Fuel consumption rate possibly being modelled too high

[Giskvoosk]

Both full Mil and full A/B in the game, test condition being: standard day, jet spawned airborne, full internal fuel and no external pylon/loadout, whole flight under 1k ASL

To drain the whole internal fuel load, it takes 1,745 seconds in Mil or 659 seconds in full A/B

Deduced from the stats provided in Mission Editor, the internal fuel being 7,399 lb, the fuel consumption clocked 15,264 pph in Mil and 40,419 pph in full A/B

 

However according to info from public domain, it should be 10,728 pph at Mil vs. 31,105 pph at A/B (presumably full power).

That's nearly 150% and 130% of what's supposed to be. Ours even has 300~500 lb less thrust than the spec below, it should clock tiny bit less than this, negligible but still.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Giskvoosk

[ARM505]

Are those figures from an engine on a test bench, or in the actual jet? There's no way I have the knowledge or sources to debate this, but just from practical experience, engines 'on the wing' (or in this case, 'in the fuselage') almost never achieve the ideal results of engines on the test bench (ducting losses etc).

[Giskvoosk]

3 hours ago, ARM505 said:

Are those figures from an engine on a test bench, or in the actual jet? There's no way I have the knowledge or sources to debate this, but just from practical experience, engines 'on the wing' (or in this case, 'in the fuselage') almost never achieve the ideal results of engines on the test bench (ducting losses etc).

You are right its an engine-only spec.

All things considered, how would compared the economy in practical use to the benchmark stats, higher or lower?

I'd imagine if pressure loss is taken into account and lower thrust output is the result, the fuel flow derived from the specfuelcon should be lower(?) Unless the given specific fuel consumption neither does not reflect the status when engines are "on the wing".

[ARM505]

Again, grain of salt here, because I've got very limited exposure to actually dealing with test numbers, and my experience is more along the lines of 'push thrust levers, engines go whooooosh', but everything gets worse, practically speaking, with the engine actually mounted (not necessarily by much, but it gets worse; so, economy will get worse). The only real data that would be useful is the actual performance charts from an F1. (Thrust/speed/mach/temp etc)

[Giskvoosk]

7 minutes ago, ARM505 said:

Again, grain of salt here, because I've got very limited exposure to actually dealing with test numbers, and my experience is more along the lines of 'push thrust levers, engines go whooooosh', but everything gets worse, practically speaking, with the engine actually mounted (not necessarily by much, but it gets worse; so, economy will get worse). The only real data that would be useful is the actual performance charts from an F1. (Thrust/speed/mach/temp etc)

Yeah if only we have the aircraft specific chart. Unfortunately there's none fuel economy related charts in the -1 flight manual that can be found online (for free).

23 minutes ago, Vladinsky said:

You would have to find a thrust/speed chart for the F1 to make an accurate calculation since thrust will increase with speed.

Both cases i maxed out at S.L.

[IvanK]

FWIW ATAR 9C Mir IIIO Full AB on the deck 60imp Gal per min so about 28,160pph. Thats a 13,000lbs thrust ATAR.