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.
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
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.
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.
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
Does anyone have acceleration chart/data for the F.3?
iirc the only bit of info we have is “it is excellent” and not much else im afraid.
Thats one for the F2
Hey guys, has anyone tried using PGM2000s against bases in AirRB? It seems it’s no longer possible to lock onto them. Anyone knows of a change/bug?
If its just not letting you lock on at longer ranges. Try using CCRP (“Switch Mission Bombing Target”). it might allow you to lock on at greater ranges.
Tried using that, but even then, it attempts to acquire but quickly disengages the lock.
Previously it was possible to select the base through Switch Mission Bombing Target, switch to Targeting Pod/PGM aiming, lock and fire, now it just fails to lock.
Night battle?
