BlackFallout Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 I was flying the SU33 on the 104th server and noticed my fuel is getting used up really fast with no afterburner. I wasn't using after burners or anything this happened the 4-5 times I flew the plane. From what I noticed the fuel only lasts long enough to fly to about the other side of the map and that's it. I felt like I was flying a MIG29. I jumped in the SU27 and did not have this problem. Fuel lasted a long time even using the after burner. Multiple people on the server were complaining about the SU33 fuel consumption. That's why i made this thread.:music_whistling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boberro Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 Hmmm yesterday I was flying the Su-33 adn didn't notice any bigger fuel consumption (most time on AB) than it should be - however I may be wrong. Reminder: Fighter pilots make movies. Bomber pilots make... HISTORY! :D | Also to be remembered: FRENCH TANKS HAVE ONE GEAR FORWARD AND FIVE BACKWARD :D ಠ_ಠ ツ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124SqZeljava Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 (edited) Yes, true about su33, i have fealth the same thing, maybe wrong, but it is very strange when flying on 33. Maybe there is explanation for 33vs27 fuel consumption. If there is, it would be good to know about it, cheers,S! Edit: Ok, running in single player, with all wep. on, max fuel on both plane same alt. on full burners. Diference is almost 2 min for su27 longer flight, like i said, maybe there is explanation for this like some technical issues, cheers S! P.S. I didn`t notice this in 1.12... Edited May 30, 2010 by =124Sq=Zeljava Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boberro Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 Interesting oO Reminder: Fighter pilots make movies. Bomber pilots make... HISTORY! :D | Also to be remembered: FRENCH TANKS HAVE ONE GEAR FORWARD AND FIVE BACKWARD :D ಠ_ಠ ツ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin_Hood Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 I would think it is normal for the Su-33 to have a little less range, considering it is heavier. However, I will look into it. I had made a few pretty useful endurance charts for 1.12, I'll take a look if they are off the mark, now, and by how much 2nd French Fighter Squadron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combatace Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 There is a little more drag in Su-33 because of its canards and two extra pylons. But than too it has a range of some 3000Km at around 15Km height and no A/B. Su-27 has range a little more than 3500Km, so if you are in Su-33 you can run the map twice w/o A/B. To support my models please donate to paypal ID: hp.2084@gmail.com https://www.turbosquid.com/Search/Artists/hero2084?referral=hero2084 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin_Hood Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 In 1.12 you could make more than 500 km by fuel ton, with well-chosen airspeed and altitude (clean aircraft) 2nd French Fighter Squadron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vekkinho Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 But than too it has a range of some 3000Km at around 15Km height and no A/B. Now this is also unreallistic...best (lowest) fuel flow values IRL with most fighter aircraft are achived at cca 7500m ASL with Mil power! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IvanK Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 (edited) "with most fighter aircraft are achived at cca 7500m AS" Not really its all a function of weight and Drag Index (Not looking at winds). On a typical Ferry type mission initial cruise altitudes for your Generic fighter would be around 28,000Feet (8500m)*. Towards the end of the trip ideally you will want to be up at typically 35,000ft (10,600m) to 40,000ft (12,100m). * If the jets clean then you would in most cases being going straight up to the Mid 30's Here is a Hornet (A model) Bingo fuel chart. 15,000m (49,200Ft) is BS though. As to SU33 Fuel burn I dont see an issue with it in game .. seems to last about as long as the 27 does Edited May 31, 2010 by IvanK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moa Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Most people fly around with an unrealistically high throttle setting. Have you tried the endurance/distance with a 90% throttle? It will surprise you how much longer your fuel lasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124SqZeljava Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Most people fly around with an unrealistically high throttle setting. Have you tried the endurance/distance with a 90% throttle? It will surprise you how much longer your fuel lasts. Mate, how ever you fly with su33, flight is much shorter then in 1.12. What data they have now find from the i supossed real one, that acting like this in FC 2.0. It is not point how long distance you will pass, it is that in BVR on 104th server, you do not have much time like in 1.12 with su33, i don`t know why is that changed, cheers S! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EtherealN Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Suggestion: stop comparing with FC1.12 and start comparing with reality. ;) And yes, the 33 is heavier and more draggy. How much of a difference this is vs the Su-27 I don't quite know, but it really isn't meant to be a long-range interceptor. It's a fleet defence aircraft meant to operate around it's carrier. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules | | | Life of a Game Tester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fahhh Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Well, the 33 is heavier and has more drag than the 27. This reduces your speed and to counter this you need to use higher throttle settings that obviously and effectively reduce your flight time/range. But then it again comes back to how you fly your plane. I often fly combat sorties for more than an hour(per sortie) in the MiG with just 4.5 tons of fuel, in the 33 you can do much more, if you plan your fight well, and use the throttles gently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124SqZeljava Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Suggestion: stop comparing with FC1.12 and start comparing with reality. ;) And yes, the 33 is heavier and more draggy. How much of a difference this is vs the Su-27 I don't quite know, but it really isn't meant to be a long-range interceptor. It's a fleet defence aircraft meant to operate around it's carrier. That was my 1st thought ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124SqZeljava Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Well, the 33 is heavier and has more drag than the 27. This reduces your speed and to counter this you need to use higher throttle settings that obviously and effectively reduce your flight time/range. But then it again comes back to how you fly your plane. I often fly combat sorties for more than an hour(per sortie) in the MiG with just 4.5 tons of fuel, in the 33 you can do much more, if you plan your fight well, and use the throttles gently. Of course, you are genius as always... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Fahhh is right. Unless there's a real bug with the Su-33's fuel consumption, optimal flight is pretty much required to maximize its flight time like with any other plane in the game. Most people are used to running around on full afterburner at sea level, which is fuel economy fail. Economic IAS tends to run around 500kph, IIRC, and lower as altitude increases and IAS for reaching mach drops. Also, IIRC the Su-33 has slightly less fuel than the Su-27. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fahhh Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Of course, you are genius as always... I actually made the effort to remove you from my ignore list, to see if your posts were constructive in any way... Thanks for proving me wrong, you're back on the list, so don't bother replying or quoting me again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124SqZeljava Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 I actually made the effort to remove you from my ignore list, to see if your posts were constructive in any way... Thanks for proving me wrong, you're back on the list, so don't bother replying or quoting me again... Personaly i don`t have nthing against you, but if you wanna to do that way, it is ok by me, just don`t any more post on mine thread, btw this is not mine so just to let you know. Like i said, nothing personaly vs you, cheers and Salute, i saw ur flight and it deserve respect. God speed ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IvanK Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 A really quick and dirty test of SU27 v SU33 Fuel Flow in max Burner METHOD Enter Sim in Quick mission. Get aircraft to Seal level Extended speed brake (to stop going through Vmax) MAX AB Time via stopwatch time to burn 1000KG of fuel. Calculate Fuel Flow RESULTS SU27 burnt 1000Kg in 1 min 27 sec Average Fuel Flow 689Kg min SU33 Burnt 1000Kg in 1min 31 sec Average Fuel Flow 662Kg min CONCLUSION Not much difference and certainly within experimental error of my crude test. No issue with SU33 v SU27 Fuel flows. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moa Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Fahhh is right. Unless there's a real bug with the Su-33's fuel consumption, optimal flight is pretty much required to maximize its flight time like with any other plane in the game. Most people are used to running around on full afterburner at sea level, which is fuel economy fail. Economic IAS tends to run around 500kph, IIRC, and lower as altitude increases and IAS for reaching mach drops. Also, IIRC the Su-33 has slightly less fuel than the Su-27. Besides saving fuel and being more realistic, at slightly lower speeds you are close to your corner speed if you get bounced or need to dodge an IR SAM you just spotted. The only thing you lose is time - very precious for some of us - but then, "This is not AirQuake" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IvanK Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Better I think to cruise the steppe at Sustained corner rather than instantaneous corner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin_Hood Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 By the way, I suppose there's nothing new in that, but where would you put the corner (or corner) velocity (or velocities) in FC2 ? Do you feel like they have changed from 1.12 ? And lastly, about corner velocity -IAS, CAS or Mach ? -Depending on altitude ? Has somebody made (or plan to make) an E-M chart for the birds in FC2 ? I think Yo-Yo intended to work on something like that (turn performances). The Su-27SK flight manual doesn't have this kind of info (at least not the volume I was able to grab) 2nd French Fighter Squadron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IvanK Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Imo go with Mach it solves the Alt problem ... you end up at 0.85 to 0.9M in most cases. No idea if they have changed from 1.12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilman Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 what was the tempreture ? previous versions unsure if still the case in fc2 colder missions fuel useage was lesser while on hot missions useage higher. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Join Maddog Simulations DCS World Club & Squadrons for every module Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts