PDA

View Full Version : those thirsty Wulfs



Hristo_
06-10-2005, 01:47 PM
Fw 190 evidently drinks fuel far faster in 4.0

Is this part of the beta or what ? It is still better than fuel leak http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kasdeya
06-10-2005, 01:52 PM
Jug does too. Not sure bout anyother plane but I'm sure it is affecting others the same.

Willey
06-10-2005, 02:09 PM
Alright, I flew for some 5 minutes with 25% and almost ran dry. I didn't even fly at 100-110% all the time. That makes little more than 20 minutes at best... http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/angry_2.gif

ColoradoBBQ
06-10-2005, 02:12 PM
I was surprised to see a half tank of gas in my Fw-190 D9 evaporate from running away from a persistant P-38 in less in 15 minutes. Aparently, fuel comsumption goes faster at 110% boost now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

3.JG51_BigBear
06-10-2005, 02:32 PM
Yeah that boost sucks the gas. It seems a little extreme.

Hristo_
06-10-2005, 02:38 PM
Yesterday I flew Fw 190A-4 (no boost). Sucked the gas all the same. 15 minutes and RTB.

Two possible explanations:

- all planes expend fuel faster due to some bug
- all planes expend fuel faster at max power

hmm ?

Lixma
06-10-2005, 03:12 PM
Had a quick run in the G2 and the Mustang earlier...their fuel consumption was fine. A couple of Doras dropped out of the sky because of this...pilots wern't too happy.

Sounds like a Focke Wulf thing.

OldMan____
06-10-2005, 03:24 PM
Just measute the distance flow and compare with range of plane. If it is wrong.. send 1c.

Fennec_P
06-10-2005, 05:36 PM
Tried it out.

Used 25% fuel, and multiplied by 4 to get endurance. 1000m, crimea, noon.

A4 100%: 44min
A4 110%: 36min

A5 100%: 44min
A5 110%+WEP: 34min

D9'44 100%: 44min
D9'44 110%+WEP: 24min (!)


I tested also in 3.04. The fockes had 55 minutes endurance at 100%. It is less now by almost a quarter.

I can't say if A4 and A5 are wrong, because I don't know real life endurance values. But D9 WEP must be wrong. I mean, how can 10% more throttle double the fuel flow? Makes no sense.

----

Edit: Here is a website with endurance values.
http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/ground/fw_a5.htm

Max Power: 50 minutes
Cruise: 60 minutes
Max cruise: 78 minutes
(I have no clue what 'cruise' and 'max cruise' are supposed to be)

and http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fw190f8.html

2 Hours at 2,000m (6,500 ft.) at 280 mph (450 km/h)

I'll test this 450 @ 2000m one.

WWMaxGunz
06-10-2005, 05:47 PM
I really reccomend you guys start checking out what speeds and times you can get at
cruise type settings. These are like 70% power and 70% max rpm. Running at 90+% for
long should be a guaranteed short trip compared to real full operational ranges.

You can run 400 to 500 kph in at least some of these planes at 80% or less power and
the right engine rpm (however you achieve that) which is good maneuver speed and also
good speed to wind up full power from. It's also a lot easier on engine heat, you
can run the rads more open with less drag than 600+ kph.

Want realistic range then use the plane in a realistic manner!

Fennec_P
06-10-2005, 05:55 PM
At 450km/h TAS at 2000m, the FW-190A5 can fly for 130 minutes. In this respect, it matches the data I found (2 hours).

But it does not match the 50min at Max power. It only gets 36min. Even at 100%, only 44min.

In 3.04, the time at 100% was 55 minutes, and at 110%, was 45 minutes. This was probably correct, and later messed up in 4.0.

I agree, it would be usefull to test range as well. Do you know the optimum speed and altitude for a range test? I don't.

SeaFireLIV
06-10-2005, 06:00 PM
er...check out the Spit VB! Normally I can go out on 50% fuel and have lots of time left to spare. Imagine my surprise when that light switched on early!

WWMaxGunz
06-10-2005, 06:15 PM
Does the Max Power 50 mins include engine rpm's even by standard practices, and did
you run at that?

No, I don't know what it should be. Full power gets half the time seems right but then
110% and any kind of WEP... could you run any FW like that for 50 minutes without engine
damage? That is why I suspect there's more to it anyway.

Another thing I think to be careful of is 100% and 110% in one plane may mean a lot more
than in another as far as pushing the engine and/or what you get back out and how long.
The Spit VB's we've had have been at limited boost as is the 190A-4 while some others are
more high performance able but need pilots with matching skill and yet others are limited
in how much extra (but have big power without in many cases) they can make to perhaps
accomodate less elite-trained pilots. It is like Porsche 930 vs Corvette in some ways.
So watch out for people who say 100% this plane should compare to 100% that plane for
any measure. 100% is not always 100% once labels/names get attached, but some see only
the numbers.

