Beaufort MkIa uploaded
- Thread starter Capt. Winters
- Start date
MajorMagee
SOH-CM-2022
1 Km = 0.6213712 miles so 1360 km = 845 miles
fuel range
Hi - I made the flightmodel for the plane and did not calculate the range. If you want I can go back and do what needs to be done to make it as per the manual. Let me know it is an easy 5 minutes to get it correct.
BUT if you are really serious remember that cruise range would be at something like 70% throttle at +1 lb of boost at say 2100 rpm (these are just for conversation) I would need to check the specs again.
Just let me know! Love the fact that you guys care....
Hi - I made the flightmodel for the plane and did not calculate the range. If you want I can go back and do what needs to be done to make it as per the manual. Let me know it is an easy 5 minutes to get it correct.
BUT if you are really serious remember that cruise range would be at something like 70% throttle at +1 lb of boost at say 2100 rpm (these are just for conversation) I would need to check the specs again.
Just let me know! Love the fact that you guys care....
Accurate flying
never really was much off an issue since the theater for CFS3 is about 1075 km or 625 miles give or take. So most planes (well the bombers I focused on) could easily fly this round trip, if not fully loaded. But nevertheless we can make our planes much more realistic if we want.
For instance - the Do 217e4 with 801D would cruise at 2200 rpm, 1.1 ata at around 220 mph say 15000ft at 15,5 tonne for 850-1000 km round trip. We can enter this data into some of our handy dandy flightmodel worksheets and calculate a fuel scalar of about 1.5-1.7. Now this estimation does not include weights. So obviously the heavier the load the shorter the distance. Also for external load the drag they included would effect range.
Take the Lancaster we have - in reality almost never did she fly with full tanks and full load. If they were going to Berlin with 3 tonnes maybe 65% fuel was max. (I have all this somewhere). Take this for one <Loadout MissionType="STRIKE" Name="Fuel 73% + 12,000lb Tall Boy"> So a B1 would have this much fuel and the 12000 load and not sure it this was a max range load, should be. That is why the flyers never knew where they were going but if they knew the bombload they could guess. Lighter load meant the Big City.
I usually test fly the planes with these criteria when I make them (not the scalar just the rpm/boost/weight stuff) to see if they are close to being on target.
Oh, climb rates - this is another area that we need some help. It usually took a fully loaded lanc 30 minutes to get to 10000-12000 feet. So when we see the claimed rates think 40% fuel no ammo or bombs and full throttle. Now some will argue but I do have climb charts for several planes and they all use something like 80% throttle, 75% boost and a target speed. The Do 217M1 with 16.3 tonnes as a climb speed of 275km while at 12.2 tonnes 245km so the heavier plane would be at much higher boost loads for shorter periods of time.
Only accurate climb rates are from military testing!!! Not manufacturer's claims!!!! Well except the RLM testing data....
I went to NASAM and ordered pages of confiscated and "secret" flight test data and used this to model several planes. The best one I did was the he177a5 she is pretty much spot on.
The Bristol - not much free stuff on the web, and the pilot's manual is available for 20.00 US. So I would have to use a few sources to guess with the Taurus engine to get what we want but I can come somewhat close (think horse shoes and hand grenades)
Let me know.
never really was much off an issue since the theater for CFS3 is about 1075 km or 625 miles give or take. So most planes (well the bombers I focused on) could easily fly this round trip, if not fully loaded. But nevertheless we can make our planes much more realistic if we want.
For instance - the Do 217e4 with 801D would cruise at 2200 rpm, 1.1 ata at around 220 mph say 15000ft at 15,5 tonne for 850-1000 km round trip. We can enter this data into some of our handy dandy flightmodel worksheets and calculate a fuel scalar of about 1.5-1.7. Now this estimation does not include weights. So obviously the heavier the load the shorter the distance. Also for external load the drag they included would effect range.
Take the Lancaster we have - in reality almost never did she fly with full tanks and full load. If they were going to Berlin with 3 tonnes maybe 65% fuel was max. (I have all this somewhere). Take this for one <Loadout MissionType="STRIKE" Name="Fuel 73% + 12,000lb Tall Boy"> So a B1 would have this much fuel and the 12000 load and not sure it this was a max range load, should be. That is why the flyers never knew where they were going but if they knew the bombload they could guess. Lighter load meant the Big City.
I usually test fly the planes with these criteria when I make them (not the scalar just the rpm/boost/weight stuff) to see if they are close to being on target.
Oh, climb rates - this is another area that we need some help. It usually took a fully loaded lanc 30 minutes to get to 10000-12000 feet. So when we see the claimed rates think 40% fuel no ammo or bombs and full throttle. Now some will argue but I do have climb charts for several planes and they all use something like 80% throttle, 75% boost and a target speed. The Do 217M1 with 16.3 tonnes as a climb speed of 275km while at 12.2 tonnes 245km so the heavier plane would be at much higher boost loads for shorter periods of time.
Only accurate climb rates are from military testing!!! Not manufacturer's claims!!!! Well except the RLM testing data....
I went to NASAM and ordered pages of confiscated and "secret" flight test data and used this to model several planes. The best one I did was the he177a5 she is pretty much spot on.
The Bristol - not much free stuff on the web, and the pilot's manual is available for 20.00 US. So I would have to use a few sources to guess with the Taurus engine to get what we want but I can come somewhat close (think horse shoes and hand grenades)
Let me know.
gecko
Charter Member
The more accurate the better. Now that I'm doing some real life flying there are a lot of areas where I see that we can improve CFS3 to better replicate the challenge of simply flying the airplane. Do you know much about the engine friction and efficiency tables in the .air file? My attempts to get a proper idle rpm seem to hinge on them, but it doesn't seem to work without throwing off the whole power curve.
Ahh...idle rpm
well someone else has noticed. Whilst making cfs2 air files I was able to revise the throttle position and friction entries to idle at the correct rpm. This adjustment did not effect other aspects of the engine. Where are you doing this is CFS3?
well someone else has noticed. Whilst making cfs2 air files I was able to revise the throttle position and friction entries to idle at the correct rpm. This adjustment did not effect other aspects of the engine. Where are you doing this is CFS3?
gecko
Charter Member
You reminded me of something I had forgotten. A quick test shows that changing idle_rpm_friction_scalar in the aircraft.cfg to 2.6 will produce a 600rpm idle in the Avhistory 4.0 P-51D. However, that is with the throttle all the way out. In reality you would stall the engine if you pulled the throttle all the way out, and would have to have it in a little to get your 600 rpm. It also helps to bring min_gov_rpm up to about 2000 to be able to adjust rpm with throttle at low power settings.
In my other testing I had been messing with Record: 0508 Power Efficiency and Record: 0509 Friction Loss in the .air file with inconsistent but potentially promising results.
In my other testing I had been messing with Record: 0508 Power Efficiency and Record: 0509 Friction Loss in the .air file with inconsistent but potentially promising results.
ok
Also - one thing that I wonder about it that it takes 40-50% throttle to get the plane to move. We can change the propeller efficiency to get more low speed thrust. We do this for all the seaplanes as the throttle propeller tables are not such that there is enough thrust to move a plane in water if you use the normal process. Any thoughts on the 40-50% issue?
Also - one thing that I wonder about it that it takes 40-50% throttle to get the plane to move. We can change the propeller efficiency to get more low speed thrust. We do this for all the seaplanes as the throttle propeller tables are not such that there is enough thrust to move a plane in water if you use the normal process. Any thoughts on the 40-50% issue?
gecko
Charter Member
Well, not having flown anything with more than about 120hp and 2400lb I can't comment on how it would be with a big heavy aircraft with horsepower to spare, but it doesn't take very much to get rolling in a Cessna. I suspect you're suspicion is justified though.
I have noticed that our engines in CFS3 don't develop a whole lot of hp until fairly high mp and rpm is reached. The P-51 won't even start rolling with 40inhg mp and 3000rpm and brakes off even though there is a placard stating that it should not be run above 40inhg without the tail secured. I'm not sure if the issue is with the prop like you mention, engine friction or some combination of factors. My guess is that we need to adjust the props as you did for seaplanes and get more friction at low rpm while leaving the rest as it is.
I have noticed that our engines in CFS3 don't develop a whole lot of hp until fairly high mp and rpm is reached. The P-51 won't even start rolling with 40inhg mp and 3000rpm and brakes off even though there is a placard stating that it should not be run above 40inhg without the tail secured. I'm not sure if the issue is with the prop like you mention, engine friction or some combination of factors. My guess is that we need to adjust the props as you did for seaplanes and get more friction at low rpm while leaving the rest as it is.
Ok
I'll share a table we did for the ju52 float plane.
I'll share a table we did for the ju52 float plane.
Tables
No each table has to be revised using air.ed for each plane and they are very different. It is a labor of love as it takes time to revise test and such. Each table has 100 entries, which 30-50 need to be changed. Oh there are two tables that should be altered too. Not overly burdensome but takes a bit of time. I would think that land based planes would not require much of a tweak, just on the low end near the high pitch settings as the game defaults to the higher pitch figures. Send me a pm so I can get your email correct.
Ted
No each table has to be revised using air.ed for each plane and they are very different. It is a labor of love as it takes time to revise test and such. Each table has 100 entries, which 30-50 need to be changed. Oh there are two tables that should be altered too. Not overly burdensome but takes a bit of time. I would think that land based planes would not require much of a tweak, just on the low end near the high pitch settings as the game defaults to the higher pitch figures. Send me a pm so I can get your email correct.
Ted