[Logged] CWDB Military throttle fuel usage lower than cruise? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support



Message


Amnectrus -> [Logged] CWDB Military throttle fuel usage lower than cruise? (11/2/2017 1:59:37 AM)

In a couple of Shifting Sands scenarios, I noticed that the Skyraider and Noratlas had much lower fuel usage in military power than in cruise. Looking through the in-game DB viewer, I found several more:

A-2 Savage
AC-119
AD-1 Skyraider
Noratlas
P-40 Warhawk
PBY-5 Catalina
Mosquito
B5N2 Kate
P-47D
Seafire
Spitfire

(Almost all of these are listed as having a 'Turboprop' engine, even though most should be 'Piston'.) In most cases, all sub-models of these planes are also affected (e.g. P-40B/C/D/E/F/etc). I didn't find any jet-powered aircraft that had this apparent inversion. The inversion holds true in all altitude bands. CWDB build 469 and up has the problem, Build 468 and lower do not. I haven't found any planes in DB3000 with this issue, but haven't looked extensively.

I have a save file but can't seem to upload it. Duplicating is easy though, just start a new blank scenario with CWDB 469 or later, add one of the affected planes, and change the throttle between cruise and military, or look in the in-game DB viewer. Please let me know if you need any more info. Thanks!

Edit: Forgot to mention, this is the Steam version of CMANO, v1.13, Build 972.10.




mikmykWS -> RE: CWDB Military throttle fuel usage lower than cruise? (11/2/2017 7:35:12 PM)

Thanks added to the list.

Mike




.Sirius -> RE: CWDB Military throttle fuel usage lower than cruise? (11/2/2017 7:59:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Amnectrus

In a couple of Shifting Sands scenarios, I noticed that the Skyraider and Noratlas had much lower fuel usage in military power than in cruise. Looking through the in-game DB viewer, I found several more:

A-2 Savage
AC-119
AD-1 Skyraider
Noratlas
P-40 Warhawk
PBY-5 Catalina
Mosquito
B5N2 Kate
P-47D
Seafire
Spitfire

(Almost all of these are listed as having a 'Turboprop' engine, even though most should be 'Piston'.) In most cases, all sub-models of these planes are also affected (e.g. P-40B/C/D/E/F/etc). I didn't find any jet-powered aircraft that had this apparent inversion. The inversion holds true in all altitude bands. CWDB build 469 and up has the problem, Build 468 and lower do not. I haven't found any planes in DB3000 with this issue, but haven't looked extensively.

I have a save file but can't seem to upload it. Duplicating is easy though, just start a new blank scenario with CWDB 469 or later, add one of the affected planes, and change the throttle between cruise and military, or look in the in-game DB viewer. Please let me know if you need any more info. Thanks!

Edit: Forgot to mention, this is the Steam version of CMANO, v1.13, Build 972.10.

Thanks on the to do list :)




Izgud -> RE: CWDB Military throttle fuel usage lower than cruise? (11/22/2018 7:00:10 AM)

Hi,

I don't mean to sound impatient, but has there been any headway on this issue?

Here are some amusing images in the meantime:
A-20 with 50 mile range
F-51 with 8,000 mile range

Regards




Dimitris -> RE: CWDB Military throttle fuel usage lower than cruise? (12/7/2018 9:12:19 AM)

Hi,

These have been fixed and will be included in the next CWDB release. Thanks!




ljdramone -> RE: CWDB Military throttle fuel usage lower than cruise? (12/12/2018 12:33:28 AM)

Planning to play Northern Inferno scenario 7 (The Mighty "O") and noticed a problem with the EC-121 (after updating to the latest version of CWDB.)

All versions of the EC-121 (military version of the Lockheed Constellation) show the type of the R-3350 radial engine as "Turboprop". The R-3350 is a piston engine.

Piston engines don't work well at high altitude, even if they are supercharged like the R-3350. CWDB says the EC-121 can fly as high as 45,000 feet, but Wikipedia says the Lockheed Constellation's service ceiling is 24,000 feet .

Database speeds are also high. Band 2 max / cruise speeds in the DB are 400 kt / 330 kt, but Wikipedia says max / cruise speeds for the Constellation at 22,600 feet are 327 kt / 295 kt. I'd guess the EC-121 would be slower than that with those radomes hanging out in the breeze.




Izgud -> RE: CWDB Military throttle fuel usage lower than cruise? (5/5/2019 1:06:12 AM)

Hi,

This is still an issue with the latest CWDB release. In fact, the F-51's range was increased to 9000 nmi.

Regards




Izgud -> RE: CWDB Military throttle fuel usage lower than cruise? (2/4/2020 11:47:27 PM)

Hi,

Still an issue in CMO.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/LIUWDBq.png[/img]
A very impressive 55,000 nmi range and 1 week endurance on this KC-97. Hopefully 2020 is the year this is fixed.

Regards




.Sirius -> RE: CWDB Military throttle fuel usage lower than cruise? (2/5/2020 10:06:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ljdramone

Planning to play Northern Inferno scenario 7 (The Mighty "O") and noticed a problem with the EC-121 (after updating to the latest version of CWDB.)

All versions of the EC-121 (military version of the Lockheed Constellation) show the type of the R-3350 radial engine as "Turboprop". The R-3350 is a piston engine.

Piston engines don't work well at high altitude, even if they are supercharged like the R-3350. CWDB says the EC-121 can fly as high as 45,000 feet, but Wikipedia says the Lockheed Constellation's service ceiling is 24,000 feet .

Database speeds are also high. Band 2 max / cruise speeds in the DB are 400 kt / 330 kt, but Wikipedia says max / cruise speeds for the Constellation at 22,600 feet are 327 kt / 295 kt. I'd guess the EC-121 would be slower than that with those radomes hanging out in the breeze.



Hi

I show in the db editor engines are piston , max alt 24,000ft and Band 2 cruise speed 330kt but will investigate the beta db I have is 479




.Sirius -> RE: CWDB Military throttle fuel usage lower than cruise? (2/5/2020 10:08:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Izgud

Hi,

Still an issue in CMO.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/LIUWDBq.png[/img]
A very impressive 55,000 nmi range and 1 week endurance on this KC-97. Hopefully 2020 is the year this is fixed.

Regards


I show max fuel loadout in db 479 as 18500 kg




Izgud -> RE: CWDB Military throttle fuel usage lower than cruise? (2/5/2020 4:39:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: .Sirius

I show max fuel loadout in db 479 as 18500 kg


Hi,

Thanks for your replies. In CWDB v478, the latest version publicly available, only #1653 (Israel) has 18500 kg, while #718 and #3100 (US) appear to be using a few values from the KC-135, such as 90800 kg of fuel and the name 'Stratotanker'.

However, just to be clear, the real issue here in my opinion is the enormous fuel consumption disrepancy between cruise and military speeds for many aircraft, as described in the original post by Amnectrus. This widespread issue still affects every single aircraft listed in this thread (including the EC-121 and KC-97), and perhaps even many more that aren't listed here. This issue sometimes results in fuel flow decreasing (or increasing) by a factor of 10 when switching from cruise to military and has been enough of a pain that I have been avoiding many CWDB scenarios for several years.

This is all with v478.

Regards




boogabooga -> RE: CWDB Military throttle fuel usage lower than cruise? (2/6/2020 6:43:32 AM)

Late KC-97s (as with B-36, C-123) had fuel-thirsty turbojets as temporary thrust augmentation. Could that be why consumption increases by a factor of 10? Is that modeled?




apache85 -> RE: CWDB Military throttle fuel usage lower than cruise? (2/6/2020 9:53:05 AM)

Logged for investigation. #0013598




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.101563E-02