Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: SPIKER on December 09, 2002, 04:24:46 PM
-
Does anyone have info on fuel ranges on aircraft?
Tks
Good Huntin
-
I was actually once thinking of making a huge, perfectly flat map so that all planes could be tested for range at different altitudes and fuel loadouts. I was going to ask people here to test a few planes each so that all the data could be compiled without my eyes bleeding.
-
These charts are suitable to be added to the clipboard map list.
They contain each planes fuel duration at 100% fuel, and with drop tanks, under both 1x and 2x fuel burn multipliers.
AFAIK the current MA burn rate is 1.5, so a little bit of math will be needed.
-
Hopefully HiTech has seen this. My brother did a little extra credit work to show why some planes in AH have an advantage that did not exist.
Read on:
Endurance of USN Hvy Iron... (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=656816#post656816)
I was impressed...
:D
Jeff
-
Originally posted by jconradh
Hopefully HiTech has seen this. My brother did a little extra credit work to show why some planes in AH have an advantage that did not exist.
All that thread showed was that F4UDOA was trying to compare apples to oranges. Let it go...
-
Originally posted by Fancy
I was actually once thinking of making a huge, perfectly flat map so that all planes could be tested for range at different altitudes and fuel loadouts. I was going to ask people here to test a few planes each so that all the data could be compiled without my eyes bleeding.
Quick and dirty way to get fuel time data:
Go offline and select any map you want that has a reasonable stretch of water.
Select plane of choice with 100% fuel.
Set fuel multiplier to 0.0001.
Take off from coastal base and point nose towards ocean, climb to desired altitude.
Once at desired altitude and with stabilised speed (full throttle is most often used MA setting so use this), set fuel multiplier to 10. Time the length of time it takes for tanks to empty (anything except a bomber will be dry in less than 6 mins if at full throttle).
Multiply result by 10 to get actual endurance.
Divide actual by 2 (or whatever MA setting is) to get MA endurance.
Repeat ad nauseum.
-
I believe the MA fuel burn rate is 2.5
Blue Mako: Good idea. Thanks for posting it.
MRPLUTO VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~ MAG-33
-
My tests indicate that the Mosquito burns it's fuel at twice the rate that it should.
-
Originally posted by Blue Mako
All that thread showed was that F4UDOA was trying to compare apples to oranges. Let it go...
Not true, you must not have read it. Those were apples to apples, period. And some pretty good data to boot.
Rather than let it go, maybe you should read it...
I believe it applies to his question about fuel ranges.
Jeff
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
I believe the MA fuel burn rate is 2.5
It was originally in 1.10 somewhere around there. At some point(I believe it was the server switch, thats when i noticed it at least) it got kicked back down to 1.5.
-
Originally posted by jconradh
Not true, you must not have read it. Those were apples to apples, period. And some pretty good data to boot.
Rather than let it go, maybe you should read it...
I believe it applies to his question about fuel ranges.
Jeff
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...
-
Originally posted by Karnak
My tests indicate that the Mosquito burns it's fuel at twice the rate that it should.
At MA settings or FuelMult=1?
Devil's advocate:
Did you use cruise power and RPM or full throttle? ie did you use Pilot Handbook settings to get the data?
-
Blue Mako,
At fuel multiplier 1, and yes, I used the pilot's handbook for the Mosquito FB.Mk VI.
Here is the text of my findings that I posted at the time:
Originally posted by Karnak:
Some time ago I stated that I felt the Mosquito consumed fuel too rapidly. As evidence I gave the fact that the Spitfire Mk IX has greater endurance than does the Mosquito in AH.
Spit_9 -- 35/+21=56
Mossie -- 34/+16=50
The original thread can be read here: The Mossie's flight endurance still seems too short (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64339)
Acting on advice from that thread I obtained a PDF file of the Pilot's Notes for the Mosquito FB 6 from snafu's website. The Pilot's Notes for the Mosquito FB 6 can be found by clicking on the Pilot's Notes link on snafu's website (http://www.btinternet.com/~snaffers/).
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
(Interestingly this is less than the total internal fuel capacity of 543 gallons listed on the HiTech Creations Mosquito page (http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/mossie6.html))
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. If the AUX tank also includes the 63 gallon Long range tank (which given AH's higher listed fuel capacity it may be) the fuel consumption would be more than four times the rate it should be.
I have since learned that the apparent discrepancy between the fuel load in AH and that listed in the Pilot's Notes is merely caused by the difference between standard gallons (Aces High) and Imperial gallons (WWII RAF standard).
-
Originally posted by Blue Mako
....Repeat ad nauseum.
That's what has been done in that file that Innominate is putting up in 3rd post.
Only a multiplier of 60 was used to get shorter test-time. (1min = 1 sec)
__________________
Ylil. 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)
-
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...
Oops you still didn't read it. Read the link I posted!
The information is there, if you wish to ignore it fine but don't say it does not apply.
Jeff
-
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...
-
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... ;)
-
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