Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?

[Batz]

The la7 gains no performance benefit from hi FBM either. Why keep claiming that? No matter what the FBM both planes perform the same as they would regardless of the fuel mod. The jug is heavier, the la7 lighter. With a higher FBM the Jug just spawns with less fuel, if it’s higher he rolls with a bit more.

You have the choice, regardless of the fuel mod, to decide when and where you wish to engage.

You have claimed several times that the la7 was "over used". Well what does that mean, there's too many? There's too many 51s as well. There's "too many" of a lot of planes, so what?

La7s always have less fuel endurance no matter what the FBM. Because the bases are at 25 mile apart in AH isn’t (imho) a justifiable reason to limit certain planes to a few minutes of fuel. You can always voluntarily take off further back and burn fuel to get to your desired "combat weight".

109s aren’t necessarily an issue (except the 109e) since fuel porking has been addressed. However, those short range planes with out DTs (the planes that make the arena fun) are still adversely affected by the high FBM or any FBM for that matter. Altitude isn’t scalable. Let’s say it takes 5 min for a Yak 9u to get to 15k, at an FBM of 2 he has burned twice as much fuel to get to alt. By climbing he losses combat time, where the jug just losses weight.

I know you have stated your support for a multiplier between 1.5 and 2 but even at 1 the only thing that changes is the amount flight time for each plane. Performance doesn't change; the la7s doesn’t end up with 2000 gal of gas and no weight penalty.

 A la7 with 75% gas and an FBM at 2 still weighs the same as La7 with 75% gas and an FBM at 1. A jug at 50% fuel and an FBM at 2 still weighs the same as a Jug and an FBM at 1.

The jug can decide to take more or less fuel and to take off closer or further as he sees fit at any FBM.

I thought the main reason of the FBM and new consumption model was to get  folks to fly at  crusie settings, not to make things easier for overweight jugs

[straffo]

Originally posted by bozon
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.

I was not speaking of you but more of the average AH player

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.

There is a difference : you still can fly , have access to more fuel than a short range fighter and so are less affected by fuel porking.
A 50% yak is useless.

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

You said it yourself : once light.
Shortrange fighter are light before starting their engine.

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.

When I posted this thread it was at 2.25 now it's a 2.00 still a bit too hight but I'm used to it ,it's the MA setting since 4 years ...

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

No problem for me it's how it should be IMO.

[bozon]

Batz, I see we're not speaking the same language. HTC will decide anyway.

strafo, fuel porking is not an issue anymore. 75% is minimum and you have to kill all the fuel bunkers for that.

Bozon out.

[straffo]

Certainly Bozon but a problem stay :
what about the slow climbing fuel hungry planes ?

As it's been said the FBM change the scale only for the X axis ,Y is not affected.

[Batz]

Sure we are, you are trying make some argue that any FBM higher then 1 is needed. You claim planes like the la7 gain "performance" the lower the FMB.

Here it is in your language.

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

All the FBM is a way to manipulate how long planes stay in the air. Not how they perform, not how heavy they will be when they fight.

 It shouldnt be a tool to control which plane someone feel is over used.

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.

 At 1 they have no more range then they had historically. The fact they are in a postion to catch you is not the fault of the FBM but your own. Wanting to restrict their rl range so you can out run them confirms what I expected all along.

[ergRTC]

wow everything is a conspiracy with you batz.  DId you lose your meds?

Perhaps the real problem is just behavioral.  Now, assuming they fix two important factors that straffo has rattled on about

1. fuel in gallons not %
2. Drop tanks only at 100% fuel load out

I believe the real issue is trying to up from a whacked base to attack another base.  If you are upping from a porked base with a Yak9t or 109e trying to attack people a sector away, I am a little dubious about your ability to think straight.  If you are at a porked base, you should be upping into enemy planes, not flying to there base (which isnt to smart either).  If you are attacking another base, I would suggest doing it from a base that has not been porked.  If you cant find one, I would call that sound strategy on the enemies part.

[ergRTC]

finally.

hitech says (incase he doesnt want to read 140 some posts...)

"I've been reading your arguements. It seems to me you are trying to argue that short range should not be a problem for short range fighters, and all you argurments are based on that 1 idea.

Your arguements are that longer range fighters are not effected as much by the fuel multiplier. In a way thats exactly what we want to accomplish. We want to give the detriment or adantages to each plane that they had. Just like we do with performance and weapons.

You discuss one specific case of attacking another field. Thats not all the planes are used for in AH. Lots of times there is deffencive rolls or between field fights.

Could it be you wish to use the short range fighters in a roll that they are not well suited?

Now as to your last post about the damage fuel system fair.
All planes are effected equal. Each has had it range cut the the same %.

Under a limited fuel quatinty i.e. gals system you be hurting the hi fuel consumption planes. Take 2 planes = range but vastly different fuel consumptions and both short range. 1 would not be effected at all the other would. Under the % system all planes are effected, they just are not all effected for the role you discribe.


HiTech

[ergRTC]

Of course I still support straffo on the gallons rather than percent.

totally odd to have it that way.

[Batz]

You cant follow the discussion. Everything I have talked deal with planes at 100% fuel after Pyro addressed fuel porking. Fuel porking is a thing of the past, its gone let it go.

An La7 has 21 min of fuel. He cant take off at a rear base...

You need to look up the word "conspiracy". Bozon thinks it should be harder for an la7 to catch him and thus an FBM higher then 1 is the only way to do that. He has claimed through out that La7s are "over used". He doesn't want La7s to be able to catch him. Thats what I suspected and his statement confirms that. Once you look up that definition tell me where is the "conspiracy" in that.

[ergRTC]

Well, it appears to me that you think others are working together to take away your happy happy fun time.  That would a group of others (like myself and bozon, who you have accused of having this hidden agenda), conspiring to do something terrible to you.


21 minutes in an la7?  You should be thrilled.  That is excellent range at full speed.  I took a 50% f4u4 and had 15min of full mil, not wep.  That is more gas in the f4u4 if I remember right.

[Batz]

Don't flatter yourself; I doubt you could conspire to keep a pile of sticks together let alone "do something terrible" to me.

Any judgment I made about you or Bozon are completely separate and based on your statements in this thread. I could quote them for you if you forgot.

Who forced you to take 50% in that F4u? You did that all on your own didn't you?

Fyi you must of took more then 50% fuel or the fuel mod wasnt 2 because the F4U-4 gets 11 min with 50% at mil by my quick test.....

[ergRTC]

Really?  I thought there was something whacky.  Try it again at wep, I dare say there is a bug.  Wep runs at better mpg than mil in the f4u4.  I was trying to remember which was which, and chose the logical number for mil.


I took the 50% because I was upping from one sector out and wanted to be able to turn with the mustangs.

the 50% gave me a 325 mph cruising speed with something like 35 minutes of flight time.  More than adequate.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by ergRTC
Really?  I thought there was something whacky.  Try it again at wep, I dare say there is a bug.  Wep runs at better mpg than mil in the f4u4.  I was trying to remember which was which, and chose the logical number for mil.


I took the 50% because I was upping from one sector out and wanted to be able to turn with the mustangs.

the 50% gave me a 325 mph cruising speed with something like 35 minutes of flight time.  More than adequate.

Pyro has already explained that WEP derived from water injection reduces GPM

Edited..I knew what I wanted to say but did not say it.. (j'suis un idiot).......MPG  changed to GPM.......fuel consumption goes down when water is injected.........apparantly.

[ergRTC]

sweet.  Who woulda thunk it!  I could believe a supercharger, but water injection, wow.  i guess if you hold the rpm steady, theoretically a denser charge would not necessarily mean more gas.

[GScholz]

Ignorance uncovered.