Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on September 13, 2002, 09:24:27 PM
-
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 seems very, very wrong.
The Spitfire Mk IX had a max range of 434 miles on internal fuel. The Mosquito Mk VI had a max range of 1,220 miles on internal fuel and 1,860 miles with drop tanks. Yet in AH the Spitfire Mk IX has a greater time endurance than does the Mosquito. I know the Mossie had a higher cruising speed, but not THAT much higher.
The amount of fuel was originally too little, but Pyro fixed that. Now I'm thinking that Pyro may have looked at the fuel consumption rate and thought it was for one engine when it was for both, then doubled it to account for both engines.
The Spitfire Mk IX has 137 gallons of internal fuel and is powered by one 1,565hp Merlin 61.
The Mosquito Mk VI has 543 gallons of internal fuel and is powered by two 1,635hp Merlin 25s.
Could Merlin 25s really drink that much faster?
-
If there was ever a contender for most porked aircraft i'm sure the ta152 would have contender with the mossie.
Hey, maybe the fuel tanks are leaking and covering the a/c in highly flammable fuel. This would explain the low flight endurance and the 1 ping " oh bugger, my mossie is on fire" issue.;)
-
Mosquito cruise speed was 295mph.
Spitfire cruise speed was 280mph.
At these speeds we can clearly see that the Mosquito will never reach four times the distance of the Spitfire in slightly less total time in the air.
The Mosquito is consuming fuel too rapidly.
-
There's GPH (gallons/hour) figures and tank capacities in the pilot's notes on Snafu's site. It would be pretty easy to test the plane offline with 1.0 multiplier and see how long it takes to drain a particular tank, calculate the GPH, then compare to the pilot's notes.
-
you think the mossie is bad, try the FM2 and the F4F!!! They are a 2 sector limit plane unless you do not climb more that 4 or 5k
-
I just set the fuel multiplier to 1.5 in offline mode (I'm told that 1.5 is the MA setting) and took off of a CV with an F4F, full fuel, no DTs. I climbed to 13,000ft on the AUX tank (that covered one sector) and then flew two more sectors using a quarter of the MAIN tank.
It may be off, but not as badly as you suggest.
-
Does seam very weird for sure.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I just set the fuel multiplier to 1.5 in offline mode (I'm told that 1.5 is the MA setting) and took off of a CV with an F4F, full fuel, no DTs. I climbed to 13,000ft on the AUX tank (that covered one sector) and then flew two more sectors using a quarter of the MAIN tank.
It may be off, but not as badly as you suggest.
I flew it with the setting in the online MA. I got 2 sectors at 10k max alt and was out of gas. You play with ofline settings if you want, offline is irrelevant to game play IMO. These planes are seriously short ranged.
-
The F4F/FM2 has fuel for 32 min of flight on 100% internal tank. I just tested the F4F myself tonight in MA (multiplier must then be x2, compared to my offline tests). This is compared to the 109's 25 min in MA.
However, even this longer endurance seems too low when the F4F (at least in my limited sources) had a range of 770 miles vs the 109G's 350 miles, given the 109's faster cruise.
Karnak is right however. The Mossie's range is a joke and I'm not even a RAF fanatic. Actually I only flew it once when testing it's fuel endurance some months ago, and at that time I didn't even analyse the results, since I was just trying to write down my results and finish the test as fast as possible. According to my data it should have something like 3 times the endurance of the 109's. (just looking at their ranges, I don't know their cruise speeds).
__________________
Ltn. Snefens
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34)
My AH homepage (http://home14.inet.tele.dk/snefens/index2.htm)
(http://home14.inet.tele.dk/snefens/209.gif)
-
Yes, it definately seems the F4F is jacked on the flight endurance as well. Seems to be about as jacked.
-
Snefens, Does the FM2's range you're using include it's droptanks?
-
Well, it was the F4F-4 I was flying in the MA tonight and not the FM-2, but the tests I did 2½ months ago (when 1.10 first came out) showed them to be similar in fuel-capacities/endurance. I doubt this has changed.
But no it was not with DT's, only 100% internal fuel. Unless something changed, using DT's would give them another 26min flight; give or take a min or so.
PS: The tests I refer to can be found at my site. I started making them to assist myself when flying planes with multiple tanks, since knowing how much fuel you have left in those planes was easier to find by timing flight-time and comparing it to the planes endurance.
__________________
Ltn. Snefens
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34)
My AH homepage (http://home14.inet.tele.dk/snefens/index2.htm)
(http://home14.inet.tele.dk/snefens/209.gif)
-
PUNT!
food for thought:
1220 miles / (295 miles/hour) =~ 4 hours
1860 miles / (295 miles/hour) = ~ 6 hours
MA has a burn rate of x2, so the mossie should be able to cruise for somwhere on the order of 2 hours. Lets say perhaps the Merlin 25 burns twice as much gas when run at full throttle compared to cruise settings, then it would be able to stay in the air at max throttle for somwhere on the order of 1 hour.
My handy fuel chart made by Snefens says it can fly for 43 mins on full throttle.
There's gotta be something wrong. My figures are rough, but are so conservative that the AH numbers should be higher, not lower than mine.
Thanks for the awsome charts Snefens!
-
That's an old chart then.
On my latest I have it listed as going 43 min in MA with the x2 multiplier. Still too short compared to your figures.
That was the 20th Feb 2003. Did we have any updates since then?
-
AtmkRstr,
There are a few threads out there where I have posted test results based on fuel consumption rates given in the Mosquito FB.VI's pilot notes. Those tests offer much greater data than this thread. The results, in short, are that our Mosquito is consuming fuel twice as fast as it should. (This is taking the MA fuel cunsumption rate into account)
Edit: Here is my test:
I obtained a PDF file of the Pilot's Notes for the Mosquito FB 6 to use a fuel consumption guide.
On page 11 of the pilot's notes it lists the fuel capacity of the Mosquito FB 6's various fuel tanks:
MAIN SUPPLY
Centre tanks....................50 gallons
Inner tanks....................286 gallons
OUTER TANKS................116 gallons
_____________________________
Total........................ .....452 gallons
Long-range tank...............63 gallons
Wing drop tanks..............200 gallons
(2 x 100 gallons)
_____________________________
Total fuel capacity...........715 gallons
On pages 30-33 of the pilot's notes there are flight planning charts that give the fuel consumption for various speeds, weights and altitudes.
For the ease of calculations I selected settings that would consume fuel at a rate of 100 gallons per hour so that I could simply use the 50 gallon Centre tank. If the fuel consumption was correct, then the fuel should last half an hour.
The settings were:
AUW: 17,000lbs
Altitude: 10,000ft
RPM: 2,400
TAS-KNOTS: 275
TEST SETUP
Using the AKDesert map in offline mode I set the fuel consumption to 1.0000. I selected A56 as my take off field, planning a southwest flight along the channel.
To get roughly an All Up Weight of 17,000lbs I set the Mosquito to full fuel, no external or internal stores, 150 rounds per 20mm gun and 500 rounds per .303 gun.
TEST
Once on the runway I selected the right inner (RI) fuel tank before starting the engines so as to keep the centre tank (AUX) full.
I then took off, climbed to 10,000ft and set a southwest heading.
I then reduced my RPM settings from 3,000 to 2,400 and reduced my boost setting from 14lbs./sq.in. to 8lb./sq.in.
The Mosquito's airspeed declined until it settled at about 265mph. (This was 265mph true airspeed, not indicated airspeed)
I then switched to the AUX tank and started a timer simultaneously.
RESULTS
The AUX tank was drained in 13 minutes and 52 seconds which indicates a fuel consuption rate with those settings of approximately 200-225 gallons per hour, or more than twice the fuel consumption listed for those settings in the Flight Planner Charts of the Pilot's Notes for the Mosquito FB 6.
CONCLUSION
The Mosquito FB.Mk VI in AH is consuming fuel at more than twice the rate it should be.
-
The Mosquito FB.Mk VI in AH is consuming fuel at more than twice the rate it should be.
Maybe it's a confusion in fuel consumption figures per plane vs per engine.
I did numerous tests with the P-38L and to me it looks like it has a similar issue.
Which isnt a big showstopper for me, I might add.
-
Originally posted by leitwolf
Maybe it's a confusion in fuel consumption figures per plane vs per engine.
I did numerous tests with the P-38L and to me it looks like it has a similar issue.
Which isnt a big showstopper for me, I might add.
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.
-
The ju88 fuel is porked as well only 133 min at x1.
-
The ju88 fuel is porked as well only 133 min at x1.
How much time did it have in RL? Twice this number?
-
I have read where there were flights at 4 hours. so yup 2 times seems right.
-
I wonder if this is true of all the twin engined aircraft in AH?
-
I found this to be true in the P-47D30 as well. The AUX tank on the Jug last 9 minutes and 30 Seconds. The Jugs normal burn rate was between 75-85 gallons an hour. So the Jug should be able to fly approx 1 Hr. and 20 minutes on AUX alone. With a full fuel load I figured that the Jug should be able to fly 72 sectors in this game. Depending on altitude, the Jug endurance should be around 5 hours duration. The current arena has a burn rate around 2.5. Even if you were to multipy the times by 2.5 it would still come up short. I have never tested out the P-38 but I know in certain arenas that the burn rate is much higher then other arenas. Depending on the model the Jug carried internally between 390-455 gallons of fuel.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I just set the fuel multiplier to 1.5 in offline mode (I'm told that 1.5 is the MA setting)
Um....actually the MA fuel setting is 2.0
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/48257/20029211530-0-Swoop.gif)
-
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
-
HT,
You may want to look at the La-7 and 109G10 first.
The La-7 runs with the same SFC (Fuel per HP per Hour) at full combat as it does in should in Ma cruise.
The La7 - 1850HP combat and 1600HP mil 122 gallons of fuel. has roughly the same duration as the F6F-5 with 250n gallons of fuel and 2250HP and 2000hp at mil.
This means the La-7 can produce 82% of the HP while only burning 50% of the fuel.
Joe Blogs and I have posted so much on this and other A/C I can't believe your just now asking HT?
Check this out, the P-51D has a duration of 53 minutes in the MA. From the pilots manual the P-51D should burn 180GPH at mil power and carries exactly 269 gallons of fuel. That should give the P-51D a real life endurance of 1.5 hours at mil power. Which means in the MA duration should be 45 minutes.
Frankly there are so many fuel endurance issues in the MA the whole set should be looked at.
BTW, the F4U (my pet peeve) is about two minutes high. As close as any I have checked.
-
F4U you might wish to checkthe p51.
Mill = 61" = 2.5 gpm or 150 ghr
269/150 * 60 = 107.6
107.6 / 2 = 53.8
And whats with this bull crap?
Joe Blogs and I have posted so much on this and other A/C I can't believe your just now asking HT?
I post to a thread and get slamed, I don't post to a thread I get slamd?
And another statment.
Frankly there are so many fuel endurance issues in the MA the whole set should be looked at.
It's this type of untrue crap that gets under my skin F4UDOA. This thread started out very factual , but you very quickly changed it into FLAMING HTC, and you can go suck an egg.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
I post to a thread and get slamed, I don't post to a thread I get slamd?
HiTech
If yer gonna get slammed might as well have yer say. ;)
-
Originally posted by hitech
We are looking into the mos.
HiTech
Thank you.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
From the pilots manual the P-51D should burn 180GPH at mil power
HiTech, you are considering 150GPH, F4UDOA 180GPH.
-
Oh realy mandoble? Must be why I sighted the 61" = Military power.
The 180GPH = wep.
HiTech
-
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.
-
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.
(http://www.214th.com/ww2/usa/p51/op_chart_noload.gif)
-
F4UDOA: Look at page 109 Sea level entry.
HiTech
-
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.
-
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 :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
How did tell you how to do your job?
Why are programmers all so bizarre?
-
Now I'm bizzarre?
F4UDOA, You might wish to throw away that shuvel
HiTech
-
I like chorizo burritos.
-
Chorrizo burrito gas production is porked. HTC should look into the gas duration of all burritos.
-
You would think that people would just be smart enough to drop it and move on, but...
-
F4UDOA..... I gotta spare egg or two if ya need one :)
-
I smell overworked frustrations.
Now u all smoke a big joint and everything gets peacefull again.
:cool:
-
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
-
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?
-
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)
-
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)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Aaron_G_T,
Hitech said they're looking at the Mossie fuel consumption. Hopefully they find the same thing.