Thank you 😁
Now this is what we need ASAP:
1 Like
The Tonka is real
Also GR.1 can carry Litening III, 2 Paveways IV and a single Brimstone. Source? I made it, litearly, from the bricks.
6 Likes
Hello there, I created a thread regarding the astronomical fuel consumption when using the Afterburner of the “Tornado IDS ASSTA1” which can be found here: Tornado afterburner fuel consumption
Or you can just look into this spoiler with the contents.
Spoiler
I just noticed that the fuel consumption while using the afterburner of the “Tornado IDS ASSTA1” is sevenfold (7x!) of the dry thrust at 100% judging by the fuel flow counter in the cockpit and the remaining fuel time countdown acceleration.
I searched for quite a bit but could only find the fuel consumption for the dry thrust of the Turbo-Union RB199 which ist around 18,38 g/kNs for the Mk.103 variant. So in-game this engine guzzles 128,66 g/kNs or 700% more fuel for 75% more thrust which seems quite unrealistic for me as all other jet engines of that time (like the P&W F100) use only 2-3 times or 100-200% more fuel when afterburning achieving a comparable or just slightly lower rise in thrust level.
For comparision these are the values of fuel consumption i found for a few engines:
GE F404:
Thrust dry: 48,9 kN
Thrust wet: 78,7 kN (+60%)
TSFC dry: 23 g/kNs
TSFC wet: 49 g/kNs (+113%)
Pratt & Whitney PW-F100-220:
Thrust dry: 63,9 kN
Thrust wet: 105,72 kN (+65%)
TSFC dry: 21,52 g/kNs
TSFC wet: 54,94 g/kNs (+155%)
Klimov RD-33:
Thrust dry: 50 kN
Thrust wet: 81,3 kN (+63%)
TSFC dry: 20,83 g/kNs
TSFC wet: 52,25 g/kNs (+151%)
Saturn AL-31:
Thrust dry: 76,49 kN
Thrust wet: 122,6kN (+60%)
TSFC dry: 22,1 g/kNs
TSFC wet: 55,5 g/kNs (+151%)
Turbo-Union RB199 Mk.103:
Thrust dry: 40,5 kN
Thrust wet: 71,2 kN (+75%)
TSFC dry: 18,38 g/kNs
TSFC wet: 128,66 g/kNs (+700%) (calculated from the ingame values)
I don’t know if this is a bug, just a forgotten placeholder value or twisted numbers but it doesn’t seem plausible at all. I can neither find sources which confirm the engines afterburner fuel consumption is that astronomically high nor ones that refute it. So what’s the reason to place this value so far off the normal charts? Anyone with sources or thoughts on this one?
So yeah… Anyone with sources, details or anything else which would explain in a plausible way that every other jet engine of that time has an afterburner fuel consumption of around 2-3 times of that of the dry thrust, while the Tornados Turbo-Union RB199 has one of around 7 times? There is no other engine with fuel consumption that high while afterburning and i couldn’t even find a source where the fuel consumption was detailed (for the afterburner at least), so i guess it’s either a placeholder for an unknown value or a bug. In the case of a placeholder the question would be: Why place it so extremly off the charts instead around the average of every other engine of that thrust level from that time?
5 Likes
In real life using full afterburner on the Tornado increased fuel consumption by approximately 6x.
So according to you data the Tornado in game is a little to fuel thirsty (7x), but not massively so.
As far as I know the issue in game is that nearly every afterburning jet is far more fuel efficient than it should be, rather than the Tornado being much less fuel efficient than it should be.
9 Likes
As far as I know the issue in game is that nearly every afterburning jet is far more fuel efficient than it should be, rather than the Tornado being much less fuel efficient than it should be.
So what should be the take on that? Bringing the rest of the planes in line with such a high realistic fuel consumption (which contradicts the official numbers for the other engines with 2-3 times more fuel for +60-65% thrust) or bring the tornado down to these much more efficient numbers? Either way currently it’s all over the place with the Tornados getting their “real” fuel consumption while the other planes get their “official” numbers.
By the way i seem to got the magnitude wrong in my first post so it isn’t a rise of 700% in fuel consumption but a total of 700% as the counter goes from 1 to 7 and not from 0 to 7 which equals a rise of 600% (totaling to 700% consumption) which would be correct.
Personally I’d say all aircraft should be modelled properly.
Also what do you mean by “real” and “official” fuel consumption. Either an aircraft matches the fuel consumption listed in official documentation, or it does not.
Is there any guarantee these numbers are not exaggerated or excessively rounded? After all, this document states that the thrust ratio is 2:1 (whereas it’s 1.75:1, or 7:4 in game). I know the Tornado was known to be exceptionally fuel hungry on reheat, but to be more than twice as fuel hungry as the big russian jets, while producing less power?
No, I’ve never come across any doc that states figures exaggerated or excessively rounded. I suspect alot of aircraft are actually overperforming in fuel consumption rather than the Tornado being wrong.
Thing is, we have fuel consumption data for the MK103
I think we just need Ferry tanks :D
Ah yes, my favourite bomb
9 Likes
Little more info on Martel (AR/TV) on Tornado GR1. New doc @Flame2512 got from the achieves confirms the Datalink pod is carried centerline, giving the ability to carry 4x Martel.
16 Likes
I hope we get that load out. Four Martels would probably make the GR.1 one of the most powerful CAS plains in the game.
7 Likes
I think you might technically get more out of the F-111F/ F-15E with 4x GBU-15 / AGM-112 or AGM-130 & Datalink pod (with either the AN/AXQ-14 Secure datalink pod or later AN/ZSW-1 Improved datalink pod for remote guidance).
Theoretically the GBU-15’s advantage over the Martel would be the various seeker(EO / IIR / SALH [Design study]) and Warhead combinations(Unitary [Mk.84, Production] / Submunition [Based off the CBU-75/B, Not Procured] / FAE [?BLU-96?, Design study] / Hardened Target (BLU-109, Production))
And option for a Better Glide ratio through the use of the Planar Wing Weapon control surface kit in place of the Low altitude optimized Cruciform Wing Weapon kit and lofting profile.
Alternately there is the AGM-84E / -84K (F/A-18 & A-6E) & Walleye I (F-4D) & -II ERDL (A-4, A-6, A-7, F/A-18) and AGM-154C(F/A-18) with the AN/AWG-16 & AN/AWW-7, -9 or -13.
Really there are a lot of competitive options, and specific configurations but the one I like best will probably never turn up;
The A-10C with 16x GBU-39A/A (4x BRU-61/A), and assorted other ordnance (e.g. AGR-20 APAM[HEAT-F warhead], AGM-65, AIM-9M w/ HMD, AN/AAQ-33 ATP) and more. The only thing its theoretically missing is a A2G radar with MTI capabilities to really make sure that moving targets die in short order.
I was mostly comparing to what’s currently in game. The main advantage of Martel is that you can fire it from 200 ft altitude and still have a very substantial stand-off range (the missile climbs to 2,000 ft altitude after launch then cruises to the target with a very long burning sustainer motor), coupled with the ability to manually control the missile using the camera in the nose.
Drawbacks being that it is subsonic, and quite a large target to shoot down.
The A-10C will certainly have some formidable loadouts, but personally I’m looking forward to 18 Brimstones on the Tornado GR.4
6 Likes
Does anyone have acceleration chart/data for the F.3?
1 Like
iirc the only bit of info we have is “it is excellent” and not much else im afraid.