I uninstalled the B-52 Driver and reinstalled the B-52 BUFF Exterior. Grabbed the aircraft.cfg and then re-installed the B-52 Driver.
Here is what I found with regards to the GeneralEngineData and TurbineEngineData:
[GeneralEngineData] engine_type = 1 //0=Piston, 1=Jet, 2=None, 3=Helo-Turbine, 4=Rocket, 5=Turboprop Engine.0 = 20, -60, -10 Engine.1 = 0, -34, -8 Engine.2 = 0, 34, -8 Engine.3 = 20, 60, -10 fuel_flow_scalar = 0.60 -------------> fuel_flow_scalar = 1.0 //Scalar for fuel flow efficiency min_throttle_limit = -0.50; -------------> min_throttle_limit = -0.25; //Minimum percent throttle. Generally negative for turbine reverser
[TurbineEngineData] fuel_flow_gain = 0.002 inlet_area = 17.0 --------> inlet_area = 24.0 //Square Feet, engine nacelle inlet area rated_N2_rpm = 29920 static_thrust = 30000 --------> static_thrust = 34000 //Lbs, max rated static thrust at Sea Level afterburner_available = 0 reverser_available = 0 --------> reverser_available = 1 //Thrust reverser available? ThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0.40
The blue text is taken from the B-52 Buff Exterior's aircraft.cfg. By all rights, the Exterior should outperformed the Driver. Unless the inlet_area + the static_thrust are combined in some way? I'm just not that good with this section of the aircraft configuration files.
It could be worth changing the fuel_flow_scalar to 1.0, the setting that the Exterior had, instead of the 0.60 that it is in the Driver. I flew, with full tanks, from Guam to Hanoi then went on to land at Saigon. It was 3008+ nm and I used 21% of my fuel (had a very heavy landing because I was over Max Landing Weight). I figured that with that fuel consumption rate I could fly for 14000nm, or more, which I think is close to twice it Maximum Range. With the setting of 0.60 compared to 1.0 would make the Max Range sound right. The downside to changing that is that usually when I increase the fuel_flow_scalar the aircrafts engine power increases with it.
Mark
|