Bf109E-3

[unreasonable]

If this data is from the game files it shows V climb as 270kmh. (I assume this is supposed to be Vy - speed for best rate of climb). Kurfurst's test used a start speed of 250kmh. This might explain why the slope is "wrong".

Retest? (I am nowhere near a good enough pilot to do it myself I am afraid).

[609_Huetz]

That still will leave us at the problem that the mixture is not working correctly on either side - red or blue.

My concern, the higher you get, the more your data will be off due to this.

[Hunin]

I suspect it has something to do with this:

Mix Slider Multiplier Range 0.7 to 1.0

If my guess is correct and the function is linear ( 1 beeing full rich and 0 beeing full lean ) a mixture of 70 % seems awefully rich for flight above 4000 meters.

[unreasonable]

If you open up one of the dreaded info windows and put in the engine data, you can see the mix shown as 100% irrespective of height - this might be showing only the position of the control, but it I agree it certainly looks as though auto mix is not working. I also get the wheezing and black smoke puffs after about 5km height.

[Viper2000]

The simplest demonstration is to fly in no cockpit mode and look at the exhaust flame turn from blue to yellow during the climb; you'll see the same problem in the Spitfire & Hurricane too.

I think they just forgot the "AUTO" part of AUTO RICH.

As an aside, the large yellow flame is the result of after-burning, which is the continuation of combustion outside of the cylinder. This term is generally misused, especially by Americans, as a surrogate for reheat in the context of gas turbines, but it actually has, or at least had, a quite specific meaning in the context of piston engines before the turbojet was even thought of (on which note, today is the 74th anniversary of the first run of Sir Frank Whittle's engine, the 50th anniversary of Gagarin's space flight, the 30th anniversary of the first Shuttle flight, and, somewhat less significantly for aviation, my 27th birthday).

[IvanK]

"....by Americans, as a surrogate for reheat in the context of gas turbines"

LOL only the Poms call it reheat the rest of the world settled on Afterburner ... as did CLOD.

[Viper2000]

Originally Posted by IvanK

"....by Americans, as a surrogate for reheat in the context of gas turbines"

LOL only the Poms call it reheat the rest of the world settled on Afterburner ... as did CLOD.

As a thermodynamicist, I can assure you that "the rest of the world" is wrong . They can't help it.

Actually misuse of afterburning is mostly an aviation/pop culture thing; in other applications people are more likely to just talk about a reheated cycle; of course, they're also less likely to talk about it in the first place...

In fairness to the Americans, people in the UK have been misusing the term for a long time as well; I've seen footage of the 1948 Farnborough airshow where the commentator talks about a Vampire "fitted with an 'after-burner' " in a perfect cut glass accent, such that you can actually distinctly hear both the quotation marks and the hyphen. Of course, all it was good for was improving the rate of climb, since the airframe very rapidly ran into its Mach limit on the level even dry... (another interesting distinction of course being that dry/wet power really refers to water injection, and the reheat equivalent would be cold/hot, but this distinction doesn't seem to survive on the engineering side now that water injection has gone out of fashion - IIRC the F-105's J-75 could actually use water injection and reheat either separately or in combination, so the distinction was once important).

The distinction between reheat and afterburning is an important one because true afterburning is generally a bad thing; reheat is generally deliberate. It's quite possible to have both going on in a gas turbine (eg hotshot/hotstreak reheat ignition is a actually a deliberate case of afterburning; the turbine wouldn't like it if it went on for any length of time, and I suspect even for the short durations actually seen in service it doesn't do the blades much good due to impingement of liquid fuel drops if nothing else); the decline of the piston engine and the massive improvements that the combustion people have made over the years have combined to pretty much kill off true afterburning in the aviation context, and therefore I suppose that the loss of its separate meaning from reheat is inevitable. But I digress...

[IvanK]

I have used the Hotstreak system to light the the fires and turn Kero in to noise and heat many times .... It will always be AB to me

[Viper2000]

Originally Posted by IvanK

I have used the Hotstreak system to light the the fires and turn Kero in to noise and heat many times .... It will always be AB to me

What aeroplane? (edit - Lucky devil! - I would have loved to fly fast jets, but my glasses killed that dream...)

[IvanK]

Check your PM's Viper ... yes I was very fortunate