Load out configuration Poll

[Crumpp]

Even then, couldn't you just plan your fuel use so that you would arrive in combat with full wing tanks?

 

That is what they did or tried to do. Understand that combat is very fuel thirsty business.

 

Military aircraft are governed and regulated. You have to take things like reserve fuel, your mission is "dispatched". That means you as the pilot and an operations guy on the ground have joint responsibility for the flight. He has to approve and sign off on the flight as do you. You check his work and he checks yours.....

 

That is one of the duties of the Operations Officer in the Squadron.

 

You simply will not get a flight approved which means no fuel release, no ground support, etc..

 

 

Believe me, aside from the fact it is just not going to happen because it violates basic fuel planning, you WANT to take things like reserve fuel.

 

Aircraft divert and deviate from the "plan" all the time.

[Crumpp]

Even then, couldn't you just plan your fuel use so that you would arrive in combat with full wing tanks? Example, 33 gallons required for egress, so put 33 gallons in the fuselage tank. Maybe only 25 if you're really paranoid about making sure you get to combat with absolutely nothing in fuselage tank.

 

I think some perspective on just how thirsty these aircraft are might help to see the futility of partially filling tanks.

 

29 gallons of gas are required to go from the ramp to the 1000 feet AGL.

 

Getting from the Ramp to 20,000 feet consumes 67 gallons of fuel for planning purposes.

 

That means you reach 20,000 feet ready to fight and your fuselage tank is almost empty. You are also only ~25 miles from where you took off!

 

Most of these maps, 25 miles is not that large a distance!

 

The USAAF standard planning was 20 minutes for Combat. That is 5 minutes at War Emergency Power and 15 Minutes at Military Power.

 

That consumes 61 gallons of gas for 33% of a P-51's internal fuel load.

 

In World War II, That left a P-51 pilot with 1 hour and 11 minutes of cruising time at maximum range settings. That is not much when you are fighting over an area it took 2 hours of flying to get there.

 

 

You can see why the "long range fighter program" was such a difficult engineering feat and why external fuel tanks were the norm.

[Solty]

 

You can see why the "long range fighter program" was such a difficult engineering feat and why external fuel tanks were the norm.

I don't see how this makes an impact on any kind of normal fights that we have on our servers.

 

We are not going to fly 8h to the target on an open server Crump. And if we had to, we WOULD take the fuel required for such a mission. We don't have to take 8h of fuel to flight over a bay that has bases that are set around 10km from each other. 40 min is more than enough:doh:

[NineLine]

I cant see ED forcing fuel loads, missions just need to give people a reason to need more fuel and to stay in the air longer.

[Crumpp]

I cant see ED forcing fuel loads, missions just need to give people a reason to need more fuel and to stay in the air longer.

 

They enforce historical load outs for weapons, why not fuel?

 

 

Give us the option to enforce it.

 

It keeps the situation developing where we have one side spawning with drop tanks vs another section launching with greatly reduced fuel loads.

 

It gives the server and mission editor a universal setting to help prevent abuse.

[NineLine]

They enforce historical load outs for weapons, why not fuel?

 

 

Give us the option to enforce it.

 

It keeps the situation developing where we have one side spawning with drop tanks vs another section launching with greatly reduced fuel loads.

 

It gives the server and mission editor a universal setting to help prevent abuse.

 

You can change the amount of rounds loaded into your aircraft I believe, its a % slider.

[Solty]

They enforce historical load outs for weapons, why not fuel?

 

 

Give us the option to enforce it.

 

It keeps the situation developing where we have one side spawning with drop tanks vs another section launching with greatly reduced fuel loads.

 

It gives the server and mission editor a universal setting to help prevent abuse.

 

 

You can choose to take 3x rockets, 1x bomb and 50% of ammo at the begining of a mission :)

[Crumpp]

You can change the amount of rounds loaded into your aircraft I believe, its a % slider.

 

You can and it is not a realistic thing either.

 

Nobody takes reduced ammunition but fuel is ok.....

 

:huh:

[NineLine]

You can and it is not a realistic thing either.

 

Nobody takes reduced ammunition but fuel is ok.....

 

:huh:

 

No one is arguing its not a way to get an advantage, but its the nature of the missions.

 

I was going to try, but cant do it over teamviewer right now, set the fuel load on a P-51 to 100%, then set the airfield to have 0 fuel reservers and no way to resupply, then try and change the fuel load and see what it does.

 

2 things to try with this, can you lower your fuel load when there are no fuel reserves at the airfield and what happens if you respawn, will you have 100% fuel or will you respawn with 0%.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

You can and it is not a realistic thing either.

 

Nobody takes reduced ammunition but fuel is ok.....

I'm still wondering what situations did you find where that fuel load option was a so huge real problem for you. You mean flying a P-51 and you find a 109 or 190 with low fuel load so they beat you more easily than usual? You mean flying a 109 full loaded you found an unloaded P-51 that was able to beat you in a T&B fight? Please give us some details.

 

S!

[Crumpp]

No one is arguing its not a way to get an advantage, but its the nature of the missions.

 

I was going to try, but cant do it over teamviewer right now, set the fuel load on a P-51 to 100%, then set the airfield to have 0 fuel reservers and no way to resupply, then try and change the fuel load and see what it does.

 

2 things to try with this, can you lower your fuel load when there are no fuel reserves at the airfield and what happens if you respawn, will you have 100% fuel or will you respawn with 0%.

 

Ok, standing by for the results!

 

The first fuel load on a P-51 is the main tanks (wing tanks IIRC 75% on the slider).

[OutOnTheOP]

Why are so scared of allowing people to have a choice?

 

:lol::lol::megalol::lol::megalol::megalol:

 

OMG. Did you actually just say that? The irony is palpable.

 

You *do* realize that the one lobbying to remove "choice" from the players here is in fact *you*, right?

 

As it is now, pilots have the *choice* to take as much fuel as they believe is required for the mission at hand. Reduce at pilot's own risk.

 

Mission makers have the *choice* to make historically-themed missions where aircraft air-start at, say, hour 3 of an 6 hour escort mission, with the appropriate fuel levels to reflect what had been burned on the way in, and what is left for getting home.

 

Mission makers have the *choice* to make players fly for three hours to get to the target (but I somehow doubt that would be a popular server!).

 

*YOU* are the one that wants to take these choices out of the hands of pilots and mission makers, because you don't like the choices they make.

 

I also find it humorous that you have actually doubled down on your "it takes 33 gallons for the Mustang to descend from 20,000 feet" malarkey, AND that your calculations of the Dora loiter time are calculated differently from the Mustang loiter time.

 

Let's apples to apples it. You subtract 33 gallons from the Mustang for climb and another (riduculous) 33 gallons for descent, and THEN calculate your flight time AFTER the loss of that fuel, yet for the Dora you don't account for all that time in the climb-out and descent, which, apparently, is supposed to be performed at kampf- und steigleistung, since you have already opined that descents burn as much fuel as ascents.

 

So: 8 minutes for the Dora to get to 20,000 feet, at combat power (610 l/hr) burns 81 liters (21 US gallons). Another 81 liters lost on the descent, by your methodology (ridiculous though it may be). 524 liters total onboard capacity, minus 162 liters equals 362 liters onboard for time on mission. At maximum continuous (höchstzulässige dauerleistung), the burn rate is 375 liters per hour. This means the Dora gets to 20,000 feet with 0.965 hours of fuel (max cont).

 

Meanwhile, the Mustang, on wing tanks only, carries 184 gallons. After the (again, ludicrous) assumption that it takes 66 gallons to climb and subsequently descend, that means it has 118 US gallons/ 446.7 liters remaining. Burn rate at 20,000 feet and max continuous is 100 US gallons (378.5 liters) per hour. Practically the same as max continuous for the Dora. Only, the Mustang has 446.7 liters left by the time it gets to 20k, where the Dora has only 362. 1.18 hours for the Mustang, 0.965 for the Dora. And that's with the Mustang ALREADY starting at a "mere" 68% fuel (wing tanks only), versus the Dora with full bags. Even then, it has 22% greater endurance.

 

Or, we can compare best consumption rates for staying airborne. The data you have for the BMW801 (again, not sure why you even introduced it to the discussion, but ok, I'm happy to use your own numbers against you) shows 2.1 hours maximum time airborne. IE, the most physically possible, at the best altitude for duration aloft, at the best engine setting for duration aloft. At most efficient setting. For the Mustang, best setting is 34 gal/ hr. 184 gallons divided by 34 gph equals FIVE POINT FOUR hours airborne at best setting. On wing tanks alone. Now, I'm no mathmagician, but I think 5.4 is a LOT more than 2.1 Like, somewhere in the ballpark of TWO AND A HALF TIMES as long.

