Page 1 of 1
[ANSWERED] HMS Queen Elizabeth fuel
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2016 9:47 am
by hellfish6
According to her DB entry (#1008 - R 08 Queen Elizabeth), she only carries 30 tons of diesel fuel. She's also not willing to use those 30 tons to propel herself. Scenario was rebuilt using DB from Build 820/RC 19.
Save game attached.
RE: HMS Queen Elizabeth fuel
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:05 pm
by michaelm75au
The QE has no fuel.
The QE is showing fuel type as GasFuel in the unit side bar. Which differs from the database entry.
What database was this originally created on?

RE: HMS Queen Elizabeth fuel
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:20 pm
by michaelm75au
I added a new QE ship, and it shows the fuel as Diesel in the side bar. So it seems related to the scenario.
--
I deep built the scenario file and this corrected the QE fuel type. But it will also had changed other things so is not good idea to do in the middle of a game[:D]

RE: HMS Queen Elizabeth fuel
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:33 pm
by michaelm75au
Further checking shows that the QE in DB 442 had Gas as its fuel type. But the engines and fuel were changed to Diesel in DB 443. If you did an in-game shallow rebuild, then this may explain the discrepancy.
--
The DB443 shows engines as diesel and gas, but only the diesel fuel type. I would have thought that this would have been more than one Engine entry but the one of the devs would need to confirm.
RE: HMS Queen Elizabeth fuel
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:49 pm
by thewood1
I just looked in DB443 and it says it only has 30T of Diesel. That doesn't seem like much.
RE: HMS Queen Elizabeth fuel
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 12:09 am
by michaelm75au
One public source (
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/) showed ".. will carry over 8,600t of fuel to support both the vessel and aircraft."
Although based on the 1kg/minute burn @ 20knots, 30T would roughly give a range of 10K nm (just using rough numbers so my maths may be off). Which is what some sources say the QE range would be.
RE: HMS Queen Elizabeth fuel
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:53 am
by ComDev
Inserted the QE2 into a scen using DB v443 and it seems to behave just fine...? Range says 10000nm at 20kt.
Since we don't know the exact fuel load of the ship it uses 'fuel points' rather than tons. If you know the Diesel/AvGas qantities, please post up and we'll update the database accordingly.
Thanks! [8D]
RE: HMS Queen Elizabeth fuel
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:15 am
by michaelm75au
I think the poster's original issue was that the game in progress was updated to latest database (443) in which QE has changed fuel type. This caused some sort of disconnect in that the QE in save has fuel type Gas (from database 442), where as the database 443 now shows Diesel. As result QE can't seem to UNREP (or at least seems that way).
RE: HMS Queen Elizabeth fuel
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:00 am
by michaelm75au
ORIGINAL: hellfish6
According to her DB entry (#1008 - R 08 Queen Elizabeth), she only carries 30 tons of diesel fuel. She's also not willing to use those 30 tons to propel herself. Scenario was rebuilt using DB from Build 820/RC 19.
Save game attached.
Did you rebuilt the scenario before starting the current game? Or did you rebuild it after starting it under DB442?
If the later, was the QE 'on empty' already and couldn't UNREP??
RE: HMS Queen Elizabeth fuel
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:02 am
by ComDev
...and did you do a deep-rebuild?
RE: HMS Queen Elizabeth fuel
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:07 pm
by hellfish6
I did not do a deep rebuilt, I just quick updated to latest DB. Will correct. Thanks!
RE: HMS Queen Elizabeth fuel
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 3:35 pm
by ComDev
Explains the issue then. The engine was updated to Diesel but the fuel was still Gas.
RE: HMS Queen Elizabeth fuel
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:23 pm
by jimcarravall
ORIGINAL: emsoy
Explains the issue then. The engine was updated to Diesel but the fuel was still Gas.
To clarify.
Gas is used to run electrical power generating turbines, and the diesel fuel is used for the engines.
The design saves weight by not requiring a single power plant design large enough to handle both maneuver and the generation of power for auxiliary systems.
As electronic warfighting designs become more prevalent, designers are learning that weight and survivability are enhanced by separating power sources for motive power from electronic power. Longer term, it allows for more flexible upgrade potential by eliminating the need to redesign total power generating capacity as more mature, but power hungry electronic systems are added as retrofits to combat systems.