Whats the Fuel range like?

Hey guys, recently received the Jf-17 as an anniversary gift from the missus (she's a keeper for sure). I'm still getting to grips with it and really enjoy the nice attention to detail, so congrats to Deka, can't wait to see how this module develops.

Forgive me if its been explained already, I did a search of the forum and came up with nothing.

My question is, whats the Fuel usage like on the Jeff? How's the range compared to the FA18 for example (which seems to be quite thirsty) or the f16?

Whats an ideal loadout ie should I be running with tanks all the time and how many? is there anything like the FPAS page on the fa18 that i can use.

Also is it true that later into the development that we will be able to AAR?

I haven't done any efficiency testing (no FPAS page, FYI), but it feels just as thirsty as the 18. However...using the different engine modes, you can significantly increase fuel efficiency. I almost always switch the engine to Training mode, which limits the RPM to...oh shoot...97%ish or something like that, and turn the afterburner off. By doing so, I can get away with using no external fuel tanks in almost all missions.

Yes, they'll be adding AAR capability. When? No idea.

i primarily fly the f-14. if you are good about managing fuel flow and gravity for speed rather than thrust, you can stay up for 2 hours at least. full afterburner and your done in 3 minutes.

its up the operator and how he controls the throttle. most airframes are going to be like this.

dont know specifics about the 17, but i always found the 18 to be fuel effiecent. i also dont use afterburner except when needed so i can increase my time on station. altitude, ferry distance, engagement throttle management, etc are all going to be big factors in how fast you loose fuel or how long you have before you hit bingo. also know where you plan to RTB, and you are going to be lighter when you set that limit.

have fun!

My question is, whats the Fuel usage like on the Jeff?

I only play in PVP where the frontline is usually 60~100nm away and I have never run into fuel problems as long as I don't use AB until I have to.

A typical A2A loadout would be; 4x SD10, 2x 1100L tanks(9500lbs total) and a SPJ pod.

I have a total flight time of one hour flying at 2000ft(covering 550nm) in this config without AB. It burns 1000lbs of fuel every ~6mins. The plane without bags can fly for 30mins w/o AB, or 6mins with AB(everything was done at 2000 feet).

Fuel burn rate between normal(99.2%power) and combat(100%) engine mode is very negligible, you're only saving ~20sec worth of fuel in normal mode. So, I tend to go for CMT mode and leave it there.

Yeah, agree with lymark, no real formal testing, but for online I never take tanks unless I'm planning on doing extend duration CAP since I can just take the tanks anyway and dump them on contact. For A/G keep it out of burner and its surprisingly fuel efficient. Even better at like 80% RPM. But in Full AB, you got like a minute or two if that you can just watch the fuel numbers plumet like a rock.

Fuel is bad with afterburner. But with the two 1100 tanks on you can basically burn the whole sortie.

Fuel is bad with afterburner. But with the two 1100 tanks on you can basically burn the whole sortie.

Well, with 2 1100 tanks you pretty much have to :music_whistling:

Fuel is good if you stay out of AB.

Fly the correct speed profiles in climb and you can do entire missions without tanks.

If you do fly with tanks, due to high drag profile your cruise altitude will be lower.

Dual pylons have too much drag it seems (same with the F-18) and IMHO the drag as modelled there is too high.

Overall, if you avoid AB, and fly energy profiles rather than thrust she'll reward you with great fuel economy.

I actually think she's slightly more efficient than the F-16 (BMS comparsion; I don't have the DCS version).

F-18 is similar - avoid AB and she'll fly all day.

Tiger, I feel the double rack drag makes sense. Even though Block II increased payload PAF still flies with only two SD-10s and two PL-5s in air to air role. I bet range is a big factor in that. And I’m sure they miss the extra payload compared to their F-16s so if they could carry 4xSD-10 I bet they would. I expect if they use RD-93MA with more power and efficiency they might start using the double pylons, but who knows

Tiger, I feel the double rack drag makes sense. Even though Block II increased payload PAF still flies with only two SD-10s and two PL-5s in air to air role. I bet range is a big factor in that. And I’m sure they miss the extra payload compared to their F-16s so if they could carry 4xSD-10 I bet they would. I expect if they use RD-93MA with more power and efficiency they might start using the double pylons, but who knows

Yes, that's true.

I watched some videos of PAF JF-17 flying with 3 x fuel tanks bombs and AA. In the sim we're apparently overweight in the same config, so I'm not sure what to think.

It just seems a bit disproportional, but equally I know drag is something that is rather counter-intuitive and requires analysis to arrive at any conclusions.

It’s probably overweight in that config in game because we are flying block I with 3500kg payload limits. The block II can carry up to 5000kg.

I thought I would still be able to take off with double racked SD-10 1100 tanks and SPJ but nope, tires burst before unstick speed, maybe if I try flaps. That is 102% max take off weight with full fuel. I wonder what changed on the block II to increase the limit to 5000kg without blowing tires

maybe they filled the tanks with helium instead of fuel XD

I can takeoff overweight generally without problems.

Seems the sim is a bit sensitive when either in a crosswind or loaded asymmetrically.

Seems any side-force on the tyre will cause them to blow-out.

As long as you rotate at 120kts and hold 10degree, the plane would go airborne itself at around 180kts without blowing tires, no flaps needed regardless of your loadout. I think the tires only get blown out if you're still rolling at 200kts. IIRC, you can even take off without using AB, given there's a long enough runway.

Let me affirm that I did not start this mission at 102% take off weight on the ramp, but on the runway, so there was no opportunity to burn any weight starting up and taxing out. There has to be a very real reason/reasons block 1 can only take 3500kg, I also remember being well under 200 knots but I’ll try it again as well as other overweight scenarios and remove wind. I did not use afterburner or flaps, which would’ve most certainly helped. Afterburner can’t take long to burn the extra 2% of weight in fuel!

Anyone found optimal climb AOA? I tried 6 degrees like in Viper, but felt better at 5 degrees

Is no AB takeoff permitted at max weight?

As for the Block 1 limit, it's likely structural (wings/hardpoints), and not performance-related.

I haven't really found an optimal AoA as such - seems to have a range.

I found drag to be the biggest determinate: if she's high drag then climbing at 270-300 kts is better.

Trying to climb at 350 kts always, can result in shallower climb angle with high drag load-out.

I found through testing that I can be significantly overweight, but as long as it's low drag it still flies better generally.

Sorry I was away, thanks for the info guys. Can't wait to get to know this bird. Its nice to get to fly something other than a US plane, here's hoping for more full fidelity Red modules.

Is there any indication on when AAF will be available? Cheers again.

None yet. Hoping deka comes back from holiday soon and stays Corona virus free.

Chinese New Year is two weeks (generally) so I guess mid-February is when they'll be back.

Deka wish to have AAR integrated in first half of 2020, but as U know there is still a lot of work to do (fuel system coding, external model, etc), so no promise can be made ATM.