NVP1
06-10-2005, 06:23 PM
This might help someone to figure out what's going on with the 190s' fuel consumption-sorry, no time to do it myself this weekend http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190a-boost-doc1.jpg

Fennec_P
06-10-2005, 06:49 PM
Nifty info, I'll try that out.

1.65ata 2700rpm= 185gph
1.42ata 2700rpm= 146gph

But is that imperial gallons or American ones? I've got to convert it to litres.

WWMaxGunz
06-10-2005, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Fennec_P:
Do you know the optimum speed and altitude for a range test? I don't.

When you find the good original documents, it will tell you!

I have some charts taken from forum postings... and one here for P-47 models that
gives ranges and gallons of fuel used with altitudes (density, corrected for air
temp) RPM and TAS with gallons per minute used, and fuel/ranges above those.

This doc is title T.O. No. 01-65BC-1. Red figures (good luck as the scan is b/w)
are preliminary: subject to revision after flight check. This is sheet 2 of 2 also.

Models listed are P-47B, P-47C(Est.), P-47D(Est.) and P-47G.

Example data:
I'm not listing all the columns like TAS knots here.
I'm not listing all the rows either.
MP is manifold pressure as in boost in inches of mercury.

RPM ---- TAS mph ---- MP ---- US GPM ---- Density Alt
2500 --- 360 -------- 38 ---- 190 ------- 25000 ft.
2350 --- 225 -------- 36 ---- 145 ------- 25000
2150 --- 200 -------- 31 ---- 95 -------- 25000
2450 --- 310 -------- 36 ---- 165 ------- 15000
2300 --- 230 -------- 32 ---- 125 ------- 15000
2100 --- 220 -------- 32 ---- 90 -------- 15000
2350 --- 265 -------- 35 ---- 140 -------- 3000
1950 --- 230 -------- 35 ---- 80 --------- 3000
1700 --- 200 -------- 32 ---- 55 --------- 3000

If you want to know does it exactly apply to the sim models... I can't say because we
don't get all the info like what prop is used for what sim plane and I dunno what else.
You can see though that at 3000 feet it takes about 2 1/2 times the fuel to run at 265
mph TAS as opposed to running at 200 mph TAS. Really, just over 2 1/2 times.

What they say on car ads? Your mileage may vary?

Fennec_P
06-10-2005, 07:53 PM
Oddly enough, I tried the A4 and A5, and couldn't even get the boost to 1.42 (it only goes up to 1.39, even with 110% and erhote)

These do have the DB801D engine AFAIK, which is what is called for in the document.

Weird. And the document says you should be able to do 1.65 with 2700rpm.

Anyway, the internal fuel on a A8 is 138US gallon. At 1.39ATA and 2700 RPM, you would get slightly better economy than the 146GPH figure (which is for 1.42 ATA). Which means the endurance at this power setting should be about an hour, or slightly more.

Of course, lots more than the 36 minutes the game actaully gives you at this power setting.

Either the ATA gauge shows incorrect values in the game, or the fuel consumption is wrong by almost double. Pick one bug http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
06-10-2005, 08:23 PM
think the enhort nostititsilkdslkgds system injects fuel into the eye of the supercharger, in addition to the normal fuel injection or whatever. i think the addition fuel injection was very high, something like 45mins with full tanks and droptank and then u conk out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

fuel usage should be a fair bit higher at max boost and rpm for all engines, the bmw motor was probably not that great as alot of the extra fuel was for antidetination, not too burn if i remmber correctly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LeadSpitter_
06-10-2005, 08:29 PM
ALL PLANES DO! no more 50 fuel in p47s or 25 fuel in mustangs nor 50-75 fuel in fws and 109s

and fuel does not seem to effect fm much at all anymore allied should take 75 always and german 100 and will still hold the advantage.

109s actually can use thier drop tanks for a change and fm does not seem affected much at all with supertrim you even see alot of mustangs with droptanks.

This patch is alot of fun flying german i have to admit.

And the new fuel consumption is excellent, and same with glide slopes with no engine power. They did a fantastic job there.

The mustang is so poor now because it pretty much has 100% fuel data charts for 25 fuel now with 50-75 fuel people are finally noticing how poor its accelaration is without 25 fuel for a change.

p1ngu666
06-10-2005, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
ALL PLANES DO! no more 50 fuel in p47s or 25 fuel in mustangs nor 50-75 fuel in fws and 109s

and fuel does not seem to effect fm much at all anymore allied should take 75 always and german 100 and will still hold the advantage.

109s actually can use thier drop tanks for a change and fm does not seem affected much at all with supertrim you even see alot of mustangs with droptanks.

This patch is alot of fun flying german i have to admit

most important question
whats the consumption of the me163 and g0229?

Buzzsaw-
06-10-2005, 08:45 PM
Salute

Actually fuel consumption is much closer to realistic now.

The fact was, when a 35 liter, 12 cylinder engine starts operating at full boost, it consumes huge amounts of fuel.

THERE WAS A REASON THAT ALL LATE WAR PLANES LOADED DROP TANKS AND FULL FUEL WHEN THEY TOOK OFF.

WWMaxGunz
06-10-2005, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Fennec_P:
Oddly enough, I tried the A4 and A5, and couldn't even get the boost to 1.42 (it only goes up to 1.39, even with 110% and erhote)

These do have the DB801D engine AFAIK, which is what is called for in the document.

Weird. And the document says you should be able to do 1.65 with 2700rpm.

Anyway, the internal fuel on a A8 is 138US gallon. At 1.39ATA and 2700 RPM, you would get slightly better economy than the 146GPH figure (which is for 1.42 ATA). Which means the endurance at this power setting should be about an hour, or slightly more.

Of course, lots more than the 36 minutes the game actaully gives you at this power setting.

Either the ATA gauge shows incorrect values in the game, or the fuel consumption is wrong by almost double. Pick one bug http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Eventually the A-4 was able to run higher boost but initially not. Which do you think is
the one in the sim and the reasons including intro date are good ones. But you should check
with Butch2K if you really want full data. There was a problem not solved for some months.

If you got 1.39 then hey it was modelled as 1.32 or 1.35, I forget which.

How long could the A8 run at 1.42 and at what alts?

36 mins sounds pretty short but you need to be very sure you're not thinking oranges and
talking lemons if you want to make claims. Well, at least to Oleg. He may see or know
just why not and simply dismiss the argument without posting anything about it. Or he
might but he's gotten so much greif back in the past that avoiding discussion may be how
he gets work done at all instead of posting the same thing 20 times. So when you think
you know all the facts, dig deeper and keep asking yourself "is this the one in the sim"!

S! and good luck!

WWMaxGunz
06-10-2005, 09:08 PM
Geee LS, what's the range of a fully loaded P-51?

BBB_Hyperion
06-11-2005, 05:28 AM
Guess what still f8 500 l all other fws 288 l it has not been fixed and gauges are still wrong.

Hristo_
06-11-2005, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Guess what still f8 500 l all other fws 288 l it has not been fixed and gauges are still wrong.

Please explain, I'm not sure I follow you.

BBB_Hyperion
06-11-2005, 05:54 AM
Devicelink data for fuel.

All FWs A Series should be equal with fuelload cause they use same tanks.

Can be proofed 100 % with fuel consumption test without boost (different boost) compare A8 and F8 at same rpm and check fuel consumption.

The difference in load is 288l/500l = 33 % this should be the difference in fuel consumption rate as well . That would be the only reasonable even if odd to have 500 l on f8 and 288 l on rest.

Atomic_Marten
06-11-2005, 06:16 AM
Here's some figures for Me109s, all tested on Crimea map, 100% fuel, default loadout, airborne start 350kph IAS, alt 1500m. Numbers are approx., I wasn't flyin' them 'till the last drop of fuel (not exactly last minute accuracy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).


<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
type h:min
E4 - 2:10
E4B - 1:50
F2 - 3
F4 - 3
G2 - 1:55
G6 - 1:50
G10 - 1:55

Fiat G.50 - 1:25
</pre>

My conclusion (although I must say that I can not be 100% sure for all models), is that *ALL* Me109s have significantly increased range than in 3.04. Some percentage of this numbers is flawed in the regard that I did not started from runway at 0m alt; I've been lazy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif. But still..

For instance, object viewer says ~500km range for G10, but since I have G10 roughly 2 hrs airborne at 350kph IAS, that means that I've travelled approx. 700km.

BBB_Hyperion
06-11-2005, 06:24 AM
Sounds like they flipped fw and bf series consumptions http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LeadSpitter_
06-11-2005, 06:26 AM
http://www.olympictrans.ru/fun/img/uglyZoo/uZoo13.jpg

.

OldMan____
06-11-2005, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Sounds like they flipped fw and bf series consumptions http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Did anyone sent any question about this to 1C? i get same impression here. FW are drinking like bf109 and vice versa. FW should have TWICE the range of bf109.. not the oposite.

I can´t even reach my usual 6k meters level since I will have only 25% fuel left when I get there.

WWMaxGunz
06-11-2005, 07:45 AM
Hyperion, I remember that for at least some Russian planes the guages only showed
for one tank, the last to be emptied. And devicelink data is guage position data,
not total data as it is meant for use in control panels hence link to device.

One way to check is to fly and watch the link data on fuel. If it starts decreasing
immediately then that is the full amount I think. Once the amount of fuel is decreasing
with time... well devicelink data can tell you how the consumption is directly.

Pilots I know fuel their planes by weight. That is how they buy their fuel, by the
pound here and I guess by the kilo where you are. The pilot charts a flight plan by
fuel consumption and leaves a hefty margin for unexpected circumstances. If the plan
is just to fly around, the pilot must know how long at what power the fuel is good for
and be landed well before then. Running on fumes indicates bad planning or trouble.

Fuel guages are good for telling you some things but always regarded as less than accurate.
Lucky in the sim it is not so? I think true, if I go with 50% fuel and sideslip, does
the guage read different? I never looked.

So you can use the link data to tell in the sim what is used and then comes the hard part
of deciphering incomplete and generalized real world data. If all I have is total range
without how high, how they flew to that height, what speed flown and what margin is left
over for safety then it would be very hard to construct a test or determine fuel per hour
for any one flight regime. Or if I have something that says Max Power and a Range, well
same things are still missing for being able to close enough duplicate the test. Any
assumptions of this means that can easily throw results off by large percents.

OldMan____
06-11-2005, 08:05 AM
They really cahnged bf109 and FW fuel /range. FW190A5 at 80% power... 480 km. It should be TWICE that! Damm .. I liked better when of the Fuel leak bug.. at least that only happened when you got hit.

Aviar
06-11-2005, 09:09 AM
In 3.04, flying a P-38 with a full load, 25% fuel and throttle at 90%, I could stay in the air for about 50 minutes.

With 4.0, the same P-38 runs out of fuel in about 27 minutes.

Aviar

WWMaxGunz
06-11-2005, 12:22 PM
In the real world, you start looking for things you are doing to hurt efficiency.

Like what engine rpm, boost and mixture are you using?
Are you keeping the plane in coordinated flight, which is much harder now?

Yes, it is much easier to fly wrong with 4.00. Easier to underperform even if
so many people will decide "it is the plane".

I am not sure on some planes I have seen so far if the ball is even working though.

OldMan____
06-11-2005, 12:54 PM
I tested a lot with many power /rpm settings. Best range I got was at auto pitch with 75% power. It got 480km range. Not even if I had a 500 kg bomb I should had lost 500 km from range (190A5). The problem is not consumption at 100% or more power.. this should be high. But at cruise speed it should give me full range.. or near it.

Bremspropeller
06-11-2005, 01:37 PM
@ Hristo:

All Fw 190s hat two tanks below the pilot's seat:
the one in the front had a volume of 232l and the one in the back a volume of 293l.

This adds up to a total volume of 525l.

The Fw 190A-8 could carry a GM-1 tank behind the pilot-seat. However, the GM-1 system was never operationally used. But since the tank had a volume of 115l it was frequently used as a normal tank. Adding those 115l to the normal 525l we would get a total of 650l internal fuel (plus a further 300l optionally in the droptank).

Interestingly it seems that only the F-8 is equipped with such a 115l tank behind the pilot in game.

p1ngu666
06-11-2005, 01:40 PM
ud haveto do something major too lose 50% of your range by bad flying. just lookin at some lanc figures http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

merlin XX

weak mixture, 7lb boost 2650rpm 260gal/hr
rich mixture, 7lb 3650rpm 320gal/hr

best for fuel economy is 2000rpm, -4lb, "weak" mixture - 124gal/hr
worst is 14lbs, 3000rpm, "rich" 500gal/hr

these figures are for all 4 engines i guess.

also i think lanc crews would try to fly at 200mph, and see how low they could get the revs while maintaining 200mph, the boost would be "high" but dont know what. seporate table lists rich max continuous as 7lb, and weak at 4lb.

if i remmber correctly, the german system matched rpm to boost pressure at some ratio or curve so the engine worked at its most effeciently or something.

also, if u ragged the lanc vs pottle about, uve got a quarter of the flying time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

OldMan____
06-11-2005, 05:29 PM
Well discovered power setting doe snot matter under 90%, so I made my best travel at 5k meters. Ang got a maximum range of 570 km. That IF plane started at 5k. Fuel will run out in inxaclty 3580 seconds no mather what power setting you use (under 90%) and no mather wich FW you use.

BBB_Hyperion
06-11-2005, 10:14 PM
Can you look at f8 Oldman if it has same range but test without boost.

Buzzsaw-
06-11-2005, 10:30 PM
Salute

There is definitely something wrong with the 109's fuel consumption.

If you look at the 109G6 manual from the Finnish website:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/pdf/bf109g6_english.pdf

You will see it lists on page 5 the absolute range at cruise speed with full tank as being 550 kilometers at 420 kph.

That translates to being 1.3 hours, 1 hour 18 minutes, or 78 minutes.

Note, that this is theoretical range, not the normal radius of operation, which is listed as 260 kilometers.

As you can see from the tests posted earlier, the 109 will exceed that quite easily.

Buzzsaw-
06-11-2005, 10:39 PM
Salute

The P-47's range is way off too. In a somewhat unscientific test, (included takeoff and climb to 4000 meters), with the D27 I get around 30 minutes with 1/2 a tank, which is not what one should expect.

The P-47D later models, (D25 and later) had a range of 950 miles on internal fuel, at cruise, which was 250 mph. So that should give it a theoretical time in the air of nearly 4 hours at full fuel with an airstart. Nearly two hours at 1/2 fuel.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-12-2005, 03:05 AM
Without looking through the whole thread, has anyone posted their findings in the "4.0 bug reporting" thread? If not could a couple people post what they have found here in that thread in case it is a bug. Thanks for the info as well.

Codex1971
06-12-2005, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Without looking through the whole thread, has anyone posted their findings in the "4.0 bug reporting" thread? If not could a couple people post what they have found here in that thread in case it is a bug. Thanks for the info as well.

hehehe...I would if there was an "offical" 4.0 bug thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ...maybe we should wait until 4.01m is out. But I too have noticed the FW sucks fuel like there's no tommorow now.

Atomic_Marten
06-12-2005, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Without looking through the whole thread, has anyone posted their findings in the "4.0 bug reporting" thread? If not could a couple people post what they have found here in that thread in case it is a bug. Thanks for the info as well.

hehehe...I would if there was an "offical" 4.0 bug thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ...maybe we should wait until 4.01m is out. But I too have noticed the FW sucks fuel like there's no tommorow now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Codex, my thoughts are going that way too.. I'm waiting for the official 4v01 patch, and then if I find some bug I will report it directly to 1C mail.

Oleg himself has said in one post about 4.00 that they (he and the rest of the team) are awared of many bugs that are presented, if not all.
So.. I'm waiting for 4v01. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-12-2005, 06:39 AM
P1ngu, I see worst case for the Lancs is 500 gal/hr and best economy is 124 gal/hr.
Quite a spread.

People running "tests"... are you keeping the engine rpms down?

Buzzsaw, that time of the 109 is at 420 kph? Over 250 mph. Is that economy cruise?
Otherwise I should hope to do better.

Kurfurst__
06-12-2005, 06:39 AM
h

Originally posted by OldMan____:
They really cahnged bf109 and FW fuel /range. FW190A5 at 80% power... 480 km. It should be TWICE that! Damm .. I liked better when of the Fuel leak bug.. at least that only happened when you got hit.


Not really. Whereas the early 109E had rather low lange at 410 mph, the F/G/K series were considerably longer ranged. What you see 500-600km odd ranges in literature for 109s, refers to their range at maximum cruise peed, with some allowance. That is 600-640 kph 'cruise'... hardly the best speed for range!

In fact from what I have, it appears that 109s had a bit more range on internal. It doesn`t strike me as unbelivable, the larger, radial FW compensated for it`s greater drag with more power, but that also means proportionally more consumption.. like a bigger car.

Atomic_Marten
06-12-2005, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
People running "tests"... are you keeping the engine rpms down?

I have tested it quite simply; making flight path in Crimea FMB, as soon as mission loads, I hit the autopilot button.

It crossed my mind, however, that if these numbers can not be repeated by near perfect human flying, that we have one more bug.(AI consumes fuel less than human)
TBH I do not believe that's the case, although I can not be certain.

BTW three previous posts were posted simultaneously in 14:39. Odd.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

OldMan____
06-12-2005, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
h
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
They really cahnged bf109 and FW fuel /range. FW190A5 at 80% power... 480 km. It should be TWICE that! Damm .. I liked better when of the Fuel leak bug.. at least that only happened when you got hit.



Not really. Whereas the early 109E had rather low lange at 410 mph, the F/G/K series were considerably longer ranged. What you see 500-600km odd ranges in literature for 109s, refers to their range at maximum cruise peed, with some allowance. That is 600-640 kph 'cruise'... hardly the best speed for range!

In fact from what I have, it appears that 109s had a bit more range on internal. It doesn`t strike me as unbelivable, the larger, radial FW compensated for it`s greater drag with more power, but that also means proportionally more consumption.. like a bigger car. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

tha does not change the fact that FW is unable to reach even near to 900km range it was supposed to do. And I doubt LW would use two different standards for measuring ranges one for FW one for bf109.


And I discovered that using 0% pitch and 55% power you can extend range to about 540 km.

VVS-Manuc
06-12-2005, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

The P-47's range is way off too. In a somewhat unscientific test, (included takeoff and climb to 4000 meters), with the D27 I get around 30 minutes with 1/2 a tank, which is not what one should expect.

and which power settings did you use? 100% ? 70% ? 60% ?

The P-47D later models, (D25 and later) had a range of 950 miles on internal fuel, at cruise, which was 250 mph. So that should give it a theoretical time in the air of nearly 4 hours at full fuel with an airstart. Nearly two hours at 1/2 fuel.

and wich power setting did you use? 100 percent ? 75 ? 50 ?

OldMan____
06-12-2005, 08:39 AM
Lets just hope this is corrected on 4.01.

I have to fly ta152 and Dora only now sicne they are onlY FW with reasonable range now.

p1ngu666
06-12-2005, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
P1ngu, I see worst case for the Lancs is 500 gal/hr and best economy is 124 gal/hr.
Quite a spread.

People running "tests"... are you keeping the engine rpms down?

Buzzsaw, that time of the 109 is at 420 kph? Over 250 mph. Is that economy cruise?
Otherwise I should hope to do better.

yep, but the figures are just fuel consumption, not the distance covered

Kurfurst__
06-12-2005, 11:32 AM
Some range docs, via wartime britiah Air Intelligence :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1118597530_spitchart.jpg

Buzzsaw-
06-12-2005, 12:39 PM
Salute

Kurfurst hates to see references from RAF sources, yet he is quick to provide this page. Which is from something gathered by British intelligence during the war.

The 109G6 manual I provided is from the factory, and used as a guide by an airforce which had the G6 in long service. (FAF) It is not an estimate based on wartime intelligence.

As mentioned in the manual, the cruise speed was 420 kph. Anyone wanting to test can determine the throttle setting from the amount required to maintain 420 kph IAS. (262 mph)

Hunde_3.JG51
06-12-2005, 12:52 PM
Guys, I asked if someone could repost their findings in the "4.0 bug reporting" thread, the sticky at the top of this forum http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Why wait until it is official, that is what the sticky thread was made for, reporting possible bugs. I'm not talking about e-mailing Oleg, I just want a couple people to re-post their findings in the 4.0 bug reporting thread.

OldMan____
06-12-2005, 01:15 PM
I already posted it there yesterday

OldMan____
06-12-2005, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Some range docs, via wartime britiah Air Intelligence :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1118597530_spitchart.jpg

mm looking to this table I got an idea.. FW range is now about 500 km when flyign very carefully and Spit9 is about 450 km... does this tell you something? Miles..km.. confusion... despair...colors..buterflies... sugar.

Buzzsaw-
06-12-2005, 01:27 PM
Salute

The figures for range for the Spitfires on this particular chart for internal only fuel are also very optimistic.

Typically for a Kurfurst submission, there is no context for the chart.

p1ngu666
06-12-2005, 02:22 PM
depends if u include combat, or different settings like combat, cos that really eats up the fuel.

also tempests high cruising speed, closterman said spitfire pilots would joke that the tempests cruise speed was slighty slower than its landing speed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

incidently, napier made the two most economic aircraft engines (internal combustion) according to the book i read.
the lion and the nomad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

haveto see if i can find a book on napier, really interesting and potent engines http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Atomic_Marten
06-13-2005, 09:10 AM
Hm .. from chart above, Me109G's range is 615 miles, and with external (droptank) 1000 miles.

Unlikely, according to D.Monday's specs which list Me109G6 range as 373 miles (600km) and 621 miles (1000km) with drop tank. Monday's info may not be entirely accurate, but even if it's not I think we have close numbers there.

WWMaxGunz
06-13-2005, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
P1ngu, I see worst case for the Lancs is 500 gal/hr and best economy is 124 gal/hr.
Quite a spread.

People running "tests"... are you keeping the engine rpms down?

Buzzsaw, that time of the 109 is at 420 kph? Over 250 mph. Is that economy cruise?
Otherwise I should hope to do better.

yep, but the figures are just fuel consumption, not the distance covered </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can be sure of something. Anywhere in the top 25% of speed between stall and full
on these planes and you are going to get much less to extremely less range per amount of
fuel. It's because of the increase of drag being so heavy, drag is appx by speed squared.
There is a certain amount of efficiency in just running the engine and prop efficiency so
floating like a ballon for example, you cannot run forever. On a limb I would guess that
there is maybe one IAS to aim for, an altitude to keep above and an altitude to keep below.
That is if you want to get your best range and not counting for winds.

Kurfurst__
06-13-2005, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Hm .. from chart above, Me109G's range is 615 miles, and with external (droptank) 1000 miles.

Unlikely, according to D.Monday's specs which list Me109G6 range as 373 miles (600km) and 621 miles (1000km) with drop tank. Monday's info may not be entirely accurate, but even if it's not I think we have close numbers there.

Yes, but as I had noted those figures Monday etc. qoutes are derieved from the GLC/E-2 aircraft type sheets. Works are usually qouting those, but the sheets themselves only qoute MAXIMUM cruise speed range (=not really economical).

Ie. the GLC chart have shows 560 km range but at 595 kph max. continous cruise speed. The economical cruise part is not filled out, this however can be taken from other documents.

IE. this is more detailed on the Bf 109G-2. It`s somewhat higher than the previous doc, appearantly with less allowance :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094475518_109g_range.jpg

Atomic_Marten
06-13-2005, 12:12 PM
Thanks for the info.

p1ngu666
06-13-2005, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
P1ngu, I see worst case for the Lancs is 500 gal/hr and best economy is 124 gal/hr.
Quite a spread.

People running "tests"... are you keeping the engine rpms down?

Buzzsaw, that time of the 109 is at 420 kph? Over 250 mph. Is that economy cruise?
Otherwise I should hope to do better.

yep, but the figures are just fuel consumption, not the distance covered </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can be sure of something. Anywhere in the top 25% of speed between stall and full
on these planes and you are going to get much less to extremely less range per amount of
fuel. It's because of the increase of drag being so heavy, drag is appx by speed squared.
There is a certain amount of efficiency in just running the engine and prop efficiency so
floating like a ballon for example, you cannot run forever. On a limb I would guess that
there is maybe one IAS to aim for, an altitude to keep above and an altitude to keep below.
That is if you want to get your best range and not counting for winds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep, i guess u want to run at a height where the engine is getting just enuff air to maintain whatever boost, and because of thinner air you will go faster and or get less drag http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WUAF_Co_Hero
06-14-2005, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by Fennec_P:
Tried it out.

Used 25% fuel, and multiplied by 4 to get endurance. 1000m, crimea, noon.

A4 100%: 44min
A4 110%: 36min

A5 100%: 44min
A5 110%+WEP: 34min

D9'44 100%: 44min
D9'44 110%+WEP: 24min (!)


I tested also in 3.04. The fockes had 55 minutes endurance at 100%. It is less now by almost a quarter.

I can't say if A4 and A5 are wrong, because I don't know real life endurance values. But D9 WEP must be wrong. I mean, how can 10% more throttle double the fuel flow? Makes no sense.

----

Edit: Here is a website with endurance values.
http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/ground/fw_a5.htm

Max Power: 50 minutes
Cruise: 60 minutes
Max cruise: 78 minutes
(I have no clue what 'cruise' and 'max cruise' are supposed to be)

and http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fw190f8.html

2 Hours at 2,000m (6,500 ft.) at 280 mph (450 km/h)

I'll test this 450 @ 2000m one.

Unless I hear otherwise, I will assume the D9 fuel modeling is EXACTALLY correct. As you said, that extra 10% with WEP halves the flight time. Well that's simple enough to explain; Erhohte Notliestung is literally... Double fuel injection.

It is a hastle to use fuel so fast, but on the other hand... you don't need WEP in the D9 to say.. climb and cruise. Save it for combat, and your fuel should last long enough

JG53Frankyboy
06-14-2005, 06:46 AM
if it will stay so - Droptank options for :

Bf109F2/F4/G10
Fw190A8/A9/D9
SpitfireV

at least would be **** nice to have !!

JG53Frankyboy
06-14-2005, 06:48 AM
and btw, in 4.0 at 100% power, 100% fuel
a Bf109F4 have a flying time of ~1h 24min

a Bf109G2 only 54min http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

both should have the same fuel load = 400litres.
sure, the DB605 needed more fuel than a DB601 , but that much?

and i think the G2 is correct, the F4 wrong. as the fuel gauge inm the pit is also showing

Codex1971
06-14-2005, 07:31 AM
Just noticed something strange while in an FW-190F8 carying full bomb load (1x500kg and 4x50kg SC)on WarClouds tonight...the fuel gauge didn't move for about 15min, I had a full tank the entire time. I droped the bombs and flew around for a while.

Can some else varify this?

JG53Frankyboy
06-14-2005, 07:41 AM
as already said in this topic, the F8 have much more fuel on board than the gauge is showing as max ( it shows litres , not % )

Buzzsaw-
06-14-2005, 07:47 AM
Salute

As usual Kurfurst shows us only an edited document, instead of the entirety.

He is obviously frightened to show us the entire document, because it will no doubt provide other information he doesn't want known.

Looking at the edited document, the comment under the table is relevant:

"The above figures supercede all PREVIOUS ESTIMATES".

Which suggests that this document is an estimate of range, based on ideal conditions, and not a practical test.

Kurfurst, if you are really interested in providing full details, then you will post the entire British test of this G2, instead of hiding those sections you don't want us to see.

Failure to post the entire test is an indication you are skewing the facts once again.

Codex1971
06-14-2005, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
as already said in this topic, the F8 have much more fuel on board than the gauge is showing as max ( it shows litres , not % )

Thanks...hadn't read it thorouglhy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-14-2005, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
Just noticed something strange while in an FW-190F8 carying full bomb load (1x500kg and 4x50kg SC)on WarClouds tonight...the fuel gauge didn't move for about 15min, I had a full tank the entire time. I droped the bombs and flew around for a while.

Can some else varify this?

1 guage and 2 tanks. Guage is for the lower tank.
When pilots fly they don't rely on fuel guages except to see if the tank is leaking.
Too many variables of attitude of the plane, position of sensor (usually a float),
and shape of tank. Pilots learn to know how much fuel they have and how long it
should take to use it in different modes of flight. So 109's, France to London and
back allows for so many minutes and no more of fighting. Piloting is not for dummies!

BBB_Hyperion
06-14-2005, 12:06 PM
Well Max then why the 190F8 has 500 l Fuel and all other FWs 288 l they both used 2 tanks right ?

p1ngu666
06-14-2005, 12:14 PM
In PF the game takes fuel from all the tanks at the same time, infact theres effectivly 1 tank plus droptank. thats why if u get hit in a fuel tank u WILL run out of fuel even if uve got 5 tanks.

the guages may not show the % or capacity of the tank, but say the last 50%.
ingame they work perfectly, irl some planes u wherent sure how much u had left, mossie was a good example, u didnt know how much was left at the end, quiet a few ran out of fuel taxing back to dispersal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif. this was normaly after very long missions tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

BBB_Hyperion
06-14-2005, 12:17 PM
For the serious Testers

Fuel consumption rate BMW 801D
l/h Alt
0,5 Km 4 Km

1,32 AtA 2400 RPM
Climb & Combat (30 Min) 515-550 490-525

1,22 AtA 2300 RPM
Max Cruise 420-440 420-440

1,1 AtA 2100 RPM
Eco Cruise 255-265 265-275

Taken from Kimura's post about Kdo-Ger¤t Handbook BMW 801 C and BMW 801 D from October 41 3rd Edition.

WWMaxGunz
06-14-2005, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Well Max then why the 190F8 has 500 l Fuel and all other FWs 288 l they both used 2 tanks right ?

Oh, sorry, that is two I saw in fuselage alone. I forgot wing tanks!
Otherwise... different size tanks by any chance?

Thing is, don't go by the guage to know capacity or state. And devicelink only tells
what the guage should read. Or go with enough reduced fuel that devicelink data is
changing from start or don't use data until that number starts diminishing. Really
with a good devicelink program you should be able to tell how fuel efficient you are
flying in terms of the flight program.

BBB_Hyperion
06-14-2005, 12:57 PM
My main problem is devicelink shows 500 l for 190 F8 which is for both tanks and 288 l for all other 190s which is the bigger tank pf the two. Both tanks are below the pilot. That tanks are completely identical on both planes . The 115 Liter tanks doesnt fit in either combination if someone trys to argue f8 might have it modeled.

Now to check if fuel range on f8 differs to others models at same settings significant or if indeed fuel is taken from both tanks by indentical consumption rates.

Codex1971
06-14-2005, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Piloting is not for dummies!

Oh you€re so right Max! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-14-2005, 09:13 PM
I've got systems training manuals and a load of classroom time that taught me that!
And a bunch of other time with pilots. Tagert says any dummy can get a license with
enough money and I don't doubt it but then I also expect if that person does much
flying on their own, they will turn into a bad statistic before long. There's just
too many things to know and keep track of and I know most people aren't up to it
from my experience on the highways where maybe half the drivers can't seem to drive
with their full attention let alone bother with turn signals or lights in bad weather.

Kurfurst__
06-15-2005, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
and btw, in 4.0 at 100% power, 100% fuel
a Bf109F4 have a flying time of ~1h 24min

a Bf109G2 only 54min http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

both should have the same fuel load = 400litres.
sure, the DB605 needed more fuel than a DB601 , but that much?

and i think the G2 is correct, the F4 wrong. as the fuel gauge inm the pit is also showing


100% power would mean 1.3ata boost for both planes I presume.

Consumption at 1.3ata, SL (not much different at altitude) :

DB 605A-1, 1.3ata, 2600rpm, 1310 HP :
400 liter/h at SL
380 liter/h at 5.8km

(it looks quite correct)

I don`t have data for the 601E, but I guess it would be very slightly less, ca 10% (1200PS at 1.3ata).

NOTE THAT IT IS ONLY TRUE IF THE GAME SETTINGS MEAN THE SAME AT 100%!!!

ELKASKONE
06-15-2005, 12:50 PM
"I don`t have data for the 601E, but I guess it would be very slightly less, ca 10% (1200PS at 1.3ata)."


Look here!
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=22&L=1

ELKASKONE
06-15-2005, 01:00 PM
"I don`t have data for the 601E, but I guess it would be very slightly less, ca 10% (1200PS at 1.3ata)."

ME109F4 2840kg vom 04.09.1941
2500U/min - 1,3 ata - 350l
2300U/min - 1,15ata - 325l

BBB_Hyperion
06-15-2005, 05:45 PM
190 Fuel issue is fixed in 4.01 for those that tried to deny it's existence http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bremspropeller
06-15-2005, 05:55 PM
Yes, compared to 4.0, it just goes on...and on...and on...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

OldMan____
06-15-2005, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
190 Fuel issue is fixed in 4.01 for those that tried to deny it's existence http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Greta... now I can leav thet 2 extra drop tanks at home and use some more rpm than 0% prop pitch.

Codex1971
06-15-2005, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
Greta... now I can leav thet 2 extra drop tanks at home and use some more rpm than 0% prop pitch.

I know what ya mean OldMan http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif