FM/Fuel flow changes?

[Krag6]

Hey, i saw we got some fm and fuel flow changes in the patch notes. Care to elaborate on those?

[AeriaGloria]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=271034

[J20Stronk]

From my experience, the JF now retains energy much better in mid to high AoA than before. You no longer lose 100 +kts in gentle turns at mil power.

 

The RD-93 now cranks out more thrust in MIL power and sucks in more fuel when you're going really fast (while also putting out even more thrust, ya know, like a real turbojet should)

 

Basically, it's now putting out the expected power and retaining energy like an aircraft with a TWR of > 0.70 should (that's how much TWR it has when at full t/o weight, back then it fel like a TWR of 0.4-0.5)

 

 

If set up with 2 PL-5 and 50% fuel, you have the same TWR as an F-16C fully loaded and clean, and you can definitely feel it. It practically dances when you're light, and no longer feel like a fully loaded A-10C when weighed down.

Edited May 21, 2020 by J20Stronk

[Shrike88]

[Airhunter]

From my experience, the JF now retains energy much better in mid to high AoA than before. You no longer lose 100 +kts in gentle turns at mil power.

 

The RD-93 now cranks out more thrust in MIL power and sucks in more fuel when you're going really fast (while also putting out even more thrust, ya know, like a real turbojet should)

 

Basically, it's now putting out the expected power and retaining energy like an aircraft with a TWR of > 0.70 should (that's how much TWR it has when at full t/o weight, back then it fel like a TWR of 0.4-0.5)

 

 

If set up with 2 PL-5 and 50% fuel, you have the same TWR as an F-16C fully loaded and clean, and you can definitely feel it. It practically dances when you're light, and no longer feel like a fully loaded A-10C when weighed down.

 

Except the 93 is a low bypass turbofan. Overall some very good changes, especially in terms of AB fuel consumption at high speeds.

[Tiger-II]

Wow... so you're saying she now has more performance than she already did?

 

 

I need to go run some numbers...

 

 

I figure at 35000 ft with an air-to-air combat load at MIL she was burning about 3200 lbs/hr. Is this figure improved (more efficient)?

 

 

I burned back the other night 160 NM at MAX AB at 53000 ft, covering 160 NM at Mach 1.4, and burned around 1700 lbs of fuel (that included a max climb from 3000 ft). I only had pylons and SPJ left on the jet.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Tiger-II

[Tiger-II]

WOW. NICE.

 

I figure about a 3% increase in climb efficiency, and about a 5% increase in cruise.

 

I think the wing tanks are carrying less drag, too. At 33000 ft with an air-to-air combat load (800L wing tanks) I had to throttle back to 90% to maintain Mach 0.83. Previously it was 97.6%.

 

I calculate a cruise fuel burn of 1360 lbs/hr.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Tiger-II

[J20Stronk]

I burned back the other night 160 NM at MAX AB at 53000 ft, covering 160 NM at Mach 1.4, and burned around 1700 lbs of fuel (that included a max climb from 3000 ft). I only had pylons and SPJ left on the jet.

 

Dang, what was your fuel state when you began the trek back?

 

At gross weight, fully fueled and no externals it has a TWR of 0.97 so a zoom climb to 30k is believable, even with the extra weight and drag of the pod and pylons since you'd still have well over 1.0 TWR

 

But only 1700lbs burned while supercruising at 1.4? That may need some tweaking.

Edited May 21, 2020 by J20Stronk

[AeriaGloria]

He was at max AB for that run, I haven’t seen it supercruise over Mach 1.1-1.2 about

[Tiger-II]

Dang, what was your fuel state when you began the trek back?

 

At gross weight, fully fueled and no externals it has a TWR of 0.97 so a zoom climb to 30k is believable, even with the extra weight and drag of the pod and pylons since you'd still have well over 1.0 TWR

 

But only 1700lbs burned while supercruising at 1.4? That may need some tweaking.

 

 

Not supercruising - MAX AB.

 

 

I'm good with energy management/fuel economy.

 

 

It doesn't matter what I fly - I always try and find their optimum profiles for various load-outs.

 

 

In Falcon (all versions) I always made it home even if I was gliding. Several times I had to leave because I'd exceeded the JFS run-time. :D

[Hesgad]

Seems like it consumes quite a bit less fuel and climbs quite a bit better than before

[AeriaGloria]

To me it seems to be a smother increase in AOA induced drag as alpha increases. Before you had to unload to pretty much 1G or less to get anywhere close to full acceleration, now I can accelerate much better at moderate alpha

[Tiger-II]

To me it seems to be a smother increase in AOA induced drag as alpha increases. Before you had to unload to pretty much 1G or less to get anywhere close to full acceleration, now I can accelerate much better at moderate alpha

 

 

Yes. It is particularly improved at AoA > 4 degrees.

 

 

She'll now climb nicely at 8 degrees AoA.

[Eldur]

I burned back the other night 160 NM at MAX AB at 53000 ft, covering 160 NM at Mach 1.4, and burned around 1700 lbs of fuel (that included a max climb from 3000 ft). I only had pylons and SPJ left on the jet.

 

Doesn't sound too bad. It's one of the things I like to do in all planes. Get high and fast. In most planes, up there the FF in max AB is just a tad below what it is at MIL on the deck. But you're about 1.5 times as fast. Not as efficient as cruising max range, but good enough for the DCS maps. Did that in the MiG-29 already, literally burning most fuel just to get up to 18km, but when you're there at M 1.8, you'll go like 300km with just 800kg of fuel left and still have plenty for the landing. The only plane which can't do this is the Tomcat, sadly (and the Viggen which doesn't really like being up high anyway in the AJ or AJS variants)... was expecting her to be good at this due to the high top speed, but its AB FF won't drop at altitude and it does have a very low ceiling due to lots of induced drag. Can exploit it a bit by popping out the wings, but it doesn't help that much though.