and high speed caused structural damage.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/747-CA006-1.png/395px-747-CA006-1.png)
[/hijack]
I think I see a lot of poop on the inside of those windows :uhoh
JUGgler
-
Reining in the discussion back a little :D.... Stoney is correct - best glide speed is typically higher than best rate of climb speed. Power off, zero wind best glide speed occurs at the velocity where L/D is maximum. This is typically higher than best rate of climb speed. Best rate of climb speed occurs when Pa-Pr (excess power) is maximum which is a different than when L/D is maximum with no power available. Why this is so requires thinking through the math of the physics a bit which I haven't done.
Here's a chart for the Cessna 172 to illustrate:
(http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/images/e5low.gif)
All bets are off when you glide in a head wind or tail wind though.
-
It lost it's #4 engine causing it to enter extreme unusual attitude, high Gs and high speed caused structural damage.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/747-CA006-1.png/395px-747-CA006-1.png)
[/hijack]
The loss of the engine did not cause that problem. The crews failure to recognize and correct is what caused the problem.
-
The loss of the engine did not cause that problem. The crews failure to recognize and correct is what caused the problem.
Your right, I just did not want to get into this discussion in this thread.
-
Reining in the discussion back a little :D.... Stoney is correct - best glide speed is typically higher than best rate of climb speed. Power off, zero wind best glide speed occurs at the velocity where L/D is maximum. This is typically higher than best rate of climb speed. Best rate of climb speed occurs when Pa-Pr (excess power) is maximum which is a different than when L/D is maximum with no power available. Why this is so requires thinking through the math of the physics a bit which I haven't done.
Here's a chart for the Cessna 172 to illustrate:
(http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/images/e5low.gif)
All bets are off when you glide in a head wind or tail wind though.
Since you brought up the 172, it's Vy is 74kts (72kts at 10K) and best glide is 68kts. Reference C-172SP NAV III POH.
-
Reining in the discussion back a little :D.... Stoney is correct - best glide speed is typically higher than best rate of climb speed. Power off, zero wind best glide speed occurs at the velocity where L/D is maximum. This is typically higher than best rate of climb speed. Best rate of climb speed occurs when Pa-Pr (excess power) is maximum which is a different than when L/D is maximum with no power available. Why this is so requires thinking through the math of the physics a bit which I haven't done.
Here's a chart for the Cessna 172 to illustrate:
Nice chart, don't doubt it's accuracy. I'm a long way from my 172 POH, from memory Vy is 90mph, Vbg is 80mph. I wonder why Cessna would publish a lower than optimum glide speed? (Although a lot of the numbers in a POH are based on more than just performance -- Vx and Vy being a couple of them with considerations being made for engine cooling, stall prevention, etc. )
-
Colombo, if I remember correctly, you've got time in a B-24? What was Vy vs. Vbg in it?
-
Just for the record; DA40's Vy & Vbg are exactly the same. I find that a little strange but the glide is still not greater than Vy.
-
Just for the record; DA40's Vy & Vbg are exactly the same. I find that a little strange but the glide is still not greater than Vy.
I'm thinking wingload and aspect ratio is going to be the factor here. For one, wingloading on a P-47 is nearly 3 times that of a Cessna, and the aspect ratio is lower. Induced drag on a heavier, lower aspect ratio plane is going to be much higher in the glide at slower speeds. That would cause the drag curve to look very different than on a light, high aspect ratio aircraft.
-
Since you brought up the 172, it's Vy is 74kts (72kts at 10K) and best glide is 68kts. Reference C-172SP NAV III POH.
There are two airspeeds that can be interpreted as best glide speed: 1) speed for maximum glide time (minimum drag) resulting in the longest time aloft, 2) speed for maximum glide distance (maximum L/D) resulting in longest glide distance. They are different things.
2ndly the chart I posted is supposedly from the 172 POH and can be found on FIU (FIU 172 Propller Aircraft Performance (http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/BA-Form&gra.htm)). They actually post two charts, and you'll see that Vbg is depicted at different speeds- 65 kts, & ~81 kts. Note that on the chart I posted there is a Vmd indicated. Vmd here represents maximum glide time which is roughly 65 kts. They also quote from the POH that speed for minimum drag (by definition speed for max glide time) is 65 kts.
The question is which of the best glide speeds does the 172 NAV III POH refer to: max glide time or max glide distance? From the FIU data it would appear to me that it's probably the glide speed for max glide time.
-
There are two airspeeds that can be interpreted as best glide speed: 1) speed for maximum glide time (minimum drag) resulting in the longest time aloft, 2) speed for maximum glide distance (maximum L/D) resulting in longest glide distance. They are different things.
2ndly the chart I posted is supposedly from the 172 POH and can be found on FIU (FIU 172 Propller Aircraft Performance (http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/BA-Form&gra.htm)). They actually post two charts, and you'll see that Vbg is depicted at different speeds- 65 kts, & ~81 kts. Note that on the chart I posted there is a Vmd indicated. Vmd here represents maximum glide time which is roughly 65 kts. They also quote from the POH that speed for minimum drag (by definition speed for max glide time) is 65 kts.
The question is which of the best glide speeds does the 172 NAV III POH refer to: max glide time or max glide distance? From the FIU data it would appear to me that it's probably the glide speed for max glide time.
By "best glide" I meant Vbg.
I actually can't think of a single reason why you would want to stay in the air for longer if it would decrease your glide distance.
I don't have access to the that POH at the moment, if you want I can upload an older copy of the 172S POH from 2003 in PDF. I don't have time to read it right now.
-
By "best glide" I meant Vbg.
I actually can't think of a single reason why you would want to stay in the air for longer if it would decrease your glide distance.
Ditching in the ocean...going into a forest....anywhere that the landing is going to be ugly. More time in the air is more time to work the problem, more time to call for help, more time period.
-
The question is which of the best glide speeds does the 172 NAV III POH refer to: max glide time or max glide distance? From the FIU data it would appear to me that it's probably the glide speed for max glide time.
I've always understood that the glide speed listed in a POH is for max distance, but it may be a compromise of the two.
-
Ditching in the ocean...going into a forest....anywhere that the landing is going to be ugly. More time in the air is more time to work the problem, more time to call for help, more time period.
True
-
Machfly...I tried with prop windmilling and stopped and it glided further with prop stopped.
Of course, some planes have to go unbelievably slow to get the prop to stop.
Doing this comparison on a Typhoon will be interesting since I think I remember gliding considerably less than a sector from 32,000 feet.
-
Machfly...I tried with prop windmilling and stopped and it glided further with prop stopped.
Of course, some planes have to go unbelievably slow to get the prop to stop.
Depending on your altitude it can be worth it. If you know that you will be able to quickly recover from the stall and your above 5K than I say defiantly do it, if not it's questionable.
Doing this comparison on a Typhoon will be interesting since I think I remember gliding considerably less than a sector from 32,000 feet.
That's impossible. If that would be true the Typhoon's glide ratio would be worse than a helicopter's with it's routers blown off, you must be mixing up the numbered or you were gliding at a very bad speed (stalling though the whole glide or 400+mph). If you fly the tiffy a lot perhaps it would be a good idea for you to test for the best glide speed offline or just get the numbered from the POH if you have one (need to make sure that the POH is for the exact same model).
-
Anything at 32k will get you about 3-4 sectors at least. I once had to glide from 32k or so in B-17s and made it 5 sectors with engines mostly idled (might have given me an extra 1.5 sectors over eng off)
-
I had quite forgotten about that on the clipboard in flight - So bothering about it did not come to mind.
Ink,
It is quite possible that when on a 1/4 tank and trying to scrape home I didn't notice. Hence the question.
I will give it a try and measure the effects. Thanks.
