PDA

View Full Version : Fuel consumption..



WOLFPLAYER2007
09-23-2008, 03:28 PM
In your opinion which aircraft in il2 has the most fuel consumption?...i find that all the versions of the bf109 and the latest versions of the MC. 205 have really thirsty engines...if you put for example 25 % of fuel in a bf109 you will fly probally about 10 minutes (if you are not pushing the engine to hard)

In contrast planes like the p51 and the majority of japanese planes are very economic.

gizmo60
09-23-2008, 04:23 PM
It's not necessarily fuel consumption as such.
The 109 had small fuel tanks which was a limiting factor for its escort duties over britain.
The P-51 had large tanks so 25% fuel will go a lot further.

DKoor
09-23-2008, 04:43 PM
Bf-109K with wep enabled can run some ~33mins and waste all fuel.
Don't know if shorter flying time is possible with any other plane in game regardless of flying regime.

Sirrith
09-23-2008, 05:37 PM
one of the jets I think? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

julian265
09-23-2008, 07:52 PM
Fuel consumption is closely related to engine power... the Tempest comes to mind as one of the thirstiest.

P.FunkAdelic
09-23-2008, 11:02 PM
Sometimes when I know I'm gonna be flying high and want to be able to lurk I'll grab a drop tank and give my plane 50% fuel or something and get up to operational altitude and drop the tank when I see an enemy. Probably slows my ascent down but its better for me since I'm a noob and I don't want to have to disengage when I finally find myself in a good position because my tanks are bone dry or threatening to be.

WTE_Galway
09-24-2008, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by gizmo60:
It's not necessarily fuel consumption as such.
The 109 had small fuel tanks which was a limiting factor for its escort duties over britain.
The P-51 had large tanks so 25% fuel will go a lot further.

The early P51 was also unstable and dangerous when all tanks (including the fuselage one) were filled. Packing 100% fuel was more a ferry condition for long flights you would never enter combat that way.

general_kalle
09-24-2008, 01:22 AM
P47 was historically one of the theirstyist planes of the war.
i think maybe the Corsair, Hellcat and wildcat had very theirsty engines aswell...same with the american cars.

M_Gunz
09-24-2008, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gizmo60:
It's not necessarily fuel consumption as such.
The 109 had small fuel tanks which was a limiting factor for its escort duties over britain.
The P-51 had large tanks so 25% fuel will go a lot further.

The early P51 was also unstable and dangerous when all tanks (including the fuselage one) were filled. Packing 100% fuel was more a ferry condition for long flights you would never enter combat that way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it did happen that way when inbound to escort P-51's got hit before the rear tanks
were below the critical. Might have been someone else but I think that Clostermann is the
one quoted here about stick reversal during a turning portion of a fight with 109's that had
bounced his flight.

With stick reversal you would feel forces change in the stick but unless you have force
feedback stick you have only the view outside and your instruments to go by.

dirkpit7
09-24-2008, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gizmo60:
It's not necessarily fuel consumption as such.
The 109 had small fuel tanks which was a limiting factor for its escort duties over britain.
The P-51 had large tanks so 25% fuel will go a lot further.

The early P51 was also unstable and dangerous when all tanks (including the fuselage one) were filled. Packing 100% fuel was more a ferry condition for long flights you would never enter combat that way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it did happen that way when inbound to escort P-51's got hit before the rear tanks
were below the critical. Might have been someone else but I think that Clostermann is the
one quoted here about stick reversal during a turning portion of a fight with 109's that had
bounced his flight.

With stick reversal you would feel forces change in the stick but unless you have force
feedback stick you have only the view outside and your instruments to go by. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clostermann didn't fly the P-51.

Has anyone ever tried how long you can fly in a P-51 with full tanks and droptanks?

WOLFPLAYER2007
09-24-2008, 12:49 PM
The p51 dont drink much fuel in comparison with some axis planes with the exception of the japanese...like someone mentioned above, the p47 and another pacific american fighters (in il2) spends a lot of fuel in flight, but even it is less than axis planes.

the bf109 is on the top of the list.

Afterhours
09-24-2008, 05:26 PM
B-29.

PanzerAce
09-24-2008, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by dirkpit7:

Clostermann didn't fly the P-51.

Has anyone ever tried how long you can fly in a P-51 with full tanks and droptanks?

Longer than you need to be able to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WTE_Galway
09-24-2008, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dirkpit7:

Clostermann didn't fly the P-51.

Has anyone ever tried how long you can fly in a P-51 with full tanks and droptanks?

