When we talk about “Epa Mileage Compare” in the automotive world, we’re focused on fuel efficiency and how far a vehicle can travel on a gallon of gas. While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) doesn’t rate military aircraft, the concept of fuel efficiency is just as critical, especially for tactical operations. In the realm of flight simulators like DCS (Digital Combat Simulator), understanding the fuel consumption of different aircraft adds a layer of realism and strategic depth. Let’s dive into a fuel efficiency comparison, not in miles per gallon, but in pounds of fuel per nautical mile (lbs/nm), focusing on two iconic aircraft: the A-10C Warthog and the AV-8B Harrier.
A-10C Warthog: The Tank of the Skies and Its Thirst
The A-10C Thunderbolt II, affectionately known as the Warthog or Hog, is renowned for its durability and loitering capabilities. Its fuel efficiency is a significant factor in its ability to provide close air support for extended periods. According to pilot simulations and real-world data, the A-10C consumes approximately 20 pounds of fuel per nautical mile at military power, maximum weight, and low altitude. This figure is based on using military power settings, which are below maximum thrust but still provide significant performance. Interestingly, fuel mileage improves even further when cruising at higher altitudes, around 15,000 feet (angels 15). This makes the A-10C a very fuel-efficient platform for its role, allowing it to stay on station longer and cover greater distances.
AV-8B Harrier: The Vertical Jumper’s Fuel Consumption
Now, how does the AV-8B Harrier II, known for its vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) capabilities, stack up in terms of fuel efficiency compared to the A-10C? Simulations within DCS have shown that the Harrier can achieve a fuel consumption rate of around 10-12 lbs/nm. This impressive figure was achieved at a high altitude of approximately 32,000-34,000 feet, with a speed of around 450 knots ground speed, and an engine setting of roughly 80 PPM (Percentage Power Management). This initial finding suggests that under specific conditions, the AV-8B can be more fuel-efficient than the A-10C, at least in terms of lbs/nm.
However, it’s crucial to note the conditions. The Harrier’s efficient fuel consumption was observed at high altitude and cruise speed. Lower altitudes and higher power settings, especially during VTOL operations or combat maneuvers, would significantly increase fuel consumption. Furthermore, there’s a critical altitude limit for the AV-8B in these simulations. Going above 37,000 feet reportedly leads to a permanent loss of engine power, indicating a potential performance limitation at very high altitudes within the simulator.
Loitering Time and Mission Profile: Harrier vs. Hog vs. Hornet
The original query also raises an important question about loitering capabilities. Is the AV-8B able to loiter for extended periods like the A-10C, or is it more akin to the F/A-18 Hornet, which typically performs strike missions and then egresses? The fuel efficiency figures suggest that the AV-8B, when flown optimally, can indeed be quite fuel-efficient, potentially allowing for extended loitering times, though perhaps not to the same extreme extent as the A-10C, which is specifically designed for long-duration missions. The F/A-18, while a versatile multirole fighter, is generally known to be less fuel-efficient for loitering compared to the A-10C and possibly the AV-8B when the Harrier is flown at optimal cruise conditions.
The mission profile also plays a significant role. The A-10C is built for long-duration close air support and ground attack missions, emphasizing loiter time and persistence over a battlefield. The AV-8B, while capable of ground attack, is also designed for expeditionary operations and air-to-air combat in some variants. Its VTOL capability allows it to operate from austere environments, but this might come with trade-offs in overall range and loiter time compared to the A-10C in certain mission scenarios.
Fuel Tanks: Necessary for Extended Range?
The question about fuel tanks is pertinent to range and endurance. For the AV-8B, the experiment mentioned ditching external fuel tanks to achieve better fuel efficiency at cruise altitude. This implies that while external fuel tanks extend range, they might also slightly increase drag and thus fuel consumption. Whether fuel tanks are “always necessary” depends entirely on the mission parameters. For short-range strike missions, they might be unnecessary, potentially improving fuel economy. For longer-range deployments or missions requiring extended time on station, external fuel tanks are essential, even if they slightly impact fuel efficiency in cruise.
Optimizing AV-8B Fuel Efficiency: Tips from Simulation
The user in the original discussion shared valuable insights into optimizing AV-8B fuel efficiency in DCS. Key strategies include:
- Altitude: Cruising at higher altitudes (around 32,000-34,000 feet) significantly improves fuel economy.
- Throttle Management: Keeping the engine power setting (PPM) under 200, and ideally in the 80-150 PPM range for cruise and climbs respectively, is crucial. Excessive throttle (above 80-90%) drastically increases fuel consumption.
- Flaps Configuration: Flying with 0 degrees of flaps at cruise speeds, instead of 5 degrees, can potentially further improve fuel efficiency by reducing drag. However, 5 degrees of flaps might be beneficial when carrying a heavy bomb load to reduce the angle of attack (AoA) and maintain efficiency during loaded flight.
- Speed: Maintaining a ground speed around 450 knots was found to be efficient in the described scenario.
These observations highlight that achieving optimal “EPA mileage” for the AV-8B, or any aircraft, requires careful management of altitude, speed, throttle, and aircraft configuration.
Conclusion: Fuel Efficiency is Mission Dependent
In conclusion, comparing the “EPA mileage” of the A-10C and AV-8B reveals that both are capable aircraft with varying degrees of fuel efficiency depending on their operational parameters. The A-10C is inherently fuel-efficient for low-altitude, long-endurance missions. The AV-8B, while potentially more fuel-efficient at high-altitude cruise, requires careful optimization of flight parameters to achieve its best fuel economy. Ultimately, the “best” fuel efficiency is always mission-dependent, factoring in range requirements, loiter time, payload, and operational environment. Understanding these nuances is crucial for both real-world tactical aviation and virtual flight simulation enthusiasts alike.