Edit: Did a low level run in a Spit 16 Got 2 1/2 sectors on 0 Boost around 1200RPM at 160 MPH 1.6k Alt
Got 1 3/4 sectors on Full Boost and Max RPM at around 315 MPH 1.6k Alt
Hi level Got 3 + sectors on 0 Boost around 1600RPM at 160MPH (indicated) and 20K Alt
So yes, makes a significant difference. I ended flights on 7 gallons remaining after a 1/4 tank start (drop tank to get to 20k).
so you really DO save fuel by flying crazy high...... :noid
-
so you really DO save fuel by flying crazy high...... :noid
"High" is a point of view. For example the Spit14 will go a lot further if cursing at 12K than at 10K. But eventually there is a point of diminishing returns, so you just have to know your plane and what is the optimum altitude for you to fly at.
-
Only because the engine is running at almost idle speeds. You'll note the MAP drops and RPM sometimes as well based on how high you are?
Try those same settings at 1000 feet and you might see similar savings.
The real issue is the thinner air means greater TAS and less resistance, but IMO burning off all that extra avgas to GET to the thinner air is more of a waste than you save once you get there.
-
The real issue is the thinner air means greater TAS and less resistance, but IMO burning off all that extra avgas to GET to the thinner air is more of a waste than you save once you get there.
I agree with this. Climbing to alt burns a lot of fuel so doing it just to make a high altitude fuel saving will rarely pay off. However, it is worthwhile to start your climb to the destination alt straight away, then you will benefit from lower consumption cruising to get to your target.
Edit: The optimum climb rate is something else again! - Perhaps already covered in the long exchanges earlier in the thread. Is the default autospeed(climb) set for best rate of climb? I know it is not for steepest climb. For the best range for fuel point of view, I am thinking a lower rate of climb/ higher air speed may be necessary
-
If only HTC would let us have the winds, we would be able to use them to increase the aircraft range (just got to chose the right altitude).
-
"High" is a point of view. For example the Spit14 will go a lot further if cursing at 12K than at 10K. But eventually there is a point of diminishing returns, so you just have to know your plane and what is the optimum altitude for you to fly at.
WELL.......
i was joking/being sarcastic, referencing another thread......... :devil
-
They'd actually hurt if you were going the wrong way (headwind vs tail wind).
-
If only HTC would let us have the winds, we would be able to use them to increase the aircraft range (just got to chose the right altitude).
know where we have winds sometimes?
a few weeks ago, we were fighting in 15kt winds. it REALLY changes things.
-
They'd actually hurt if you were going the wrong way (headwind vs tail wind).
Just got to chose the right altitude.
-
know where we have winds sometimes?
a few weeks ago, we were fighting in 15kt winds. it REALLY changes things.
Special events...?
Sometimes at 20K you have ~80t winds, we don't have those in AH.
-
Special events...?
Sometimes at 20K you have ~80t winds, we don't have those in AH.
ava. we put them in some of our set ups. the last one i wrote, we had 15kt up to 15,000 ft, and 25kt above that
-
ava. we put them in some of our set ups. the last one i wrote, we had 15kt up to 15,000 ft, and 25kt above that
Roger
You guys planing on having a Spit14 in the AvA any time soon?
-
Roger
You guys planing on having a Spit14 in the AvA any time soon?
hhmm..........i'm not sure...........if there's a particulzar set up you'd like to see though, glo to the ava forum, and request it. we aim to please. :aok
-
hhmm..........i'm not sure...........if there's a particulzar set up you'd like to see though, glo to the ava forum, and request it. we aim to please. :aok
Ah, I was not aware that I could request it. Thanks
-
Ah, I was not aware that I could request it. Thanks
no problem.
requesting a set up doesn't guarantee it, but it helps give us some ideas/suggestions as to something that you guys may like.
-
no problem.
requesting a set up doesn't guarantee it, but it helps give us some ideas/suggestions as to something that you guys may like.
Yeah I figured, just like HTC's wishlist.
-
Yeah I figured, just like HTC's wishlist.
well, as i think you've gathered, i kinda tend to favor p-38's.....but i'll personally look into something that we can do with the spit14 for ya. :aok
-
well, as i think you've gathered, i kinda tend to favor p-38's.....but i'll personally look into something that we can do with the spit14 for ya. :aok
They bough fought in ETO & PTO during the same time, I'm sure we can come up with something.
-
Just got to chose the right altitude.
Er... nope. You're not going to have sheer winds left at 2K then right at 4k... They'll be shades or gradients or gradual shifts.
Also, if you're GLIDING and you can't maintain a level alt (or, say, climb to the right wind layer you want) you're unable to pick and choose, and all winds would act on you. In the end if you had reversed winds across different alt bands, it would all be a wash, as you descend through them all the headwind would counter out the tailwind, and vice versa.
-
Er... nope. You're not going to have sheer winds left at 2K then right at 4k... They'll be shades or gradients or gradual shifts.
Sure but the winds still change with altitude. So you can fly at the right altitude.
Also, if you're GLIDING and you can't maintain a level alt (or, say, climb to the right wind layer you want) you're unable to pick and choose, and all winds would act on you. In the end if you had reversed winds across different alt bands, it would all be a wash, as you descend through them all the headwind would counter out the tailwind, and vice versa.
I think you misunderstood what I said, I said it's good for extending your cruise range (not gliding).
-
However, it is worthwhile to start your climb to the destination alt straight away, then you will benefit from lower consumption cruising to get to your target.
Typically not the case, but IYFB...
-
Typically not the case, but IYFB...
What do you mean?
-
What do you mean?
Typically, you will not save more gas by climbing to your destination altitude first, and then cruising to your target at altitude. But, Its Your Fifteen Bucks...
-
every aircraft has a "best glide speed". if you're looking to maximize your glide distance, you need to know this speed, and get your prop(s) feathered ASAP after the engine quits.
you'll go less distance if you go faster, or slower than this speed.
-
Typically, you will not save more gas by climbing to your destination altitude first, and then cruising to your target at altitude. But, Its Your Fifteen Bucks...
Ah
You just need to climb reasonably high, no need to go to 30K to fly one sector but 15K to for 3 sectors sounds just fine. All you need to do is pick the right altitude for your range.
-
Ah
You just need to climb reasonably high, no need to go to 30K to fly one sector but 15K to for 3 sectors sounds just fine. All you need to do is pick the right altitude for your range.
Ever wonder why Lindbergh flew 33 hours over the Atlantic just above the water? Why didn't he climb to 20,000 feet first?
-
Ever wonder why Lindbergh flew 33 hours over the Atlantic just above the water? Why didn't he climb to 20,000 feet first?
Actually this is the first time I hear this, how low did he fly?
His engine was not turbocharged and it did not do well above 10K. The cloud cover could have forced him down as well.
Also perhaps he made a wrong decision, aviation was pretty new at the time.
-
Ever wonder why Lindbergh flew 33 hours over the Atlantic just above the water? Why didn't he climb to 20,000 feet first?
It greatly depends on the aircraft. Ever wonder why a modern passenger jet typically flies at 35k or so?
-
No, I know the answer to the question I asked. Do a search for articles by a guy named Peter Garrison, and look for his articles about maximizing range. I don't have a link, but he's a contributor for Flying magazine.
-
It greatly depends on the aircraft. Ever wonder why a modern passenger jet typically flies at 35k or so?
Jets perform very differently from piston engines.
-
No, I know the answer to the question I asked. Do a search for articles by a guy named Peter Garrison, and look for his articles about maximizing range. I don't have a link, but he's a contributor for Flying magazine.
I found a book, can't find any articles. Perhaps you could post a link when you get a chance.
I'm not sure if I understand what your trying to prove. Are you saying that it's best to fly 2ft of the ground?
-
Ever wonder why Lindbergh flew 33 hours over the Atlantic just above the water? Why didn't he climb to 20,000 feet first?
Because his underpowered aircraft couldn't.
The main reason he stayed low was for visibility.
Higher is better for range.