PDA

View Full Version : How accurate is fuel consumption in this sim?



fabianfred
02-01-2008, 08:32 PM
I know most maps in il2 are made for 'playability'...but can a zero really fly for several hours...or other planes...are they true to life in this respect..

from Wikipedia about the B-25....
An interesting characteristic of the B-25 was its ability to extend range by using one-quarter wing flap settings. Since the aircraft normally cruised in a slightly nose-high attitude, about 40 U.S. gallons (150 l) of fuel was below the fuel pickup point and thus unavailable for use. The flaps-down setting gave the aircraft a more level flight attitude, which resulted in this fuel becoming available, thus slightly extending the aircraft's range.

qlc1
02-01-2008, 08:46 PM
yea same thing with my car

Cajun76
02-01-2008, 09:06 PM
One of the amazing things about the Zero was it's range. It would seem to pop out of nowhere, attack an airfield or other target and then leave. It's radius of action was very large and was a big factor in it's early reputation.

Max range in early Zero's was near 2000 mi. with drop tanks and economical settings.

The P-51D flying gas tank had a range of about 2300 mi. (And before I get razed, the P-47N was a flying fuel truck http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ) IIRC, I calculated that the the P-47N carried the same or more weight in fuel as a normal loaded Bf-109K4. The whole K4. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif


Fuel consumption is modeled AFAIK, because I've run both Bf-109 and Fw-190s out of fuel when carrying 100%. Took somewhere in the neighborhood of an hour of hard flying.

fabianfred
02-01-2008, 09:41 PM
so the bombers should be able to go for hours then... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

(I'm just thinking about the new slot map WIP) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JtD
02-02-2008, 01:58 AM
The fuel consumption in this sim is inaccurate.

qlc1
02-02-2008, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The fuel consumption in this sim is inaccurate.
that would explain some of the missions i get sent on in the aussie singapore campaigne.
dont mind running out of fuel 1/2 way home after spending too much time over target,,
but running out on the way too the target..

leitmotiv
02-02-2008, 02:24 AM
I thought consumption was cured in the 20th century.

joeap
02-02-2008, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The fuel consumption in this sim is inaccurate.

Proofs? Charts?

Skoshi Tiger
02-02-2008, 03:17 AM
Although I haven't got any charts, I think the inaccuracy would come in due to the fact that most sim pilots run around a Full War Emergency Power for the entire sortie.

IF I remember rightly ,(from reading a Spitfire handling notes a long time ago) to get the longest duration of flight you had to fly at the slowest possible speed that still alowed you to control the aircraft.

I seam to remember reading that the unlimited class planes (P51's - Seafuries) at Reno used something like 150 gallons of fuel per hour during a race and were only given enough fuel for about 15 minutes racing! (I'll stand corrected by anyone with a more accurate stats!)

WTE_Ibis
02-02-2008, 04:17 AM
------------------------------------------------
A6M-2

These engines should be used in todays cars.
This evening I took one for a ride with full tanks, flew it for about a half hour. I was having some trouble keeping the trim stabalised and then realised that a TV show that I wanted to watch was about to start. Frustrated with the ever changing trim I let the plane do as it wanted and it climbed, stalled, and plummeted earthwards shedding both ailerons and one side of its elevator.I left it to destroy itself but to my surprise it skimmed the ground and started to climb.
To hell with it, I left it and watched TV.
Two hours and five minutes later I returned to the computer and here is this little jap zero still doing loops and half loops wingovers and god knows what else reaching 3000 mtrs and dropping as low as1700mtrs.
I checked the fuel gauges which only begin to register when 75% empty and they hadn't moved. Not bad considering it was approx. two and a half hours at 80% throttle.
Maybe they dont work on the zero.
Anyone know?

leitmotiv
02-02-2008, 04:46 AM
"Ibis, obviously you were using the little known Toyota hybrid A6M which gets three time zones per gallon of gas!"


http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/sakai9.jpg

GH_Klingstroem
02-02-2008, 05:29 AM
Ok hang on here!

To fly as long as possible you will ned too fly at VMD, Velocity minimum drag. That is to say thay every aircraft has a speed that will cause the minimum drag but still take the aircraft forwdar. Its quite simple. At low speed, you angle of attack will be high, and high angle of attack will give you lots of lift, sure but it also gives you very much drag!! Lets call this lift drag!

Say now that you accelerate, for every km/h you accelerate you can lower the angle of attack to maintain alitude. We all know this from game. And since angle of attack decreases, your lift drag decreases. This is all great you think so why dont fly as fast as possible??

Problem is the faster you go them more "parasite drag" you get. included here is "skin friction drag"(any body moving through any substance will be affected by it), then we have "profile drag", and "interference drag" etc etc. These types of drag all increase with an increas of airspeed so flying faster will create lots of drag too!

No the trick is to fly at the speed where "lift drag" still is low, (fairly low angle of attack) and before "parasite drag has increased yet"

Now imagine a big X
at the top left corner you have lift drag and at the bottom left corner of the X you have profile drag.
You can see that as speed increases(if you move form left to right on the X) lift drag(top left) will decrease and profile drag will increase. Where they meet (middle center of the X) is where the TOTAL drag added together is the lowest. This for many airplane types is not only the speed where drag for that specific airframe is lowest, it very often is also best climb speed and best glide speed if you lose all engines.
Hope this made sense!

leitmotiv
02-02-2008, 05:44 AM
"Any fella that posts a buncha horse ticky like that above oughta be tarred and feathered for abusin the English language."


http://ruthlessreviews.com/pics/drstrangelove3.gif


"I flew an Oleg A6M2 fum Dallas to Australia without a drop tank."

cawimmer430
02-02-2008, 06:17 AM
In my experience I tend to fly at full power a lot in combat situations and that obviously needs a lot of fuel.

As usual, I tend to panic when my fuel state is 50% in the BF-109 in German pilot careers. Around 30% I tend to head for home at low throttle, sometimes turning off the engine and gliding using the altitude I have. It helps. If I can take a droptank with me, I generally do but I also remember reading a comment made by Adolf Galland about how that little bulge to which the droptank was attached caused a reduction in speed of about 20 km/h...

The Hawker Hurricane also runs out of gas pretty quickly in the Singapore missions, especially if you're trailing a bunch of Betty's and Oscar's to home base, which I can't resist doing! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


I did once run a Zero dry during a Japanese naval pilot career mission. Me and two other Zero's were tasked with looking for a US carrier fleet. I took off with droptanks to extend my range, makes me feel safer. Well we encountered four Wildcat's and I had to drop my tank. One of my Zero's is immediately blown up. I managed to get on the tail of a Wildcat and shoot him up badly enough that he was out of the fight. My wingman bags another two Wildcats and after a lengthy dogfight, in which I told my wingman to go after the remaining Wildcat, the last Wildcat is bagged by me. But it took some time as this AI pilot was pretty tricky. I burned up a lot of gas during this time. Then I see the Wildcat I had shot up earlier, trailing a little smoke and apparently loosing fuel. I told my wingman to return to base and decided to follow the Wildcat from a distance as he would fly towards his carrier and thus I could complete my mission. Well, even with 8x speed, this took quite some time and I was generally trailing him at 35-40% engine power. Even so, when I finally spotted the US carrier fleet I get the mission complete notice. Now I need to head for home and glance at my fuel! Oh darn! I thought the Zero had long range but my tank is reading something like 25% full! I panic but I assess the situation. The Zero can cruise at 35% (or even lower I believe) engine power since it is so light. At the moment, I am at 3,000 meters+ so I had enough altitude to glide home in case. I decide to cruise for home using a lean fuel mixture and to climb at cruising speed to gain as much altitude as possible. I radio for the coordinates and I receive the heading. Well, to make a long story short, I arrived at the coordinates but my carrier force wasn't there. By now my airplane was running on fumes. The fuel tank clock was literally on "0". I know that the carrier force must have sped to a point a bit further from where it last was so I head into the direction I thought they cruised too. After a few minutes I find tiny little dots in the distance I know those are Japanese carriers! By now I know my plane can't fly much longer. I've also lost some altitude in order to gain some speed and get closer to the carrier fleet with minimal fuel usage. I find my carriers and prepare to land on the closest one. I'm about 200 meters away from landing, gear out, take-off flaps, arresting hook all out when suddenly my engine dies and I get the "engine out of fuel" warning. Great! Well the Zero can still fly level at 100 km/h and I was doing about 160 km/h and rapidly decelerating. I managed to land on my carrier with a dead engine but my landing gear broke apart because I came in a bit panicky. Oh well, that was one awesome mission though! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

stansdds
02-02-2008, 06:22 AM
Many of the aircraft in IL2 do not really have the proper engine controls. I usually fly the Corsair, so I'll use that as the example. The real Corsair had a mixture control that allowed the pilot to lean out the mix for greatest range. Finding that proper mix means setting the prop control and throttle to the desired RPM and manifold pressure, then leaning the mixture until you get a drop in RPM, then enrich just to the point that you avoid that RPM drop.

In IL2, the Corsair's mixture control has two settings, 100% and 120%. I have yet to find a real Corsair with a mixture setting of 120%.

JtD
02-02-2008, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
The fuel consumption in this sim is inaccurate.

Proofs? Charts? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Open FB, pick a plane and fly it.

joeap
02-02-2008, 10:38 AM
Dude I was joking, but no that you bit the hook did you read what the others wrote above? Don't fly at WEP the whole time.

I suspect you are correct butI also would like to know where to find some accurate figures to compare it to...I mean how much gas does a yak carry anyway??

JtD
02-02-2008, 11:22 AM
P-47D-10 should have
- 305 gallons on board
and use
- 250 gallons/hour at 110% with water
- 280 gallons/hour at 100% without water

Feel free to try in FB.

LEBillfish
02-02-2008, 12:24 PM
How accurate?....Well I'm not sure any tests have been run, yet I will say this....

I've not met a person yet other then JV44Boelcke and I that used to have fun flying as aircraft were meant to be....IOW, flying to save fuel and engines (as 1-2.XX if I recall it was much easier to burn up an engine)...So him being a r/l pilot, and having flown a Spanish BF109 r/l, we'd do what he had researched, and would apply it to all planes appropriately.

How that translated to the A6M2, was dropping your PP to roughly 35%, throttle to 40%, and staying at a particular altitude and so on naturally trimming to beat the band.....That translated to an "almost" hands off plane, that would fly for hours at a good speed.....as once in combat that would be when you'd risk burning it up.

The 109 here for example I tend to cruise once to alt. at roughly 55% throttle auto pitch....Same roughly with the 190, and suddenly fuel barely budges (plus that rudder trim falls into line http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif which tells you you're at a "cruise condition")

In kind you'll find, speed is just a bit lower then maximum....ex. 380Km/h vs 430Km/h....So really means little in the scheme of things.

What IS for sure off in IL2, is the fact most run balls to the wall 100% of the time, I myself in most coops running 95% throttle of late as I can then never touch it again, is simply unrealistic as it would take a toll on pilot and machine.....Yet we get a "new" plane each time don't we.

So anywho....Though most planes here don't ever really reach a true cruise setting state.....Give it a try, your range will increase dramatically.

K2

Tater-SW-
02-02-2008, 12:31 PM
Max fuel econ for an F4F is around 150 mph as I recall from my manual. Could certainly test it out and see how far I can fly out of guadalcanal. Set the AI to fly at 242kph and check the fuel since I don't feel like flying to Choisuel in real time to check this, lol.

The combat radius is considerably less than half max range, though. For the F4F-4 it's usually quoted well below 300 miles.

Saunders1953
02-02-2008, 03:13 PM
fabianfred, I KNEW that's why you asked. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

I've been wondering the same thing for the last month or so. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

buzzsaw1939
02-02-2008, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by stansdds:
Many of the aircraft in IL2 do not really have the proper engine controls. I usually fly the Corsair, so I'll use that as the example. The real Corsair had a mixture control that allowed the pilot to lean out the mix for greatest range. Finding that proper mix means setting the prop control and throttle to the desired RPM and manifold pressure, then leaning the mixture until you get a drop in RPM, then enrich just to the point that you avoid that RPM drop.

In IL2, the Corsair's mixture control has two settings, 100% and 120%. I have yet to find a real Corsair with a mixture setting of 120%.


Bump, for you people that missed it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M2morris
02-03-2008, 10:10 AM
Now that Ive seen this thread I'm gonna put 1% fuel in my Corsair and fly at 250mph and using a stop watch Ill see how many seconds it will fly before running out. Then Ill multiply that number of seconds by 100 then divide by 60 to determine number of minutes possible at 100%. Then I'll devide 250 by 60 for miles flown in one minute, then Ill multiply that by the total minutes found for my total supposed- range at 250mph. Then I will attempt to research the F4U to see if its the same. But, I know this is just a sim and there is probably no weather involved in fuel consumption and so on and so forth but I would like to know how FAR I could fly my simulated plane on 100% fuel.
Good Post. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JtD
02-03-2008, 10:39 AM
You better use like 5%. 1 is just too little.

OMK_Hand
02-03-2008, 01:40 PM
Well, that was a very pleasant 20 minutes...

According to Jane's Fighting aircraft of WWII, the Me109 G6 has a range of 569 km.
25 percent of this = 142 km.

So, set up a quick flight from the airfield at Tallin to that at Hyvmkaa in Finland, which I recon is about 140 odd km, in a G6 with 25% fuel = landing on fumes.

Settings used: (all auto rpm)
100% take off.
Climb to 2600m at 90% (1.30 ata, 270 km/h radiator open.
Cruise at 59% (1.15 ata) for about 5 minutes at 400 km/h. Radiator closed.
Then (when I realised I wasn't at economy) 50% (1.00 ata) for the rest of the flight, at about 350-400 km/h. Radiator closed.

The guage was reading just about zero as I turned the motor off, having made a powered landing.

I recon I could've eeked a bit more out of it, if I'd kept the speed to 300 km/h.

Cool. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kernow
02-04-2008, 01:04 PM
Tempest at 100/100 (rpm/MP) no WEP at sea-level burns 1.48% per min. 100% is - or should be - 162 gals, so 2.398 gals per minute or 143.9 gals per hour. Instruments read 3150 rpm & +3 lbs boost.

Pilots' Notes: 3150 rpm, +4 1/2 lbs at 5000 ft (closest to my test setting) = 125 gals per hour.

If you add up the contents from the game guages you get only 157 gals, which implies 140 gals per hour.

So not a million miles off. And economical engine settings do give you greater range and endurance. The modelling of the actual guages on the other hand is anything but accurate. All tanks on the Tempest are guaged, yet no neddle starts to move until over a third of the gas has been burned.

OMK_Hand
02-04-2008, 03:53 PM
The Tempest in game is one of those few oddities... I can't quite work it out...

Fw 190 A8 Aircraft handbook, dated September 1944:
Internal fuel only, no exterior ordinance or tanks (clean), 4 cannon in wings, 2 machine guns in fuselage.
Fuel capacity: 640 Ltr.
Endurance at sea level to 3000m, 2300 rpm 1.20 ata is 1 hour 20 minutes.

25% of 1 hour 20 minutes = 20 minutes.
Off to the Crimea, 25% fuel, take off using full power, quickly settle into 2300 1.20 at 1000m, pootle around.

Fuel runs out after 22 minutes 58 seconds.

Not bad.
Whether by accident or design, this game never ceases to amaze...

sgt.dumpster
02-05-2008, 05:50 AM
its seems the fuel guages in the Bf 110,bf109f2,and the J8a Gladiator always show a full tank, the whole mission!-astrogoth

BSS_Sniper
02-05-2008, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
How accurate?....Well I'm not sure any tests have been run, yet I will say this....

I've not met a person yet other then JV44Boelcke and I that used to have fun flying as aircraft were meant to be....IOW, flying to save fuel and engines (as 1-2.XX if I recall it was much easier to burn up an engine)...So him being a r/l pilot, and having flown a Spanish BF109 r/l, we'd do what he had researched, and would apply it to all planes appropriately.

