Load out configuration Poll

[Crumpp]

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.

 

It is True Airspeed not Indicated Airspeed. Please STOP Spamming my thread with this stuff. The thread is not entitled "Teaching to Fuel Plan".

[OutOnTheOP]

It is True Airspeed not Indicated Airspeed. Please STOP Spamming my thread with this stuff. The thread is not entitled "Teaching to Fuel Plan".

 

 

Man, truth hurts.

 

Particularly when you insist on repeatedly head-butting it.

 

TAS at max continuous at 20,000 feet for the Mustang is clearly marked in the column right of that: 390 mph

 

*edit* though now that I run the IAS/TAS calculator on that, I see that I used .02 OAT estimation correction to translate the FW190D9 max cont speed at that altitude; to get the Mustang from 290 IAS to 390 TAS requires a correction of 0.0173, which in turn increases the Dora's speed to 267 mph IAS. Still, that makes the Mustang 9% faster AND have 22% more endurance. Considering drag squares with velocity, I'd bet the Mustang's endurance at the 267 mph IAS is at least 30% greater than the Dora's.

Edited December 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Crumpp]

Not the same column used for my flight planning. Irregardless you are spamming my thread. Go start another on fuel planning.

[NineLine]

Guys... play nice.

[OutOnTheOP]

Oh, wait, I don't HAVE to guess, because I have the info right here! Looks like the Mustang only burns 84 gallons per hour to keep up with the Dora at 267mph IAS at 20,000 feet.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=129281&stc=1&d=1449174626

 

So, I guess that means that the Mustang can stay up there at 20k and 270 mph IAS on that 118 gallons after climb-out for 1.405 hours, while the Dora can stay up at 20,000 feet and 267 mph IAS on the 362 liters available to it after climb-out for only 0.965 hours. This is assuming both started the engines and immediately took off without any fuel used for taxi and warm-up, because we don't have the data on how much that is for the Dora (so it would be grossly unfair to count it against the Mustang but not the Dora, as you have been doing).

 

Now, why is this on-topic? Simple: because your basic argument is that the pilot should be FORCED to carry full tanks, which means the Mustang should be FORCED to carry extraneous fuel for at least 47% more flight time than the Dora. That means penalizing the Mustang pilots with at least 47% more fuel than they really need to EXACTLY MATCH the operations the Dora is limited to by it's smaller tanks.

 

So, funny thing, when you count the wing tanks (68% total fuel) of the Mustang as 147% of what you need, and reduce it to match the 100% equal to the Dora, you end up with, surprise surprise, 46% of the total fuel mass of the Mustang giving the SAME range and endurance as the Dora. (0.68/ 1.47= 0.46= 46%)

 

So, again, how is taking 46% fuel in the Mustang "cheating"? It's the amount of fuel that lets you fly EXACTLY the same mission at EXACTLY the same range and speed as a full-up Dora. (edit: not exactly true, it lets you fly the same distance at 3mph indicated faster!)

 

That guy "cheating" by taking 45% of his total allowable fuel was, in fact, PRECISELY matched with a Dora at 100%.

 

Oh, and he was even penalized by the dead weight of an empty, unused 85 gallon fuselage tank.

Edited December 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Crumpp]

[ATTACH]129280[/ATTACH]

 

Man, truth hurts.

 

Particularly when you insist on repeatedly head-butting it.

 

TAS at max continuous at 20,000 feet for the Mustang is clearly marked in the column right of that: 390 mph

 

*edit* though now that I run the IAS/TAS calculator on that, I see that I used .02 OAT estimation correction to translate the FW190D9 max cont speed at that altitude; to get the Mustang from 290 IAS to 390 TAS requires a correction of 0.0173, which in turn increases the Dora's speed to 267 mph IAS. Still, that makes the Mustang 9% faster AND have 22% more endurance. Considering drag squares with velocity, I'd bet the Mustang's endurance at the 267 mph IAS is at least 30% greater than the Dora's.

 

I thought your discussion was trying to be meaningful and did not realize you changed the subject to some off the wall maximum continuous analysis.

 

 

Best range is a specific point on the drag curve of the design. It was 280mph TAS is the Mustangs Best range Speed at 20,000 feet.

 

Running the engine at settings that do not put you on that spot are totally irrelevant to the topic. That is why maximum range is its own chart and why the fuel planning was done.

 

You are spamming my thread. I know you think you are raising some good points but you are really not.

[OutOnTheOP]

I thought your discussion was trying to be meaningful and did not realize you changed the subject to some off the wall maximum continuous analysis.

 

 

Best range is a specific point on the drag curve of the design. It was 280mph TAS is the Mustangs Best range Speed at 20,000 feet.

 

Running the engine at settings that do not put you on that spot are totally irrelevant to the topic. That is why maximum range is its own chart and why the fuel planning was done.

 

Awesome. So, point out where the fuel consumption rates for the FW190D9 to maintain 280 TAS/ 205 IAS at 20,000 feet. You haven't provided that. The only numbers you have available are a) max WEP, b) combat power, and c) max continuous, which, as shown in the chart I provided, results in 267mph IAS at 20,000 feet.

 

The closest thing you have provided to a cruise setting for the FW190D9 is the max continuous, so I have compared max continuous to max continuous. Provide max range for the Dora and I'll be happy to do the math on that, too.

 

You are spamming my thread. I know you think you are raising some good points but you are really not.

 

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

[Crumpp]

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

 

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.

 

Yeah, that is why it says "Instructions for Using the Chart" and entire page is entitled, Flight Operation Instruction Chart....

[Crumpp]

Awesome. So, point out where the fuel consumption rates for the FW190D9 to maintain 280 TAS/ 205 IAS at 20,000 feet. You haven't provided that. The only numbers you have available are a) max WEP, b) combat power, and c) max continuous, which, as shown in the chart I provided, results in 267mph IAS at 20,000 feet.

 

 

Now you are going figure out why I used the BMW801 data! No fair! :lol:

 

You are on to my diabolical scheme to pork the Mustang! :doh:

[OutOnTheOP]

Yeah, that is why it says "Instructions for Using the Chart" and entire page is entitled, Flight Operation Instruction Chart....

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=129297&stc=1&d=1449176847

 

Yeah, so, with 180 gallons, after 33 gallons to climb to altitude, the Mustang can cruise either 420 statute miles at 290 indicated burning 100 gph (wow, 420/390 TAS=1.08 hours aloft, doesn't it?), or 590 statute miles at 270 indicated burning 84 gph (gee, even longer aloft, even thought it's not even counting time for initial climb-out; 590/370 TAS=1.59 hours aloft, not counting the climb-out! Egads, this KINDA seems like it confirms all the things I've said earlier, doesn't it?).

 

As compared to the Dora, which, to maintain 267 mph indicated/ 360 TAS, is burning 99.06 gph and burns through it's entire tank in 1.39 hours, and that's assuming it starts the engine and immediately takes off and climbs out at max continuous, and not the more fuel-hungry climb power setting (530 liters per hour, per your own calculations). 1.39 hours * 360 mph TAS= 373 miles.

 

At the SAME SPEED, at the SAME ALTITUDE, when PENALIZING THE MUSTANG FOR USING CLIMB RATE ENGINE SETTINGS AND 29 GALLONS WARM-UP AND TAXI, but not accounting for ANY fuel WHATSOEVER used for warm-up and taxi of the Dora, and assuming the Dora DOESN'T USE EXTRA FUEL TO CLIMB, and that the Dora MAGICALLY CLIMBS OUT AT THE SAME SPEED AS IT CRUISES ON MAX CONTINUOUS, the Mustang STILL flies 3mph FASTER for 158% the distance! That is literally THE most generous interpretation you can possibly give the Dora, and yet it's still getting it's bags smoked by a wing-tank-only Mustang in endurance and range, and speed, too.

 

Still not seeing how any of this actually disproving ANYTHING I have said, nor how it supports your assertion that the Dora on full internal fuel has the same range and endurance as the Mustang on full wing tanks.

Edited December 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Crumpp]

Try this:

 

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.

 

[OutOnTheOP]

Maybe try actually addressing how your math is fundamentally flawed (I mean, aside from the fact that you don't even BOTHER to explain what calculation you used to "extrapolate" the Dora burn rates)?

 

Might serve you better than repeatedly posting the same flawed, biased, agenda-driven drivel you have posted a dozen times already.

 

*edit: incidentally, the arbitary fuel burn rates you're pulling for the Mustang are assuming it's going on a SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY statute mile trip with only the wing tanks, cruising at a speed for which you have no comparable burn rate data available for the Dora. Not that a Dora is even CAPABLE of a 790 mile flight, mind. *I*, on the other hand, compared the endurance of the Mustang at speed for which we have burn rates available for the Dora: 375 liters an hour to maintain 267 mph IAS at 20,000 feet.

 

You're comparing apples and oranges, and it is getting tiring.

Edited December 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Crumpp]

Yeah, so, with 180 gallons, after 33 gallons to climb to altitude, the Mustang can cruise either 420 statute miles at 290 indicated burning 100 gph (wow, 420/290=1.45 hours aloft, doesn't it?), or 590 statute miles at 270 indicated burning 84 gph (gee, even longer aloft, even thought it's not even counting time for initial climb-out; 590/270=2.19 hours aloft! Egads, this KINDA seems like it confirms all the things I've said earlier, doesn't it?).

 

And about ~33 gallons to descend and land.

[OutOnTheOP]

Maybe try actually addressing how your math is fundamentally flawed (I mean, aside from the fact that you don't even BOTHER to explain what calculation you used to "extrapolate" the Dora burn rates)?

 

Might serve you better than repeatedly posting the same flawed, biased, agenda-driven drivel you have posted a dozen times already.

 

*edit: incidentally, the arbitary fuel burn rates you're pulling for the Mustang are assuming it's going on a SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY statute mile trip with only the wing tanks, cruising at a speed for which you have no comparable burn rate data available for the Dora. Not that a Dora is even CAPABLE of a 790 mile flight, mind. *I*, on the other hand, compared the endurance of the Mustang at speed for which we have burn rates available for the Dora: 375 liters an hour to maintain 267 mph IAS at 20,000 feet.

 

Besides, you yourself state:

the Jumo213 uses ~375liters and hour at 6 Km.

 

And then you insist on using the "best rate" column for the Mustang, which gives a range of 790 miles AFTER the 29 gallon warm-up, taxi, and take-off fuel useage.

 

Which means that the Dora would burn through it's 524 liters available- at the rate YOU insist on- in 1.39 hours, which means it could range only 500 miles (and that, without even bothering to cut the fuel used for climb-out, NOR for warm-up and taxi), while the Mustang, going 790 miles at 280 mph TAS would be aloft 2.82 hours. I *literally* gave a more fair, AND less favorable to the Mustang, comparison of time aloft and range attainable on the wing tanks than YOU just did.

 

Facts are facts. The Mustang- on wing tanks only- flies twice as long and better than half again further than the Dora on full internals.

 

You're comparing apples and oranges, and it is getting tiring.

Edited December 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Crumpp]

the arbitary fuel burn rates you're pulling for the Mustang

 

They are right there in the flight planning charts for all to read and there are no wing tanks mounted, just empty racks.

 

The analysis is in time aloft and not distance over the ground.

[OutOnTheOP]

And about ~33 gallons to descend and land.

 

Wow, good thing all those gliders out there carry ~33 gallons onboard to ensure they can descend and land! Otherwise, how could they POSSIBLY make it? I mean, what fundamental, universal force could POTENTIALLY give them the ENERGY to convert into downward and/or forward motion?

 

I just can't fathom it! The world may never know.

[OutOnTheOP]

They are right there in the flight planning charts for all to read and there are no wing tanks mounted, just empty racks.

 

The analysis is in time aloft and not distance over the ground.

 

Tanks. In the wings. Wing tanks. Not drop tanks.

 

And if the chart DID include drop tanks, it would, in fact, only make the Mustang's endurance estimate as based on the chart even MORE conservative; as it would have even BETTER endurance without them.

 

Yes, I noticed it has racks mounted. I didn't object to that (even though range and endurance would be EVEN farther yet if they were not mounted), because the chart showing the speed the Dora can maintain at 375l/hr engine setting (2700rpm) *also* includes the ETC504 rack, so it's apples to apples in that regard.

Edited December 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Crumpp]

You're comparing apples and oranges, and it is getting tiring.

 

No, apples to apples

 

YOU insist on- in 1.39 hours,

 

Maximum continuous is not maximum range. Sparleistung .... not Dauerleistung

[OutOnTheOP]

They are right there in the flight planning charts for all to read

 

Yes, there for all to see that you arbitarily chose the best endurance settings, and not the setting that most closely matched the Dora's max continuous setting.

 

Because apparently you feel it is a more valid comparison between the Mustang's known best endurance versus the Dora's completely "extrapolated" best endurance, instead of comparing a KNOWN burn rate for the Dora against a burn rate that we can easily look up for the Mustang, due to the much more complete Mustang charts.

 

So instead of comparing known rates, you found an excuse to make shit up. Oops, I mean "extrapolate" the best endurance fuel burn rate for the Dora. And from your "extrapolation", you then claimed is 375 l/hr. Which, AGAIN, will only last 1.39 hours on the Dora's internal fuel. Simple math, 524 liters divided by 375 liters per hour. 1.39 hours. Which, AGAIN, is far, far less than the Mustang can go on it's 184 gallons of (internal) wing tank fuel, as per YOUR OWN POSTED CHARTS. The ones YOU POSTED.

Edited December 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

No, apples to apples

 

No, it's not.

 

Maximum continuous is not maximum range.

 

Oh. My. God. You mean, the EXACT same thing I said earlier? Now, if only you could actually PROVIDE the data for maximum range engine settings for the Dora, we could compare them.

 

But you cannot. You have only provided the max continuous, which means the only fair comparison we can make is the range and endurance for the Mustang maintaining the SAME SPEED AS THE DORA MAINTAINS AT MAX CONTINUOUS. Which, per the chart I provided, is 580km/h TAS, IE 267 mph IAS.

Edited December 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Crumpp]

But you cannot. You have only provided the max continuous, which means the only fair comparison we can make is the range and endurance for the Mustang maintaining the SAME SPEED AS THE DORA MAINTAINS AT MAX CONTINUOUS. Which, per the chart I provided, is 580km/h TAS, IE 267 mph IAS.

 

No, you can compare with FW-190A8 as the data IS posted.

[OutOnTheOP]

No, you can compare with FW-190A8 as the data IS posted.

 

What, so if we compare the maximum time an aircraft at a different gross weight, and different aerodynamics because of it's different shape... if we compare the time IT can stay aloft, INCLUDING the climb-out, which comes to 2.2 hours... somehow we can compare that to the 2.8 hours the Mustang spends aloft to cover 790 miles at 280 mph TAS, and that is supposed to show that the Dora, which is a COMPLETELY different airframe from the FW190A8, has comparable endurance to the Mustang?

 

Even though even THAT comparison shows the Mustang having (at a minimum) 28% better endurance on wing tanks only than a full-fuel whatever-franken-plane you get when you combine FW190A8 and FW190D9 data?

 

I've already shown that to maintain 270 IAS at 20,000 feet, the Mustang requires only 84% as much fuel per hour as does the Dora. Do you *really* think that the Mustang is so much more fuel efficient in that regime, but much LESS efficient at some other speed regime? The Dora is less aerodynamically clean. It is draggier. And the Dora, as I think we ALL can agree, starts with a lot less fuel onboard than does the Mustang- even if the Mustang is only using it's (internal) wing tanks. Shouldn't be a surprise that the Mustang can go just as far as a full-fuel Dora, when only carry partially filled wing tanks.

 

Now, that said, I'm done with your ludicrousness. Flail away at a brick wall if you like; anyone who reads this thread will know I am right, and you are pulling numbers out of thin air.

Edited December 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Crumpp]

Thanks for all the fish!

[Friedrich-4B]

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.

 

What's been missed in all this, is that in real life, during WW2, fighters with full fuel tanks encountered fighters with low fuel all the time; eg:

 

Battle of Britain: How often did RAF fighters with almost full tanks encounter Bf 109Es with tanks at 40% or lower?

 

Same thing over France 1941-'44: How many Luftwaffe fighters with full tanks encountered RAF fighters with low fuel?

 

1943-44: How many USAAF fighters with low fuel encountered Luftwaffe fighters with full tanks?

 

Claiming that it's an "abuse" of this flight sim to use low fuel loads is as farcical as B of B era RAF pilots complaining they got shot down because the opposing 109s had a low fuel load.

 

Instead of seeing it as an "abuse" of a so-called "study sim", there's no reason why Crumpp shouldn't see this as an educational opportunity/challenge; learning how to beat opposing fighters using a low fuel load while flying a fighter with full tanks. Real life pilots had to handle the situation all the time.

[Crumpp]

A choice and a realistic load out menu is not asking for all combats to be at the same fuel state.