PDA

View Full Version : 262 fuel and rpm/altitude



M.P.N.1982
06-11-2006, 08:37 AM
i got thes data from a copy of the 262 A-1,A-2 manual 07 Oktober 1944 (Bedienungskate L.Dv.T.2 262 A-1, A-2/Fl.)

fuel consumption / Hour

300 m altitude
8000 RPM / 2900 L / H L = Liters
8400 - / 3650 L / H H = Hour
8700 - / 4550 L / H

2000 m altitude
8000 RPM / 2460 L / H
8400 - / 3120 L / H
8700 - / 3930 L / H

3000 m altitude
8000 RPM / 2230 L / H
8400 - / 2880 L / H
8700 - / 3620 L / H

4000 m altitude
8000 RPM / 2050 L / H
8400 - / 2610 L / H
8700 - / 3290 L / H

5000 m altitude
8000 RPM / 1870 L / H
8400 - / 2300 L / H
8700 - / 2990 L / H

6000 m altitude
8000 RPM / 1720 L / H
8400 - / 2160 L / H
8700 - / 2720 L / H

8000 m altitude
8000 RPM / 1390 L / H
8400 - / 1540 L / H
8700 - / 2110 L / H

10000 m altitude
8000 RPM / ---- L / H
8400 - / 1340 L / H
8700 - / 1690 L / H

based on: Jumo 004 B-1
Max Fuel load: 2570 Liters
Flight distance: 1050 KM (B4 Fuel 10% less)
the manual also say 3000 RPM minimum

---------

But in IL 2 - 4.05 m

7000+ m altitude
max. RPM >8000

my best flight distance > 700 KM

Fuel in all altitude the same (more or less).

---------

can this be fixed ?

thanks 4 reading and i hope my english in not to bad.

M.P.N.1982
06-11-2006, 08:37 AM
i got thes data from a copy of the 262 A-1,A-2 manual 07 Oktober 1944 (Bedienungskate L.Dv.T.2 262 A-1, A-2/Fl.)

fuel consumption / Hour

300 m altitude
8000 RPM / 2900 L / H L = Liters
8400 - / 3650 L / H H = Hour
8700 - / 4550 L / H

2000 m altitude
8000 RPM / 2460 L / H
8400 - / 3120 L / H
8700 - / 3930 L / H

3000 m altitude
8000 RPM / 2230 L / H
8400 - / 2880 L / H
8700 - / 3620 L / H

4000 m altitude
8000 RPM / 2050 L / H
8400 - / 2610 L / H
8700 - / 3290 L / H

5000 m altitude
8000 RPM / 1870 L / H
8400 - / 2300 L / H
8700 - / 2990 L / H

6000 m altitude
8000 RPM / 1720 L / H
8400 - / 2160 L / H
8700 - / 2720 L / H

8000 m altitude
8000 RPM / 1390 L / H
8400 - / 1540 L / H
8700 - / 2110 L / H

10000 m altitude
8000 RPM / ---- L / H
8400 - / 1340 L / H
8700 - / 1690 L / H

based on: Jumo 004 B-1
Max Fuel load: 2570 Liters
Flight distance: 1050 KM (B4 Fuel 10% less)
the manual also say 3000 RPM minimum

---------

But in IL 2 - 4.05 m

7000+ m altitude
max. RPM >8000

my best flight distance > 700 KM

Fuel in all altitude the same (more or less).

---------

can this be fixed ?

thanks 4 reading and i hope my english in not to bad.

PBNA-Boosher
06-11-2006, 09:19 AM
This simulation was originally designed to be a tank busting only sim. That being, high altitude flight characteristic modeling was not a priority, and therefore is not as accurate as it can be. This won't be fixed and can't be fixed as it's a problem with the game engine. BoB will save us.

Platypus_1.JaVA
06-11-2006, 01:00 PM
You are not saying that you actually fly more then 700 km/h in this sim? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-11-2006, 08:55 PM
By the chart data he should be able to get around 90 mins including the climbout, maybe.

Willey
06-12-2006, 01:10 AM
700km range http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Apart from that, it's not possible to exceed 700km/h at 10000m, because from 7000m on the performance drops quickly. I remember it was not like that in FB 1.0...

M.P.N.1982
06-12-2006, 10:07 AM
It is passible to exceed 700 Km/H at 10000 m (it is easy) my problem is:

1. That since a Pasific fighter patch (i think 4.01m) the fuel of the ME 262 was cut by almost 30-40 %.

2. that the engines performance drops quickly above 7000 m.