How that translated to the A6M2, was dropping your PP to roughly 35%, throttle to 40%, and staying at a particular altitude and so on naturally trimming to beat the band.....That translated to an "almost" hands off plane, that would fly for hours at a good speed.....as once in combat that would be when you'd risk burning it up.

The 109 here for example I tend to cruise once to alt. at roughly 55% throttle auto pitch....Same roughly with the 190, and suddenly fuel barely budges (plus that rudder trim falls into line http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif which tells you you're at a "cruise condition")

In kind you'll find, speed is just a bit lower then maximum....ex. 380Km/h vs 430Km/h....So really means little in the scheme of things.

What IS for sure off in IL2, is the fact most run balls to the wall 100% of the time, I myself in most coops running 95% throttle of late as I can then never touch it again, is simply unrealistic as it would take a toll on pilot and machine.....Yet we get a "new" plane each time don't we.

So anywho....Though most planes here don't ever really reach a true cruise setting state.....Give it a try, your range will increase dramatically.

K2

While I'm happy to see some others trying to fly more to real life I can't ignore the fact that this game allows you to fly at 35% pp and 40% power. CEM is so ghey in here. I'm not taking a hit out on you Leb. What works in game, works, however 35% of pp is damn near pulled all the way out which isn't any cruise setting in any aircraft IRL.

cawimmer430
02-05-2008, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by sgt.dumpster:
its seems the fuel guages in the Bf 110,bf109f2,and the J8a Gladiator always show a full tank, the whole mission!-astrogoth

I noticed that too when flying the BF-110 in pilot career mode. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

mbfRoy
02-05-2008, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
How accurate?....Well I'm not sure any tests have been run, yet I will say this....

I've not met a person yet other then JV44Boelcke and I that used to have fun flying as aircraft were meant to be....IOW, flying to save fuel and engines (as 1-2.XX if I recall it was much easier to burn up an engine)...So him being a r/l pilot, and having flown a Spanish BF109 r/l, we'd do what he had researched, and would apply it to all planes appropriately.

How that translated to the A6M2, was dropping your PP to roughly 35%, throttle to 40%, and staying at a particular altitude and so on naturally trimming to beat the band.....That translated to an "almost" hands off plane, that would fly for hours at a good speed.....as once in combat that would be when you'd risk burning it up.

The 109 here for example I tend to cruise once to alt. at roughly 55% throttle auto pitch....Same roughly with the 190, and suddenly fuel barely budges (plus that rudder trim falls into line http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif which tells you you're at a "cruise condition")

In kind you'll find, speed is just a bit lower then maximum....ex. 380Km/h vs 430Km/h....So really means little in the scheme of things.

What IS for sure off in IL2, is the fact most run balls to the wall 100% of the time, I myself in most coops running 95% throttle of late as I can then never touch it again, is simply unrealistic as it would take a toll on pilot and machine.....Yet we get a "new" plane each time don't we.

So anywho....Though most planes here don't ever really reach a true cruise setting state.....Give it a try, your range will increase dramatically.

K2

While I'm happy to see some others trying to fly more to real life I can't ignore the fact that this game allows you to fly at 35% pp and 40% power. CEM is so ghey in here. I'm not taking a hit out on you Leb. What works in game, works, however 35% of pp is damn near pulled all the way out which isn't any cruise setting in any aircraft IRL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just to compare to another sim, I don't remember the exact settings for cruise speed in Shockwave's P51 in FSX since I tried this roughly a year ago or so, but I recall both throttle and ppitch needed to be significantly reduced (at around 50% each more or less) to follow the manual's rpm/boost settings, maybe it wasn't 35% ppitch but I do remember having to reduce ppitch A LOT, in fact I was surprised that not only did the plane fly, but I only needed to adjust the elevator/rudder trims "a bit". I tried it in IL2 too obviously and was pleased with the results as the plane was also able to fly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Maybe someone that has it can comment on what the cruise settings are for a zero and the P51 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
02-05-2008, 10:46 AM
I just want to know if my aircraft consumes fuel while I'm sitting on the tarmac or flight deck. I've heard there's something in the code that doesn't start your "consumption clock" until your wheels lift off, but haven't confirmed this. Anyone?


TB

Breeze147
02-05-2008, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Ok hang on here!

To fly as long as possible you will ned too fly at VMD, Velocity minimum drag. That is to say thay every aircraft has a speed that will cause the minimum drag but still take the aircraft forwdar. Its quite simple. At low speed, you angle of attack will be high, and high angle of attack will give you lots of lift, sure but it also gives you very much drag!! Lets call this lift drag!

Say now that you accelerate, for every km/h you accelerate you can lower the angle of attack to maintain alitude. We all know this from game. And since angle of attack decreases, your lift drag decreases. This is all great you think so why dont fly as fast as possible??

Problem is the faster you go them more "parasite drag" you get. included here is "skin friction drag"(any body moving through any substance will be affected by it), then we have "profile drag", and "interference drag" etc etc. These types of drag all increase with an increas of airspeed so flying faster will create lots of drag too!

No the trick is to fly at the speed where "lift drag" still is low, (fairly low angle of attack) and before "parasite drag has increased yet"

Now imagine a big X
at the top left corner you have lift drag and at the bottom left corner of the X you have profile drag.
You can see that as speed increases(if you move form left to right on the X) lift drag(top left) will decrease and profile drag will increase. Where they meet (middle center of the X) is where the TOTAL drag added together is the lowest. This for many airplane types is not only the speed where drag for that specific airframe is lowest, it very often is also best climb speed and best glide speed if you lose all engines.
Hope this made sense!

I started to read this but it quickly became a drag.

Aaron_GT
02-05-2008, 12:33 PM
IF I remember rightly ,(from reading a Spitfire handling notes a long time ago) to get the longest duration of flight you had to fly at the slowest possible speed that still alowed you to control the aircraft.

There seem to be quite a few PDFs of pilot's manuals around for allied aircraft which should note the correct engine settings for best cruise.

OMK_Hand
02-05-2008, 01:10 PM
"however 35% of pp is damn near pulled all the way out which isn't any cruise setting in any aircraft IRL."

The Yak3 has a cruise setting of 35% throttle, and I think 35% r.p.m.

My Russian isn't too hot, but babelfish suggests that the throttle and r.p.m. tend to 'move together' in Yak aircraft. The ergonomics of the handles suggest this also...

Not 'ghey', really

The Dora (different system) cruises at 0%...

OMK_Hand
02-05-2008, 01:50 PM
Out of interest, the RAF have a little general rule in their WW2 training literature:

"Best (most efficient cruising) speed is the highest available using minimum r.p.m. and maximum weak mixture boost"

An example of this using the Merlin engine:

Maximum cruise: +4 or +7 boost depending on engine type. (The throttle might need to be wide open at a higher altitude to achieve this, or only half or so open at a lower altitude. It's the MP that needs observing, not the throttle setting.)

Best speed is then achieved by reducing r.p.m. down to a minimum of 1800.
(If there's a recommended best cruise speed for the aircraft, and it's too fast at 1800, then MP is reduced to suit. If too slow then the r.p.m. is increased.)

Also, for the RAF and I think for the USAAF, it's often the case that if there's a blower fitted to the engine, cruise settings should be used in the lowest possible blower.

I think more fuel is used in higher blower ratios, plus the engine gives less power in 2nd or 3rd blower ratio.

"The height at which s' ratio is used varies with boost, r.p.m. and airspeed."

I never knew there was so much fun to be had cruising about.

I do know many types don't have a mixture control. I just assume it's automatically weakened at low boost http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mbfRoy
02-07-2008, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
I just want to know if my aircraft consumes fuel while I'm sitting on the tarmac or flight deck. I've heard there's something in the code that doesn't start your "consumption clock" until your wheels lift off, but haven't confirmed this. Anyone?


TB
Not true! I've tested this and indeed there's fuel consumption

TgD Thunderbolt56
02-07-2008, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by mbfRoy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
I just want to know if my aircraft consumes fuel while I'm sitting on the tarmac or flight deck. I've heard there's something in the code that doesn't start your "consumption clock" until your wheels lift off, but haven't confirmed this. Anyone?


TB
Not true! I've tested this and indeed there's fuel consumption </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif