Engine Performance

[heloguy]

I haven't done extensive testing, and I'm not sure if this has been brought up before (didn't find it searching keyword "torque" in this forum), but I was wondering how close the engine performance is to the real aircraft.

 

I started the free flight mission in the mission editor, noting that the OAT is 20 degrees, and the field elevation. I determined from performance charts in the UH-1H U.S. Army -10 that I downloaded to my iPad from somewhere ;) that the hover power required would be 22psi at 5 feet. Pulled up to five feet, and ended up hovering at about 32psi.

 

From there, I went up to a 50ft hover, predicting about 32.5psi OGE. Actual hover power was 35psi(not too bad there).

 

After that, I came back down to 5ft to re verify (same results), then accelerated up to 90kias to check power there. I predicted 24psi from the cruise charts, ended up settling at about 30psi in level flight.

 

Just wondering if I should expect different, or is the aircraft in the game that much different than the one represented by the US Army's -10 (thought it was supposed to be close, since a lot of the flight manual is copied from there).

 

Again, parameters used for performance planning: 1500', 20 deg C for hover checks, and 2000' at 15 degrees C for cruise at 90 kias. I setup the aircraft as basically a slick with a crew of four and two M60's with the doors closed. Full of fuel, the gross weight was 7035lbs.

 

My predicted numbers were as follows: Hover at 5 ft: 27.5psi; Hover at 50ft: 32.5psi; Cruise at 90kias: 24psi

 

My actual numbers were as follows: Hover at 5 ft: 32psi; Hover at 50ft: 35psi; Cruise at 90kias: 30psi

 

A track is included. I was wanting to start planning missions out predicting fuel flows, weights, and power and such, but with numbers this far off, it will be hard in the sim.

 

Just wanted to post this to find out if this is a known problem with the aircraft's performance, or if different performance charts should be used for a different configuration other than the U.S. Army's UH-1H -10 config.

 

Thanks!

Huey Power Test.trk

Edited March 2, 2015 by heloguy

[TurboHog]

Yes engine performance is inaccurate. Although care should be taken in the use of the word 'accurate' because my assessment is based on calculated data (not sure physics based or semi-empirical, I assume the former). However, the discrepancy between this calculated data from the charts and the performance of the DCS Huey is significant enough to draw the conclusion that performance is 'way off'.

 

see post.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1872872&postcount=4

 

And don't think that BST will ever fix this. The Huey is a finished product. (i.e. abandoned)

Edited March 2, 2015 by TurboHog

[heloguy]

That's really too bad. They've gotten so many other things right, but A/C performance being close would push this thing into legend status.

 

A/C performance being correct is pretty important for a module whose primary purpose is to move things around the battlefield. Part of the fun for me would be planning a mission, and seeing how close my planning was to actual conditions met.

[Justificus]

And don't think that BST will ever fix this. The Huey is a finished product. (i.e. abandoned)

 

Being relatively new to the Huey, I'm curious why you say this? Is there somewhere in the forum I can read information about this? Thanks.:cry: