Yes agreed Klem ref only Whole numbers being used. One reason I went for 10mins to get enough Fuel used to at least show the trend. So the Fuel flow values are not super accurate but enough to determine the relationship between Mixture Lever position and mixture strength.

In addition I started each test when the Mouse tool over value was flashing between 2 values indicating the changeover between the whole whole units.

Your Tool is easily more accurate just didnt have time to get it set up today.

Just got the 2 Pitch Hurricane to go. Once done I will update Post 9.... getting a bit dumb struck testing this :)

Once done all will be sent to Devs.

what a bullshit statement...get in a 109E4 and fly on rebka against other 109pilots and then see if you still enjoy yourself if you dont want to learn how to fly.
the rest of your post is informative though!

Well I do apologise that the tongue-in-cheek intent did not come across as intended. I'm just glad that we can now work with the mixture modelling knowing at least which which way it's oriented on the various Brit fighters. I find that the 109s seem to have less FM issues and with fuel injected, auto mixture & prop pitch engines there is less to have to factor in with engine management. I like flying 109s but my heart is with the Spits & just wish the devs would get them right.

+1 for that statement!

Great work all contributors. Given that we apparently have 1 patch to come alone for COD there is a great concern that this may not be fixed, but it is essential that this, plus the temperature problems, are fixed.

I urge all pilots who seek accuracy to push this directly at B6 and Luthier.

~S~

... and if necessary press for this
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...6&postcount=91

Doing the Blenheim and its problematical to say the least. ... might need Klems script.

1. I cannot run smooth operation with Mixture levers back (normal) at any altitudes above 6000ft with +4/COARSE
2. Had to perform tests at 5000ft to be able to achieve smooth Engine operation in both NORMAL (BACK) and LEAN (FWD) positions.
3. Tests inconclusive.

METHOD
Stable Flight CHT 200C, BOOST +4, 5000Ft Coarse Pitch Rads 3 clicks open, CHT Stable at 200 C, QNH 1013

LEVER FORWARD in LEAN POSITION
Achieved RPM 1920, Achieved IAS 210
Fuel Used after 10 mins 12Gall (Total)
Fuel Flow 1.2gpm (Total)

Placed Mixture Lever to REAR (NORMAL) position RPM Reduced to 1820 RPM IAS reduced to 200.

LEVER IN REAR NORMAL POSITION
Achieved RPM 1820, Achieved IAS 200
Fuel Used after 10mins 12 Gall (Total)
Fuel used after 20mins 22 Gall (Total)
Fuel Flow 1.1gpm Total in 20min test .... too close to call.

CONCLUSION
Inconclusive with respect Fuel Flow. Almost the same FF achieved in both mixture lever positions ! Though the 20min test might imply that with the lever back fuel flow is less ... though 1.2gpm v 1.1gpm is too close to call imo.
Given Stable engine operation above 6000ft cannot be achieved in Rear (Normal) position then AUTO function is not operating.
Given at 5000ft selecting Mixture to REAR (Normal) results in reduced RPM and IAS I think it implies that actual Mixture orientation is operating in reverse. Maybe supported by 20min Fuel flow tests as well.

RECOMMENDED FIXES (work in progress)
Mixture control needs to be AUTO RICH or AUTO LEAN in that automatic altitude compensation is provide in both.
Stable operation at all altitudes in NORMAL (AUTO RICH) should be possible without boost restrictions
Stable operation at all altitudes in WEAK (AUTO LEAN) should be possible WITH boost limitations
Boost limits in WEAK (AUTO LEAN) +1.5lbs

IvanK - I think you need carb heat above 5000k ft.
56RAF_phoenix

It's here
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=33661
in the first post, see the attachment.

I have added decimal places for fuel reserves.

It won't affect your fuel flow tests (I think) but I am probably going to amend it for level speed tests as the charted TAS is currently calculated from the IAS gauge Air Speed which some people are questioning as to its accuracy. I do include internal 'system' parameter Z_TAS in the output but I chart the TAS calculated from IAS.

I am beginning to think the IAS may be ok though as the Z_TAS is fairly close to TAS calculated from IAS (304mph vs 292mph for IAS 250mph or 4%). The modelled atmosphere could easily do that. Part of The confusion comes from the Z_IAS figure which appears to be way off what it should be, e.g. at a IAS of 250mph at 10,000 ft Z_IAS is only 6mph below Z_TAS because the Z_IAS of 132.46 m/s calculates as 298mph. But I need time to look more closely at it. Hopefully 1C will release more info on the C# parameters so we know what we are working with.

I tried it and still get rough running.