Longer than you need to be able to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was a secret version of the P51 that ran on a combination of cow droppings and common tank water but its development was suppressed by the industrio-military multinational petrochemical conglomerates.

M_Gunz
09-24-2008, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by dirkpit7:
Clostermann didn't fly the P-51.

Has anyone ever tried how long you can fly in a P-51 with full tanks and droptanks?

That's why I said 'I think'. I wasn't sure. There's been one pilot quote from a book posted
here with that incident, many times when the great P-51 CoG wars were waged. Bloody battles,
I tells ye! Flames everywhere! Almost as bad as the 109 elevator wars.

One side claimed that when the rear tank is more than half full that pitch reversal happens.
They had the combat story as well as the POH and many quotes.

Wish I could remember who that was.

berg417448
09-24-2008, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:



One side claimed that when the rear tank is more than half full that pitch reversal happens.
They had the combat story as well as the POH and many quotes.

Wish I could remember who that was.

One who mentioned it was Bob Goebel.
http://books.google.com/books?id=U65aOOhJF1UC&pg=PA133&...t&resnum=4&ct=result (http://books.google.com/books?id=U65aOOhJF1UC&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=p-51+stick+reversal&source=web&ots=k3uOW3Quav&sig=e3MxQx0F0Aql2FkgyUyK6wFM7rI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result)

Skycat_2
09-24-2008, 10:29 PM
As was said, total fuel capacity of the aircraft makes a difference.

Let's look at some historic fuel loads:

Me109G (http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USAFMuseum/WWII/MesserschmittBf109/MesserschmittBF109.htm) = 106 gallons internally and 80 gallons in a single drop tank.

Fw190D (http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USAFMuseum/WWII/FockeWulf/FockeWulfFW190.htm) = 138 gallons internally, 30 gallons in an optional tank in the rear fuselage, and 80 gallons in a single drop tank.

Maaci 202 (http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Efbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/maccc202.html) = 114 gallons internal plus 53 gallons in drop tanks.

P-51D (http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USAFMuseum/WWII/Mustang/P51Mustang.htm) = 180 gallons internally, 300 gallons externally in drop tanks.
* Actually 92 Left + 92 Right + 85 aux = 269 gallons internal. (Revised information from P-51D/K training manual; the manual states 489 gallons total capacity given two 110 gallon drop tanks.)

P-47D (http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USAFMuseum/WWII/ThunderboltP47/P47Thunderbolt.htm) = 305 gallons internally, 460 gallons externally in an external drop tank.
* Bubbletopped 'D' models actually had an internal capacity of 370 total gallons.

So if we exclude drop tanks, which dogfight arena players would be unlikely to use, and figure a 25% interal fuel load for each of the above aircraft, we'd have something like this:
Me109G = 26.5 gallons.
Fw190D = 34.5 gallons.
Mc.202 = 28.5 gallons.
P-51D = 67.25 gallons.
P-47D = 76.25 or 92.5 gallons.

A real warbird burns a substantial amount of gas just taking off and trying to climb to cruising altitude. In a dogfight server you really never ascend to an efficient altitude, and most of the time you're playing you're throttled to full power.

I don't know what the burn rates of the Axis aircraft were. FWIW, the historic training manual for Thunderbolt pilots advised:

"The P-47 burns between 90 and 130 gallons of gas an hour during normal cruising operations, depending on the age and condition of the engine. The plane consumes about 25 gallons during warmup and takeoff.
When drawing full military power the gas consumption reaches 275 gallons an hour. War emergency power, an even greater gas hog, eats around 315 gallons an hour."

Buzzsaw-
09-25-2008, 03:12 AM
Originally posted by Skycat_2:
As was said, total fuel capacity of the aircraft makes a difference.

Let's look at some historic fuel loads:

Me109G (http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USAFMuseum/WWII/MesserschmittBf109/MesserschmittBF109.htm) = 106 gallons internally and 80 gallons in a single drop tank.

Fw190D (http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USAFMuseum/WWII/FockeWulf/FockeWulfFW190.htm) = 138 gallons internally, 30 gallons in an optional tank in the rear fuselage, and 80 gallons in a single drop tank.

Maaci 202 (http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Efbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/maccc202.html) = 114 gallons internal plus 53 gallons in drop tanks.

P-51D (http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USAFMuseum/WWII/Mustang/P51Mustang.htm) = 180 gallons internally, 300 gallons externally in drop tanks.
* Actually 92 Left + 92 Right + 85 aux = 269 gallons internal. (Revised information from P-51D/K training manual; the manual states 489 gallons total capacity given two 110 gallon drop tanks.)