 

So, please, tell me again why the Mustang pilots should be forced to carry between 22% and 250% the endurance worth of fuel as their Luftwaffe counterparts? Tell me again how that's fair and "historical", and any other fuel fraction is "cheating". Please, do.

Edited December 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Crumpp]

I think 5.4 is a LOT more than 2.1

 

The 2.1 hour figure is after fuel used for take off, taxi, climb out for the FW-190A8.

 

Where your 5.4 hr calculation assumes the P-51 burns no fuel to get to altitude in taxi, take off, and climb.

[OutOnTheOP]

You can and it is not a realistic thing either.

 

Nobody takes reduced ammunition but fuel is ok.....

 

:huh:

 

Really. Really?

 

C'mon, there is a documented option, approved by the USAAF, to remove two of the guns and use the additional space for extra ammo for the remaining guns, but that must be ridiculous, because there's clearly NEVER a reason to want to take a different amount than standard ammo.

 

I mean, it's not like a recon flight might want to lighten up so it can more effectively use it's primary means of defense (IE, running away). Nope, it's silly to think anyone would ever take less ammo, either.

[OutOnTheOP]

The 2.1 hour figure is after fuel used for take off, taxi, climb out for the FW-190A8.

 

Where your 5.4 hr calculation assumes the P-51 burns no fuel to get to altitude in taxi, take off, and climb.

 

It does not say that. It says maximum time airborne. Time climbing is, in fact, time airborne. And considering that best endurance (time aloft) is at sea level in the Mustang, I would be willing to bet that it is also best altitude for endurance for the FW190. Doesn't take much time to climb to zero feet, does it?

 

Ok, so the Mustang calculation doesn't include the fuel to get the wheels up. But the engine setting is 2700 and 31 inches. A Mustang can quite easily take off at 31 inches. Just takes a bit more runway. Fine, subtract 0.1 hours from the Mustang to account for a whopping SIX MINUTES to trundle down the runway and get airborne. I mean, if you think it actually takes six minutes to cover the length of the runway. Still leaves 5.3 hours for the Mustang

Edited December 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Crumpp]

OutON/theOP says:

 

Still leaves 5.3 hours for the Mustang

 

No it does not leave the Mustang 5.3 hours on 184 gallons of gas.

 

 

Look at the P-51D's Take Off and Landing charts and plan the fuel consumption.

 

Total internal fuel capacity (Wing Tanks) = 184 gallons. Yes there is unusable fuel included in that figure but it will only shorten our endurance slightly.

 

First flight, Take Off, climb to 20,000 feet, Descend, Land. This does not include go-around or any reserve fuel.

 

Taxi, Take Off, and Climb fuel = 33 Gallons

 

Descent, Landing, and Take Off = 33 Gallons

 

 

66 gallons total to get up and get down from 20000ft.

 

184 gallons - 66 gallons = 118 gallons to fly around with...

 

At our most maximum fuel efficiency, conducting a perfect flight we need:

 

 

We are burning 48 gallons per hour at 20,000 feet. The is the LEAST amount of fuel the aircraft is capable of consuming and remain airborne.

 

118/48 gallons = 2 Hours and 27 minutes of doing nothing.

 

Let's compare that to the BMW801D2

 

 

20,000 feet = ~ 6Km (6.09Km so we are a little conservative in favor of the Mustang)

 

A little extrapolation puts our BMW801D2 FW-190A8 at 2 hours and 10 minutes for the same flight profile.

 

A advantage of 17 minutes or 13.5 gallons of fuel extra which equal = 97lbs of weight.

 

97 lbs of weight = ~.4 degrees/sec rate of turn gain.

 

It does not make a practical difference.

 

The Dora would be much closer in the fact the Jumo 213 consumes less fuel than the BMW801. The BMW801 uses ~450liters and hour while the Jumo213 uses ~375liters and hour at 6 Km.

 

[Crumpp]

118/48 gallons = 2 Hours and 27 minutes of doing nothing.

 

 

Checking out fuel planning against the chart..

 

At 20,000 feet we are able to travel at 280mph TAS. With 120 available gallons we can fly 640 air miles according the maximum range chart.

 

640 Air Miles / 280 Mph TAS = 2.28 hours of endurance

 

 

Less than 1% error...

[OutOnTheOP]

No it does not leave the Mustang 5.3 hours on 184 gallons of gas.

