Jump to content

  

45 members have voted

  1. 1. What fuel setting are you using?

    • Easy
      3
    • Normal
      12
    • Hard
      30


Recommended Posts

Lately ive found myself running out of fuel constantley ingame. Ive always been running on everything hard and it got me thinking. Do these big jets really have this high of a fuel consumption? I mean a jet should easily be able to cross germany without a problem. Well that statement has no facts behind it just my general thought. :cool:

 

Anyways, what fuel setting do you guys find most realistic when looking at the mission ranges used ingame?

 

Thank you :drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use hard all the time. Should be most realistic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think fighters typically have drop tanks?

 

Most fighters, assuming no drop tanks, would go through their entire fuel supply in minutes in full afterburner.

 

Another example, when going full grunt at sea level in a Bone, the fuel flow would easily exceed 200k per hour. For those of you math impaired, that means each engine (derivatives of the same engines in F-15s and F-16s) is consuming at least 50k+ of fuel per hour. Look up the internal fuel load for these fighters, and solve for time.

 

You get the idea. Swirling long duration dogfights are not a good idea of you want to make it home.

 

FC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if we look at the german campaign ingame for example. Would it be safe to assume that NATO would use air refueling in that theatre? Because sometimes when reaching the target there is basicly enough fuel for half a dogfight and then home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the endurance of various fighters varies widely. For example the EE Lightning was notoriously short-legged, and a 45-minute flight would be considered long. The Hornet has the same problem, and the Supa Hornet never really delivered on the promise of significantly better endurance. On the other hand, some aircraft like the F-8 had large internal fuel volume, leading to better endurance than some contemporaries. The F-14 combines huge internal fuel volume with turbofans for endurance that was considered good up to its retirement.

 

Which particular aircraft are you havign problems with?

 

Edit: One other thing. I notice in a lot of flight models (including some of my older ones) that the normal and max radius values are wey too high. These should reflect the aircraft's normal and max radius, which is half of the unrefuled range. Fixing these values will prevent the game from assigning targets too far away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its no particular jet just overall.

 

But the last thing you just mentioned i have noticed in the latest F14. In 6 missions so far the game has put the third waypoint at least 20 minutes of flight away from the carrier. And that is flying at a altitude of 2400feet and a speed of 600 knots. So by the time im there almost all of the fuel is gone. And i have to get to the target area aswell and then again back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its no particular jet just overall.

 

But the last thing you just mentioned i have noticed in the latest F14. In 6 missions so far the game has put the third waypoint at least 20 minutes of flight away from the carrier. And that is flying at a altitude of 2400feet and a speed of 600 knots. So by the time im there almost all of the fuel is gone. And i have to get to the target area aswell and then again back.

 

A few things factor into that, but without doubt 600 knots at 2400 feet is a worst-case scenario for fuel efficieny. If you were to climb to, say, 15k feet and throttle back to 400 to 425 knots you would be much more efficient.

 

I've got the max radius on the Tomcat set at 500 miles, but depending on where the carrier station is at the game might be forced to send you on longer missions just to reach the nearest target on the map. If you are using the afterburner a lot, though, you will run out of gas really quick.

 

Edit: I double checked and I believe we have the correct internal fuel capacity set--7,347 kilos or 16,200 lbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the same for all engines when you rap them out.

 

I drive motor lifeboats in the USCG and will use the opportunity to compare two different boats with two different engines and schools of thought. The 47' MLB, fast and maneuverable vs the 52' SPC, named Triumph, 50's tech, slow and steady and rock solid.

 

The 52 carries around 1100 US Gallons of fuel and can go almost 500NM's on a tank of diesel fuel at cruising RPM of 1800 can go 400NM's, which is pretty slick for a vessel. She has some old Detroit diesel engines, 671's. Now the 47' MLB is a speedy sucker, 435HP V-6, with blowers and turbos, and yep, there's two of them. We carry 373 usable gallons of diesel, and she can go around 270nm's. That's it, no farther.

 

I was on 110' Island class patrol boats for a few tours as well, and these boats had a British engine called a Paxman engines rated at 4,000hp, but ours are governed down to 2,800hp each, carrying two. At full RPM these engines burn 275 Gallons per hour, and only carry around 10,000 gallons of diesel total. Do the math and you will realize that she will only go 36 hours at full throttle.

 

You car is the same way, the rated MPG is for a cruising speed of around 40mph. My 2000 Corvette coupe was rated for 28 MPG, but I could get up to 35 mpg out of it if I behaved, like using cruise control and 6th gear when in a 50 mph zone. When I did not, then my mileage suffered, and the mileage counter would let me know neato facts like how I was getting 2 MPG in 1st gear standing on it.

 

Jets burn a lot of fuel much of the same way, they are higher performance machines. The B-52 gets pretty good gas mileage, but they are also not trying to set any speed records with it!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a tool on the downloads section that creates a false engine (can be throttle up or down with vector controls) that adds fuel when throttle up (doesnt increase speed). You can use it on any plane (better backup _DATA.ini file before) except those like the Harrier.

 

You can pretend there is a tanker at certain point before the mission and go for it if you dont have enough fuel to reach your base.

 

http://combatace.com.../7350-refueler/

Edited by Jaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use Normal. Maybe I should start using Hard.

I use ALT+N a lot and it doesn't seem to use fuel anyway.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

try higher cruising altitudes to increase your range. Your indicated airspeed will be lower, but your ground speed will be much higher and you will burn less fuel as well. I usually try to cruise as high as I can get. It's also handy if you run into MiGs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with C5 to reduce radius as it often the the sim give targets in the too far range. And that the range found on paper is referred as optimal cruise speed and altitude, not to mention the profile of flight. And in SF is not reccomended to fly high over enemy territory if you don't want a SAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to use Hard, but as it has been mentioned, because areal refuelling isn't modeled, and because the AI never runs out of fuel, I've started to use Normal. It would get very frustrating to me when I see the AI using burner liberally, while if they tried to bug out, and I tried to chase them down, I wouldn't be able to catch them before running out of fuel, even if they were in a smaller jet using burner through out the fight, and for their bug out.

 

Using Normal also has its drawbacks - aside from a slightly less realistic feel, it makes a heavier fighter in a dogfight. It's less noticeable in a smaller fighter, but I really notice it in the F-14, F-15E; fighters that carry a lot of gas. I'd prefer to be around 50%-60% when I get into the dogfight, burn gas in the fight and max loiter my way back to base afterwards. Trying to turn or zoom even in the more powerful F-14B or the Eagle with near full fuel makes it a royal pain to keep energy up to effectively fight, or to fight slow in a high alpha vertical fight/scissors.

 

Earlier, real life fuel burn rates were discussed; over at the Tomcat Sunset website the same subject was discussed and the sim is quite accurate in Hard settings based on what was discussed there, and as FC mentioned here: your fuel consumption rate in burner is exponentially higher than in military power. We're talking about depleting fuel in minutes here, which is why mid-air refueling is such a necessary tool for long missions.

Edited by Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hard is more realistic but what also caesar said, AI doesn't go bingo...

 

i usually climb from 5000 to 8000 meters (15k-25k feets) and go with cruise throttle at 37% for fuel economy... but its impossible with hard settings to penetrate for 150 miles in a enemy zone full of SAMs at 150 feets while mantaining waypoint's briefed speed and have also fuel to run away if detected after completing the objective (mig-21s and 23s even with tanks can't fly for 30-40minutes with hard fuel setting)

 

is anyway easier with a F4E, F15 or F16 with 2 droptanks to come back home with fuel.

 

since the AI can fly forever at 450 knots sea level (and everytime outnumbering) i find it not so funny in hard mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basicly what we all want is mid air refueling to keep the realism up. Has anyone talked to TK about this?

 

He's been asked at least a dozen times, and his answer is always the same: "This isn't that sort of a title....consider it more of a 'sim-lite'. We have no plans to add air to air refueling." The 2/3-scale maps used in the series offset (to a degree) the need for air to air refueling.

 

Would it be a nice addition? Sure, but he's balked at it in the past, as it would probably be prohibitively expensive to implement. Probably because it would require a re-write of the existing code, or a possibly even completely new game engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basicly what we all want is mid air refueling to keep the realism up. Has anyone talked to TK about this?

 

hmm i know it's a lot hard to implement it now... isn't easier to make AI use fuel too? and with variables like when the AI goes bingo then consider going home and/or stop abusing burner?

 

a nice thing that should be not to difficult to do is to land in a friendly airport for rearming/refueling... or only refueling.

 

EDIT:

 

AI wingmans (friendly) they go out of fuel saying "I'm bingo fuel" so why the enemy don't?

Edited by MoonGoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..