P-47D (http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USAFMuseum/WWII/ThunderboltP47/P47Thunderbolt.htm) = 305 gallons internally, 460 gallons externally in an external drop tank.
* Bubbletopped 'D' models actually had an internal capacity of 370 total gallons.

So if we exclude drop tanks, which dogfight arena players would be unlikely to use, and figure a 25% interal fuel load for each of the above aircraft, we'd have something like this:
Me109G = 26.5 gallons.
Fw190D = 34.5 gallons.
Mc.202 = 28.5 gallons.
P-51D = 67.25 gallons.
P-47D = 76.25 or 92.5 gallons.

A real warbird burns a substantial amount of gas just taking off and trying to climb to cruising altitude. In a dogfight server you really never ascend to an efficient altitude, and most of the time you're playing you're throttled to full power.

I don't know what the burn rates of the Axis aircraft were. FWIW, the historic training manual for Thunderbolt pilots advised:

"The P-47 burns between 90 and 130 gallons of gas an hour during normal cruising operations, depending on the age and condition of the engine. The plane consumes about 25 gallons during warmup and takeoff.
When drawing full military power the gas consumption reaches 275 gallons an hour. War emergency power, an even greater gas hog, eats around 315 gallons an hour."

Good information Skycat

I think Oleg has been very generous in his modelling of fuel consumption in IL-2. Aircraft seem to be able to fly much longer than historically when operating at near peak horsepower. From my reading of the pilot manuals and the historical consumption rates of the various aircraft, it seems clear that if the game was modelled correctly, we'd have to be flying around most of the time at 70% throttle and low RPM.

I am hoping he changes things for BoB, if he does, then the furball types who typically load 25% fuel are going to be in for a shock. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

dirkpit7
09-25-2008, 05:29 AM
Skycat, interesting info, thanks. Looks like the Merlin was quite a bit more economical than the R-2800. Still, if I did the math right, the late model P-47 should be able to fly for 8 hours if there's no need for combat power.

Skycat_2
09-25-2008, 07:12 AM
Maybe 8 hours on paper but operationally I believe it was much less unless power settings were kept really low. I'll have to look into that.

The P-47N was the endurance Thunderbolt. It packed 100 extra gallons in each wing for a total of 570 gallons internal. The original projections was that it would be capable of 12 hour operations and a 1,300 mile radius. Again, I don't know offhand what the actual performance was in practice.

DrHerb
09-25-2008, 07:43 AM
Hmmm, I wonder if leaning out the mixture would help in fuel consumption in the game. *in a/c that have that feature enabled*

StevePelot
09-25-2008, 08:18 AM
When running 25% fuel-load in the P-51 the main tanks are empty and the aft tank has the 25% fuel which somewhat upsets the flight charactaristics of this aircraft particularly when in tight turns. Is there any way to move that fuel to the wing tanks and leave the aft one empty?

Skycat_2
09-25-2008, 06:38 PM
The in-game Mustang's alleged aft tank has been the subject of community debate for a long time. To my knowledge the sim doesn't model consumption from multiple internal tanks but instead treats all internal fuel as part of the aircraft's total gross weight. (Consider this: there is not a function that allows the player to choose which tank to draw fuel from.) If this is true, less fuel means a lighter aircraft powered by the same engine. Perhaps improper elevator trim is the culprit affecting your turns?

Edit...
Here's another way of looking at what I mean about overall weight. Let's assume that a U.S. gallon of gas weighs 6 lbs. Your Mustang, without drop tanks, is carrying this much gas:

100% = 269 gal (x 6) = 1614 lbs. gasoline.
Thus, 25% = 403.5 lbs. of gasoline.

You've made your aircraft 1,200 lbs. lighter by selecting only one-quarter the internal fuel load. That's more than half a ton. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hey, BTW, I was looking at an F-51 training manual (from the early 1950s) and it says the auxiliary tank was placarded to only 65 gallons because the additional 20 gallons made the plane unstable. I wonder if that was a rule applied during the war as well?

K_Freddie
09-25-2008, 07:01 PM
1 - 2 hrs with normal tanks AFAIK http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

struth
09-28-2008, 10:18 PM
Cruising speed and Speed for Maximum Range are two different operations concepts. Cruise speed is not confused with the best fuel economy.

For the P-40N cruise speed was 263 mph while SRmax was 198 mph (which got you 1400 miles).