 

Yes, it does. I suggest you read the P-51D flight operation charts that YOU posted. See down there in the bottom right, where it says "maximum range", then look at the "SL" row, where it has, in the "G.P.M" column, "34"? Yeah, that means the Mustang can stay airborne at 34 gallons per minute, at sea level. That is the LOWEST burn rate shown on the chart. Mind you, it is NOT the lowest fuel burn that the Mustang can remain airborne at, because it is for 200 IAS at SL. An even LOWER engine setting would be required to maintain ~110 IAS at SL, which is the slowest the Mustang can fly, which means that the maximum time aloft the Mustang can spend, starting with 184 gallons fuel, is AT LEAST 5.4 hours. Probably longer, because it CAN, in fact, fly at a lower engine setting.

 

 

 

Taxi, Take Off, and Climb fuel = 33 Gallons

 

It does not take 33 gallons to climb to 0 feet altitude. It takes only 24 gallons to get to 10,000 feet, and they don't even INCLUDE it for getting to 5,000 because it's negligible. But given that it takes 4.2 minutes to 10,000, and 2.1 minutes to 5,000, we can infer that it would take no more than 12 gallons to take off and climb to 5,000. Even less to climb to sea level, thank you very much. Either way, it takes at MOST 12 gallons to take off, meaning you then have AT LEAST 172 gallons to burn at your best endurance burn rate. Which, again, PER. YOUR. OWN. CHART. is 34 gallons per minute. 172/34= 5.05 hours airborne. And that's an extremely PESSIMISTIC estimate.

 

Descent, Landing = 33 Gallons

 

This is so retarded I'm not even going to address it again. Dead horse, beat yourself.

 

 

66 gallons total to get up and get down from 20000ft.

 

Both wrong, and irrellevant. Best endurance is at Sea Level.

 

At our most maximum fuel efficiency, conducting a perfect flight we need:

 

Right, 34 gallons. Per your chart, at S.L. Still wrong, though, because that's the burn rate for best RANGE, not for best ENDURANCE. Best endurance would, in fact, be even less fuel burned.

 

We are burning 48 gallons per hour at 20,000 feet. The is the LEAST amount of fuel the aircraft is capable of consuming and remain airborne.

 

Again, wrong. Wrongwrongwrong WRONG WRONG. Best endurance- IE, maximum time airborne- for the Mustang will be found at the engine setting where the lowest gallons per minute are burned. That's at sea level.

 

Logically, the best endurance for the Dora would ALSO be at sea level. Maybe it's not. Either way, per the FW190 data plate YOU YOURSELF posted, the maximum time a FW190 can physically remain airborne- IE from the instant the wheels leave the ground until the instant they come back down- is 2.2 hours. That's it. It doesn't say what engine setting or altitude that is, but that's irrellevant. I've already proven that the Mustang can stay airborne AT LEAST 5.05 hours, and the FW190 can stay airborne AT MOST 2.2 hours. Perhaps you should google what "gesamt flugzeit" translates to. It's not "amount of time the aircraft can remain at cruise altitude after climbing at combat setting for ten minutes". It's "maximum flight time". Which includes the climbout to whatever is the most fuel-efficient altitude.

 

But, of course, that's using FW190A8 data, which is stupid, but hey, I'm not the one that posted irrelevant data in and pretended it was representative, I'm just going with what you provided.

Edited December 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Crumpp]

Yes, it does. I suggest you read the P-51D flight operation charts that YOU posted. See down there in the bottom right, where it says "maximum range", then look at the "SL" row, where it has, in the "G.P.M" column, "34"? Yeah, that means the Mustang can stay airborne at 34 gallons per minute, at sea level. That is the LOWEST burn rate shown on the chart. Mind you, it is NOT the lowest fuel burn that the Mustang can remain airborne at, because it is for 200 IAS at SL. An even LOWER engine setting would be required to maintain ~110 IAS at SL, which is the slowest the Mustang can fly, which means that the maximum time aloft the Mustang can spend, starting with 184 gallons fuel, is AT LEAST 5.4 hours. Probably longer, because it CAN, in fact, fly at a lower engine setting.

 

Ok, these are planning charts used by the pilots. There use follows specific guidelines and it is not simply divide the number by the amount of fuel in the full tank.

 

It is beyond the scope of this thread to teach you flight planning.

 

This is where the "fuel pie" concept can help. Imagine the total fuel onboard as a fuel "pie." We can cut that pie into different-sized slices, with each slice representing an allocation of fuel. Some slices are thick and contain lots of fuel, while other slices are thin and contain less fuel. For example, a student pilot may choose to partition his trainer's 24.5 gallons of usable fuel into three slices. The first slice is the fuel required to fly to the destination. Let's say it's a 2.5-hour flight, and the trainer burns six gallons per hour in cruise, so that slice equals 15 gallons. The second slice is for the day VFR (visual flight rules) reserve, and that slice represents 30 minutes at normal cruising speed, or three gallons. The amount left over is 24.5 minus 18, or 6.5 gallons, which is about one hour's flying time.

 

Similarly, airline pilots, corporate pilots, and other professional pilots employ navigation logs that typically partition their total fuel load into six or seven different allocations. The allocations are listed in a fuel table, each with a different name and purpose. Above is a sample navigation log fuel table for a corporate jet flight from Van Nuys, California (VNY) to Teterboro, New Jersey (TEB).

 

As you can see, the allocations are for fuel to the destination (DEST), IFR reserves (RESV), flying to the alternate (ALTN), holding (HOLD), subtotal of required fuel (REQD), extra (EXTRA), and taxi (TAXI). Note that all quantities are expressed in pounds, which is normal for jet fuel. Let's discuss the various allocations and their purposes.

 

Destination fuel is the fuel required (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) to fly from the departure airport to the destination airport. It is the sum of the fuel required for takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, approach, and landing. Destination fuel is generally the largest portion of the fuel pie, although on short flights it may not be. It generally doesn't include taxi fuel, which has its own allocation.

 

Reserve fuel (along with destination fuel) is the fuel required to satisfy the federal aviation regulations. The amount of reserve fuel required is based on the type of flight being conducted and the conditions. FAR 91.151, "Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions," states that:

 

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed-

 

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or

 

(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.

 

The reserve for flights under instrument flight rules (IFR) is 45 minutes as well.

 

The key point to remember about regulations is that they are absolute minimums, and just because something's legal doesn't mean it's safe. For example, if you were an instructor, would you allow your student to take off on a solo cross-country where he had planned to land at the destination with only 30 minutes of fuel remaining? Of course not. That's why many pilots double their personal fuel reserve numbers from 30 to 60 minutes for day VFR and from 45 to 90 minutes for night VFR. Note also that reserve fuel is required for dispatch purposes only. There is no requirement that it be on board at the destination or the alternate.

 

Alternate fuel is the fuel required to fly from the destination to an alternate airport. It includes the fuel required to go around or miss the approach, climb to an appropriate cruise altitude, cruise to the alternate, descend, and make an approach and landing.

 

You may have to divert to an alternate if your original destination becomes unsuitable or unusable for landing. For example, what if the forecast winds you were expecting to be straight down the runway turned out to be nasty crosswinds? What if a disabled aircraft were to block the only runway? Or, if you were flying IFR, what if you tried to land but missed the approach because the weather went below minimums? For these and other reasons, it's always a good idea to have enough fuel to fly to an alternate airport.

 

Holding fuel is the fuel set aside to hold the aircraft at normal holding speed. Although there is no specific regulation regarding holding fuel, most navigation logs allocate 30 minutes of fuel for holding. Holds frequently occur when flying under IFR, in busy airspace, and in lousy weather. Holding when flying under VFR is rare, but there are some situations in which you might have to hold for at least a few minutes. For example, you could be asked to hold while awaiting clearance to enter busy Class B or C airspace. Or a tower controller may ask you to hold outside Class D airspace if special VFR operations are being conducted, or if the tower is handling an aircraft in distress.

 

Required fuel is simply the total of destination, alternate, reserve, and holding fuel.

 

Extra fuel is fuel set aside over and above reserve requirements for any unforeseen contingencies. For example, let's say you're using more fuel than planned because of stronger than forecast headwinds. Or you find yourself circumnavigating towering cumulus buildups, military airspace, or thunderstorms along your route. In these situations, knowing that you have some extra fuel on board can be a very comforting thought.

 

Taxi fuel is simply the fuel required to taxi out to the active runway. In many training aircraft, this is usually combined with the engine start, run-up and takeoff fuel, and it seldom amounts to more than one gallon.

 

http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/2002/July/200207_Features_Learn_What_You_Burn.html

 

Bottom line up front is your simplistic calculation is not correct.

[OutOnTheOP]

Ok, these are planning charts used by the pilots. There use follows specific guidelines and it is not simply divide the number by the amount of fuel in the full tank.

 

It is beyond the scope of this thread to teach you flight planning.

 

 

 

http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/2002/July/200207_Features_Learn_What_You_Burn.html

 

Bottom line up front is your simplistic calculation is not correct.

 

No. Bottom line up front is that the Mustang, with only wing tanks, can remain aloft for over twice as much time as can the FW190 with full tanks.

 

The "planning tools" include some safety margins in them. The "maximum time aloft" is exactly what it sounds like. Maximum time the aircraft spends aloft, in best-case circumstances. I am comparing apples to apples. Maximum time aloft until the tank runs dry, versus maximum time aloft until the tank runs dry. You have repeatedly attempted to present the "gesamt flugzeit" numbers as the time available AFTER climb out, which it is NOT, and you have repeatedly tried to state that the Mustang has to keep 33 gallons to descend, which it does NOT. You are either very mistaken, or are attempting to deliberately mislead people.

 

Either way: You. Are. WRONG.

 

You are also falling back on the rather disingenuous tactics of trying to muddle the issue with irrelevant, technical-looking data in what I can only assume is an attempt to confuse people. As if throwing walls of irrelevant FAA rules' text at the issue makes you an expert on the basic physics as outlined in the charts. You posted charts. Your own charts prove your own contrived assertions false. Now you are trying to distract from the issue.

Edited December 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Crumpp]

OutOnTheOP says:

Bottom line up front is that the Mustang, with only wing tanks, can remain aloft for over twice as much time as can the FW190 with full tanks.

 

I understand that you are convinced of that and are going to continue to spam my thread without proof. Can we move on?

[OutOnTheOP]

By the way, it's probably also worth noting that the P-51D, at max continuous power, maintains 290 mph IAS at 20,000 feet (from your chart).

 

Meanwhile, the Fw190D9, at max continuous (2700 rpm; the only setting for which we have the Dora burn rates to make an endurance comparison), is burning fuel at almost exactly the same rate, but maintains 580km TAS... IE, 360mph TAS, IE 258mph IAS at that altitude. (from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_D-9_210006_flight_performance.jpg)

 

So in addition to flying up there for 22% longer, the Mustang is doing so at 12% (42 mph IAS, 30mph IAS) faster. If the Mustang throttled back to match the Dora's SPEED at max cont, it would have even GREATER comparable endurance.

Edited December 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

I understand that you are convinced of that and are going to continue to spam my thread without proof. Can we move on?

 

No proof? I'm just using YOUR own charts. (well, plus the airspeed chart for the Dora at 2700 rpm to compare the difference between the airspeed the Mustang is doing at max continuous versus what the Dora goes) Not my fault if you repeatedly mis-represent what they actually say.

Edited December 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Crumpp]

The chart you are using only calculates time based on the cruise fuel available not the total fuel in the tanks.

 

[OutOnTheOP]

The chart you are using only calculates time based on the cruise fuel available not the total fuel in the tanks.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=129272&stc=1&d=1449171963

 

Hey, look, I can put big red boxes around things too. Those instructions are for the upper half of the sheet. The bottom half is just engine settings and their associated airspeed and fuel burn at assorted altitudes. At 20,000 feet, a Mustang at max continuous power burns 100 gallons per hour, and goes 290 mph IAS. At max continuous at 20,000 feet, a Dora burns 99.0645 gallons per hour and goes 258 mph IAS. Almost identical burn rate, but the Mustang both goes faster and does so significantly longer.

 

The ONLY Dora fuel burn rate data you have provided is for the combat setting, the WEP setting, and the max continuous setting. Max continuous is the closest of those to a cruise setting, so I have made direct comparison between Dora at max cont and Mustang at max cont.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=129276&stc=1&d=1449172675

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=129277&stc=1&d=1449172675

 

As a result, the Mustang can do the same thing as the Dora, while carrying slightly less fuel. And the Dora at full tanks is already carrying less fuel than the Mustang with wing tanks only.

 

Therefore, if you want to be able to perform the same mission profile as a Dora with full tanks, you STILL do not need full wing tanks on the Mustang. Trying to force the Mustang to carry more fuel than required to fly the exact same mission profile as a full-bags Dora is nothing more than an attempt to ensure the Dora (and Kurfurst) are always at a weight advantage.

Edited December 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP