iniBuilds T-33 Jet Trainer

[JayDee6281]

I apologize for maybe bringing a lot of confusion and wrong statements about the fuel system.

I did some more testing → FUEL SYSTEM WORKS FINE → as long as you dont use all 3 wing tanks at the same time.

My previous testings I made with all 3 Wing Tanks (TIP, LE, WING) ON, and just noted the content numbers in the payload window, startet a timer, notet the time to use the fuel. etc… And either this is a bug or this is really such a high fuel loss, that lead me to my conclusions.

My new test I made with different settings and as longs as you only use max. 2 of the wing tank selectors (TIP, LE, WING) the fuel burn is nearly identical in comparison to only using the fuselage tank. The difference I noted where so marginal, that I would either think, that is a believable vent of fuel or even just errors in rounding or using the timer.

So in conclusion → you can use the wing tip tanks and the fuselage tank together, with nearly no fuel venting. You can also add the wing or LE tank to that, or switch of the TIP Tank and use the LE and WING Tank together. Just dont use all 3 together.

Again - my apologies.

[AlanA4643]

No need to apologize - we were all confused, I think because the iniBuilds explanations are a bit confusing. In the introductory interview video with Greg Collyer (at about 19:50), he first says that you can’t burn all the tanks at once - so far, so good. But then he goes on to say that if the fuselage tank is full, any extra fuel fed into it gets vented overboard. You… and I… and everybody else… took that to mean that if a single tank system, say the tip tanks, is fed into a full fuselage tank, you’ll lose that fuel. Apparently not - the issue is when all tanks are on (overwhelming the burn rate), vs. one additional tank on (burn rate is greater than feed rate, so even with a full fuselage tank, you’re OK).

Similarly, in the manual, you’re first told (on page 11) that when the fuselage tank falls below 80 percent, you should top it off. Then you’re told (on page 12) that if there’s no fuel in the fuselage tank or you experience a flameout, you should turn all tanks on via the gang bar. But then there’s this warning…

However, be sure not to keep all switches on as any fuel that is pumped to the fuselage tank when it is full will be ejected out of the aircraft from the overflow pipe and you will run out of fuel.

Italics mine.

Same problem here as in the video - it’s not clear that the warning applies only to all-tanks-on. It seems to warn that any fuel fed into a full fuselage tank goes overboard.

I had no idea how it was actually supposed to work until I read that conversation with Dudley on the forum.

Think iniBuilds ought to revise the manual, and maybe pin a comment on the video, to clarify what the procedure should really be.

[Jigsaw407]

@AlanA4643

one additional tank on (burn rate is greater than feed rate, so even with a full fuselage tank, you’re OK).

That’s not true. With any one pump turned on the fuselage tank fills back up within 20-30 seconds, so much faster than the aircraft can possibly burn the fuel.

[AlanA4643]

Apparently - and again, this is new news to me - there’s a sharp difference between the fuel burn rate (0.1 gallons per second at idle) and the fuel transfer rate (much higher).

So what happens in normal practice is that when you turn on, say, the tip tanks, fuel moves into the fuselage tank at the high transfer rate until the fuselage tank is full. Then, burn rate applies to all the fuel currently on line - that is, fuselage plus tip tanks. The fuselage tank doesn’t vent.

The same applies to any single tank added to the fuselage tank.

It’s only when all tanks are on that the transfer rate (and, I guess, the volume) is more than the fuselage tank can handle, so fuel is vented.

It’s worth reading the whole dialogue with Dudley on the forums, but the key passage, posted by iniBuilds, is this:

The plane only burns 0.1 gallons per second at idle. This “rate of burn” remains the same no matter which tank is being used.

The Weight & Balance window will show an “accelerated” rate when any of the AUX tanks are turned on, which is simply the “rate of transfer” and NOT an accelerated “rate of burn”. This accelerated “rate of transfer” will be seen only when either…

Fuel is being transferred from the selected AUX tank to the FUSE tank, until the point when FUSE tank is full. When the FUSE tank is full, the rate slows down to the “rate of burn” (0.1 gallons per second) from the selected AUX tank, whilst the FUSE tank remains full.

Fuel will not vent in this scenario where only FUSE tank + one of the other AUX tanks are ON. So you can keep the “TIP / WING / L.E.” tanks ON together with the FUSE tank without fuel venting happening as soon as the tank fills up.

Fuel is being transferred overboard aka “fuel venting” is happening. This ONLY happens when ALL the tank pumps are on at the same time & the fuselage tank is already full. This is when you’ll see all the tanks draining at accelerated values, as basically you’re dumping fuel. The fuel vent light will also be on in this case.

In the same post, there’s an embedded four-minute video with voiceover that describes the logic and shows fuel flow in the payload screen at different fuel tank settings.

I really wish they’d post the video to YouTube and/or add the explanation to the manual, since so many of us - me, first of all - are struggling with this.

[Jigsaw407]

Thanks, makes sense. I will try this out the next time I fly this bird.

[iniBuildsEd]

Hello all. Just getting back to you regarding the reported “engine spool up” being too fast. We have indeed modelled that on purpose. My colleague Rich has outlined in more detail why so (his reply over on this thread): Engine spool-up is way too fast - Systems - iniBuilds Forum

[AlanA4643]

Thanks, @iniBuildsEd!

I’ll repeat the request I just posted in that thread - if the engine you’re modeling is the Rolls Royce Nene in Ace Maker rather than the original, slower spooling, less powerful Allison J-33, as @JohnnyT5000 suggested farther up the thread, then it’d help if you could document that. It’d end a lot of arguments and preempt others.

Really loving the aircraft!

[LuisArgerich]

It would be very nice and very logical to have both engines available. If we can have a modern or a classic cockpit it makes a lot of sense to have the classic or modern engines too, even more important than the cockpit.

[AlanA4643]

I agree in principle - though that’s asking for a lot of in-depth modeling. Cockpits are much easier to develop.

Apart from high-end cases like the Fenix airbuses, have there been products that model multiple engine types? Genuine question - I’m not coming up with any but might be missing some.

[LuisArgerich]

@AlanA4643

Apart from high-end cases like the Fenix airbuses, have there been products that model multiple engine types? Genuine question - I’m not coming up with any but might be missing some.

Not exactly the same but SWS has 4 and 5 bladed versions of the PC-12.
AT Simulations has jet and prop versions of the Cri-Cri.
Hispano Aviacion provided two models of the SAETA the 200 and 220 with different engines.
And of course the Duke and Turbine Duke.

I know a LOT of people will disagree but for a high fidelity product aiming for realism simulating a classic cockpit with new engines doesn’t make a lof sense.

I totally hate what inibuilds did to recreate this plane, take figures from a modern version of the T-33 simulate those figures and then provide either a classic cockpit or a G3x. The end result is that you can never hop into any T-33 that exists or even existed. Because you will have the wrong engines for the right cockpit or the wrong cockpit for the right engines or both.

And again for many people that is totally fine and I understand that.

And since I’m having one of my usual rants I will repeat: So far I don’t know of a single T-33 equipped with G3x avionics so the choice of a modern cockpit was very unfortunate.

[Editer]

I think we understood your feelings on the cockpit the 5th time you repeated them, Luis… I think Inibuilds and all the rest of us understand why you don’t plan to buy this by now.

@LuisArgerich

The end result is that you can never hop into any T-33 that exists or even existed. Because you will have the wrong engines for the right cockpit or the wrong cockpit for the right engines or both.

Actually, the 656 T-33/CT-133 aircraft manufacturered by Canadair with Nene engines and the analog cockpit would like to disagree with your false accusation.

[LuisArgerich]

@Editer

Actually, the 656 T-33/CT-133 aircraft manufacturered by Canadair with Nene engines and the analog cockpit would like to disagree with your false accusation.

Thta’s very nice and is the kind of information that makes the product better. Do you have any reference or photos to that aircraft?
Thanks for the info!

@Editer

I think Inibuilds and all the rest of us understand why you don’t plan to buy this by now.

Don’t get me wrong, I will probably buy it anyway. I wish it was different but as you said I’ve said that too many times.
It seems that at least here people are ok with this level of realism so maybe I’m completely wrong and this can be a nice aicraft to enjoy.

… if I could change the cockpit of course

[Jigsaw407]

@LuisArgerich

It seems that at least here people are ok with this level of realism

Most vintage aircraft are a hodge podge of constant retrofitting. You will be hard pressed to find any old bird in its original configuration. So yeah, this is fine!

[Jetstreamsky]

More than fine, it’s fun and engaging. Much better to go fly than yearning for what might have been.

[AlanA4643]

@LuisArgerich

Do you have any reference or photos to that aircraft?

It’s effectively an identical airframe with a change of engine. It’s in the same family of experience as any license-built aircraft, like the Goodyear Corsairs, the General Motors Wildcats or the Canadair Sabres, though the use of a different engine makes the CT-133 slightly more of a departure from the original. Basic performance didn’t change but engine responsiveness did. The CT-133 also had larger wingtip tanks (which I think are the ones used on the iniBuilds version, though I could be wrong).

The Canadair aircraft account for a lot of the overseas sales and probably for that reason account for many (most?) of the T-33s currently flying.

Basic reference here.

And here’s a link to the example in the Canadian Aviation Museum including a number of photographs (including both original and modern analog cockpits).

There’s much more available - just search on Canadair CT-133.

[TimHendrik]

I’ve uploaded two more liveries

https://flightsim.to/file/81389/inibuilds-t-33-jet-trainer-nx84tb

https://flightsim.to/file/81488/inibuilds-t-33-jet-trainer-nx230cf

[Editer]

Beauties, Tim!

[LuisArgerich]

Sorry it was probably a ridiculous rant.

[TimHendrik]

The Golden Hawks

https://flightsim.to/file/81532/inibuilds-t-33-jet-trainer-golden-hawks-25100

[XP12Fanboy]

Looks fantastic.
I just bought the printed POH already linked on this thread for a tenner.Very interesting read.