I only wanna say that this 2 problems are technical incorrect. I accept that the 262 is a fuel waster but i wanna have at least enough fuel for 900 KM distance (reference to B4 Fuel).

luftluuver
06-12-2006, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M.P.N.1982:
It is passible to exceed 700 Km/H at 10000 m (it is easy) my problem is:

1. That since a Pasific fighter patch (i think 4.01m) the fuel of the ME 262 was cut by almost 30-40 %.

2. that the engines performance drops quickly above 7000 m.

I only wanna say that this 2 problems are technical incorrect. I accept that the 262 is a fuel waster but i wanna have at least enough fuel for 900 KM distance (reference to B4 Fuel). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If you saw any Mtt performance graphs for the 262 you would see that above 7000m the speed does drop off rapidly. At 9000m it is only slightly faster than at SL.

Range using B4 is reduced by 10% over that of J2.

M.P.N.1982
06-12-2006, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M.P.N.1982:
It is passible to exceed 700 Km/H at 10000 m (it is easy) my problem is:

1. That since a Pasific fighter patch (i think 4.01m) the fuel of the ME 262 was cut by almost 30-40 %.

2. that the engines performance drops quickly above 7000 m.

I only wanna say that this 2 problems are technical incorrect. I accept that the 262 is a fuel waster but i wanna have at least enough fuel for 900 KM distance (reference to B4 Fuel). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If you saw any Mtt performance graphs for the 262 you would see that above 7000m the speed does drop off rapidly. At 9000m it is only slightly faster than at SL.

Range using B4 is reduced by 10% over that of J2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speed was never the reason why i start this......
It was incorect RPM and to short flight distance. (engine performance is not speed performance)

And yes B4 reduce by 10% over that of J2 but contains 5 % Schmierstoff (lubricant / Íl ... dont know eng word 4 it)

luftluuver
06-12-2006, 04:45 PM
Speed is related to engine performance. For the speed to drop that quickly then engine performance must have dropped off just as quickly.

WWMaxGunz
06-12-2006, 06:19 PM
Mach one at 6km alt is 615.1 kph. At 8km alt it is 598.9 kph.

I might suggest that mach calculations are not correct in the sim and that getting them so
might wreck the framerate yet there is some kind of mach calculation and as you go higher
the mach speed does go down so perhaps that is where your limits come in.

BBB_Hyperion
06-12-2006, 09:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Mach one at 6km alt is 615.1 kph. At 8km alt it is 598.9 kph.

I might suggest that mach calculations are not correct in the sim and that getting them so
might wreck the framerate yet there is some kind of mach calculation and as you go higher
the mach speed does go down so perhaps that is where your limits come in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure my calcs result in 6 km 316 m/s = 1138 kmph TAS
8 km 308 m/s = 1108 kmph TAS.

(Yours in IAS ? used Temperature ?)

(https://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/mach-as.htm)


Agree on the mach calculations ingame as fishy .)

BBB_Hyperion
06-13-2006, 09:46 AM
Think i got it kph is knotsperhour not kilometerperhour http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M.P.N.1982
06-13-2006, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Speed is related to engine performance. For the speed to drop that quickly then engine performance must have dropped off just as quickly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

half right / half wrong ......

your right that the engine is less efective in high altitudes but that is related to thin air ( low compression ) not to the RPM. And i was mainly talking about RPM....



PLEASE STOP THES TALKING ABOUT SOUNDBARRIER.....
I AM SICK OF THIS " SHE CAN / SHE CAN'T "

WWMaxGunz
06-13-2006, 12:51 PM
Yes I was reading the knots column of the table.

6km alt = 1139.2 km/h
8km alt = 1109.2 km/h

At least it is not mach 1 262 buuuuut...
by the degrease in mach speed I hope that some can see how increase alt does not mean
forever increase in speed.

What I wrote above, the sim does not get mach speed at alts very well at all. Try to
imagine for every tiny change in speed there must also be calculation of mach and the
effects of that, I believe we are looking at a shortcut neccessary for framerate that
also affects other planes like P-38.

IF that is so then screaming about FM's of different planes is sending the hunters to
the wrong freaking trees and there ain't no bobcat up them trees and won't be found one.
Problem stays and team gets tired of looking at code and data in spots that is fine in
itself. Nothing gets done, no bobcat found.

I look at the historic 262 fuel use data there and see it should decrease all the way
up to 10km alt, perhaps the same book has speeds or range data as well? Whatever, the
data and reference plus note of what you get in-game needs to be sent to 1C. Speed
with rpm and alt data also needs to be dug up. Only chance to get change.

M.P.N.1982
06-13-2006, 01:07 PM
sorry the manual has no "high speed" data.

only max dive speed 950 km/h
and some speed data for start and landing.

very interisting is that it also said that one engine flight is possible.
and restart a engine only under 4000m possible.