Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?

[straffo]

Originally posted by ergRTC
- people should not fly at mil all the time cause it is gamey

P51 can

- the only way (so far) we can do this is fuel management

P51 don't need see next point

- If you want to haul around 2000lbs of fuel you can, but you will be flying around with 2000lbs of fuel.

A P51 guy  can put those 2000lbs of fuel in a drop tank he can get ride off at my will.


Note  :
I didn't speak about the strat impact I suppose 125% fuel available at field.
The next discussion is when a field is below 50%

[zorstorer]

For me all it's going to do is reduce the interception time of the P-51 runners.  With the FBM at 2 there will be nothing with the alt/e to catch that running P-51.  Once folks realize that they are more safe than they are now, how long before the Classic arena is dominated by the P-51's?  Also one side question...How many of the P-51 sorties in WWII were ground attack and how many were escort?  I would just like to know, seeing as HT wants us to fly more historically.

[ergRTC]

Yes Drop tanks are a problem, I am supporting this under the only drop tanks at 100%.  I hope this becomes the case, otherwise, that is very true.  There apparently will no longer be less then 75% loss of fuel and that is at 90% of fuel objects destroyed.

Many p51 missions were released for ground attack after escort.  

I think what may be getting many of your p51 disliking goats, is that the p51 (not my favorite, kinda vanilla if you ask me) was one of the very best planes of the war.  You cant avoid this, just as the la7 was one  of the very best planes of the war, and the 109g10/k4


This does not take away early planes.  The hurri 1 has a suprisingly good range, the spit 1 nearly so.  a6m2 is a miser, f4f is okay, p40 has a suprisingly long range, the 110 has a great range.  The 109e is at a disadvantage, but so it was during the war.  The fact they didnt have enough gas to play around over england probably saved the UK as much as its being ordered to stay low and slow with the bombers.

[GScholz]

This fuel burn modifier will in no way help the performance of the long ranged fighters. Quite the opposite. The only effect this FBM will have is that the short ranged fighters will spend more of their time flying to and from fights rather than actually fighting. More MS Flightsim and less fun. When Pyro announced the new engine modelling in AH2 I thought "Great! More time to fight", but instead HTC thought up this insult to their customers. As business ideas goes this online social "expuriment" is one of the worst I've seen.

[F4UDOA]

Gsholz,

Yes the fuel mod does affect the performance of A/C and giving seperate fuel burn rates absolutely gives the shorter range aircraft an advantage.

It is no different than adding HP and improving wingloading.

To make a long story short the P-51 carry 2.5 more weight in fuel than the 109. Over 1500lbs in fact. To make it carry more weight to achieve the same range is a cheat of the P-51.

There are only 3 solutions other than the current that does not cheat the FM.

1. Eliminate the weight of fuel altogether on all aircraft and have unlimited range.

2. Let any aircraft carry as much fuel as they want to. As long as every gallon they carry weights the same 6lbs. You want to carry 200gallons in a Spit, Yak or 109 go right ahead and fill your tank.

3. Eliminate the fuel multplier for everyone.

Any of those sound ok?

[Rino]

Originally posted by Batz
Tyazhelovooruzhenniy = heavily armed.

There popular misconception is = tankoviy
Just like you see folks refer to the 109F as a "Franz" when it actually is Fritz i.e. Friedrich.

The 9T didn’t typical carry AP rounds; it carried HE and was flown in the a2a role.

The following is quoted from 'Notes of An Aircraft Designer', by Alexander Yakovlev himself -- translated from Russian by Albert Zdornykh and published by Arno Press in 1972.



Its been covered in many thread but here’s one with replies from the author's Tony Williams and Emmanuel Gustin:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=104441&highlight=yak9t

As I said all along the with high fuel mod it all but guarantees some folks will quit or those planes affected the most will remain in the hangar. With an arena full of 51s any work done in regards to engine management will be for not because its planes like 51s that aren’t affected at all.

     Apparently the Bell P-39 doesn't count, as it was in service in 1941..with a 37mm cannon.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Gsholz,

Yes the fuel mod does affect the performance of A/C and giving seperate fuel burn rates absolutely gives the shorter range aircraft an advantage.

Read what I wrote:

Originally posted by GScholz
This fuel burn modifier will in no way help the performance of the long ranged fighters. Quite the opposite.

Originally posted by F4UDOA
3. Eliminate the fuel multplier for everyone.

Yes. It is the only way to give each aircraft its historical advantages and disadvantages without artificially increasing them. The 109s etc. will have their advantage in weight, but not an artificially increased disadvantage in range. The P-51s etc. will have their advantage in range, but not an artificially increased disadvantage in weight.

[bozon]

Eliminate the fuel multplier for everyone.

then no one, not even La7 will load 100% fuel, not to mention the use of droptanks which will be expendable fuel and not range aids.
there will be NO short range planes, only VERY long range ones.

is that better?

Bozon

[straffo]

Originally posted by bozon
then no one, not even La7 will load 100% fuel, not to mention the use of droptanks which will be expendable fuel and not range aids.
there will be NO short range planes, only VERY long range ones.

is that better?

Bozon

It's just the opposite in the current setup.
The current setup don't annoy you because you don't use short range planes.
You use P-38L,P-47-D25,F6F-5,P-51D,F4U-1D all this planes are flying fuel tank.

You won't ever have to make fuel management except when a field is down to 50% but at 50% all short range fighter are useless

[ergRTC]

guys, maybe its just your useless in short range fighters?  Hell if everybody else is in a p38 or p51, give me a nik or an la7.

[straffo]

repost to help your brain cells :

Setup :
FBM set at 2
Long Range Fighter (abv : LRV) : 1 gallon per mile and 100 gallon in tank + 25 in drop tank
Short Range Fighter (abv : SRV): 1 gallon per mile and 50 gallon in tank
Manual Fuel Management (abv : MFM)

With a Target at 25 miles

Starting field at 125%
-LRV can choose : 100% + DT , 100% ,75% + DT,75%, 50%+DT  in this cases MFM is not necessary
 with 50% or 25% + DT MFM is mandatory
Availlable fuel is 125 to 25 gallon
-SRV can take 100% and fuel MFM is mandatory
75% ,50% ,25% loadout are just useless.
Availlable fuel is 50 to 12.5 gallon

Starting field at 75%
-LRV can choose : 75%  in this cases MFM is not necessary
 with 50% or 25% + DT MFM is mandatory
Availlable fuel is 75 to 25 gallon
-SRV can take 75% and won't make it back
Availlable fuel is 37.5 to 12.5 gallon)
So question is why the LRV can still have 75 gallon when the SRV can't have more than 37.5 ?

You still find this rationnal and  FAIR, JUST, EQUITABLE, IMPARTIAL, UNBIASED, DISPASSIONATE, OBJECTIVE ????

[straffo]

Originally posted by ergRTC
guys, maybe its just your useless in short range fighters?  Hell if everybody else is in a p38 or p51, give me a nik or an la7.

If the nik is a short range fighter I'm the next queen of England.

[bozon]

You won't ever have to make fuel management except when a field is down to 50%

no, in the P47 which is my main ride I don't take 75% unless I plan on burning all this fuel on the way to the target. getting into a fight with 75% is not too good. This means I carry 270 gallons - that's a little over twice the full fuel load of the La7. the extra 140 gallons are about 1500lb. How well does La7 preform with 100% + 1500lb ?
not to mention that it also means I have fuel in the aux tank which hampers stability a little.

with the 50% option I have 185 gallons of fuel. With full throttle the jug swallows it at an alarming 550GPH (FBM=2) this means 20 min. no better than the La7 is it? and still heavier on fuel. The jug will actually benefit from low FBM.

in order to keep the jug light enough to actually fight (and I turn it, not boring & ZZZ) I do have to manage the fuel once I'm actually light enough to fight.

my entire argument on this thread is not that FBM=2 is too much but that FBM=1 is too low!
A planes range is part of it's preformance and like all other features, planes range comes at a cost. Speed, climb, turning and range - you can improve one at the cost of damaging the others. And planes were designed that way.

I'd like to see it modeled in a sim. with FBM=1, fuel management is meaningless. I will never load my jug with more than 50% and most likely settle for 25%.

Bozon

[Batz]

You said you never load over 75% now, so what "fuel management" are you talking about?

You shift up or down depending on the mod without thinking twice.

Fuel mod 1 then I take 50% (or even 25%)

Fuel mod 2 then I take 75%. (or 100)

Is that your idea of "fuel management"?

Are you going to tell me the same thing Erg, that you will voluntarily take just enough fuel as to force yourself into rationing?

You can still fly at "full power all day and night" (as Erg calls it "being gamey"). So what difference does it matter to your jug what the multiplier is?

I read where you claim the La7 is "over used" so maybe you have the same idea as Erg, that fuel management is being able to run the la7s out of their 5 min of fuel during their limited combat time?

It makes no difference what the fuel multiplier is to jugs, 51s, 38s etc.

The la7 will always be lighter; they will always be faster, climb better etc. The fuel multiplier doesn’t do a single thing to change this (actually as GS points out it makes the la7s and such even lighter during combat) except make the la7 flight time "unrealistically" short.

Even at 1 you can take off in your jug at a rear field and burn off gas as needed.

Those choices still are left to you. The yaks, la7s etc have no choice. Their range is set unrealistically short by the arbitrary fuel multiplier.

The maps are 2 to 1 scale; the bases at 25 miles a part don’t represent a 2 to 1 in range.

The fuel multiplier being set at 2 is just some random number picked out of the air, it represents nothing historical.

US planes were designed to be heavier and to carry more fuel. If the problem is you cant fight at its combat weight then pick a different plane.  The less folks fly jugs and 51s the funner the arena is anyway. Talk about an over used plane; You see 51 evey where from kamikazi to to suicide base porker.

In the east combat was fought right over the front. Assuming that the only combat in main represents jugs and 51s  is non-sense.

La7s were used to chase LW fast jabos (F8s). They were moved right up to the front lines. When troops came under attack la7s ran as fast as possible to get them. In AH neither plane has enough fuel to even meet each let alone have one run the other down.

Yak9u were flying sorties right over Berlin in front of western allied bombing raids. My point here it appears some of you have no clue about ww2 if doesnt involve p51s/jugs/p38s and bombers.

So please lets stop using "history" as basis for some of the claims in this thread. Nothing is historical about the main and nothing is historical about a fuel multiplier.

It's game play tool not a "realism" setting. In MHO the higher the mulitplier the worse off game play is.

[bozon]

Batz, you refuse to read through my text:

P47 GAINS NO PREFORMANCE ADVATAGE FROM HI FBM. it's the other way around.

YES I DO USE FUEL MANAGEMENT even now in AHI, taking less fuel. I use 75% throttle when CAP and on the way home. That way I can extend the time in which I'm light enough to knife fight. Jug's advantage is that I can get there on full throttle (+ use it to burn most of the aux tank.)

yes I can fly at "full power all day and night" but I have to be very heavy to do so.

I don't seek to reduce the La7 population. But I do think that La7 drivers should need to consider the consequence of slamming the throttle forward. They will catch anything, but at a cost.

I DO NOT SUPPORT HI FBM. 2 is the max value that is reasonable. 1 as some people here are asking for is too little. I want something in the middle. SO YAKS LA AND 109 (that I do fly btw) ARE STILL PLAYABLE (with their limitations).

I hope I'm clearer now.

Bozon