PDA

View Full Version : Radius of action:How to calculate accurately?



FW190fan
03-31-2004, 10:47 AM
I know one simple way to calculate radius of action is to take 40% of the normal range.

For example, an aircraft with a normal range of 1,000km(620mi) would have a radius of action of 400km(248mi). This is just a simple example.

Does anyone know a more precise and accurate way to calculate combat radius or radius of action for a given aircraft?

I suppose it would have to depend on specific fuel consumption, throttle settings, weights, weather (still air, turbulent air) etc.

Any specific help or books/links would be greatly appreciated http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

FW190fan
03-31-2004, 10:47 AM
I know one simple way to calculate radius of action is to take 40% of the normal range.

For example, an aircraft with a normal range of 1,000km(620mi) would have a radius of action of 400km(248mi). This is just a simple example.

Does anyone know a more precise and accurate way to calculate combat radius or radius of action for a given aircraft?

I suppose it would have to depend on specific fuel consumption, throttle settings, weights, weather (still air, turbulent air) etc.

Any specific help or books/links would be greatly appreciated http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Curly_109
03-31-2004, 10:55 AM
would like to know about that calculating too...

in some orevious topic some guys are talkin' about FW190 on sale over net and some of them mention that this bird would consumpt considerable less amount of fuel because of lack of armor/armament...

but unfortunately my books about ww2 birds are limited to osprey and few other books.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FW190fan
03-31-2004, 12:37 PM
Bump.

I know there has to be some more a/c nerds out there besides me.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Woof603
03-31-2004, 01:49 PM
I learnt the radius of action and return to a moving base formulas in the RCAF many years ago but they've been long forgotten. Are they still in use? Perhaps you can track down a current military pilot who knows this stuff.

http://www.spaads.org/denmark/spsabre.JPG

FW190fan
03-31-2004, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Woof603:
Perhaps you can track down a current military pilot who knows this stuff.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking more along the lines of WWII era aircraft, not modern jets. I suppose the formulas still could be similar though?

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

FW190fan
03-31-2004, 06:09 PM
Bump.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

03-31-2004, 07:02 PM
I feel your pain, FW190fan.

However, IL-2/FB/AEP seems to have fundamental problems with fuel consumption.


Try this test:
1. Spawn an aircraft sitting on the ground with the motor off and leave it there, turned off.
2. Make note of the fuel gage reading.
3. Wander away from the computer for a while and leave the plane sitting on the ground with the motor off. 30 minutes is long enough.
4. Look at the fuel gage again. It has gone down.

With a problem as fundamental as that, I have little confidence in the fuel consumption rates in this sim. It would be great to fix it, but who knows what the underlying problem is. Things were even worse in previous versions... for instance you could lean to 0% without killin the motor and cruise "forever" (or at least until you got really bored). Some things are fixed now, but the fuel consumption is still not to be trusted.

E_Temperament
03-31-2004, 07:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cosmokart:
I feel your pain, FW190fan.

However, IL-2/FB/AEP seems to have fundamental problems with fuel consumption.


Try this test:
1. Spawn an aircraft sitting on the ground with the motor off and leave it there, turned off.
2. Make note of the fuel gage reading.
3. Wander away from the computer for a while and leave the plane sitting on the ground with the motor off. 30 minutes is long enough.
4. Look at the fuel gage again. It has gone down.

With a problem as fundamental as that, I have little confidence in the fuel consumption rates in this sim. It would be great to fix it, but who knows what the underlying problem is. Things were even worse in previous versions... for instance you could lean to 0% without killin the motor and cruise "forever" (or at least until you got really bored). Some things are fixed now, but the fuel consumption is still not to be trusted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We must be the only ones who have noticed this issue regarding fuel, Cosmokart. ~S~
ps. It seems that fuel consumption is based on a timeline and not related to engine at all.

03-31-2004, 08:06 PM
There might be SOME correllation between throttle setting and fuel consumption, but it sure doesn't feel right at low power settings.

It's pretty good for sort hops at combat power, though.


here's an example of what the fuel consumption was really like:
Daimler Benz document 9-603-6136 [1]
fuel consumption for DB-603E

"dauersparleistung" (best economy), altitude 5.6km: 330 liters/hour. (2000rpm)

"hoechstzul. dauerleistung" (max continunous permissible), altitude 6.0km: 410 liters/hour (2300 rpm)

"start-und notleistung" (takeoff and emergency power) sealevel: 565 liters/hour (2700 rpm)

[1] Focke Wulf Ta 152, Dietmar Harmann, ISBN 0-7643-0860-2