Author Topic: Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?  (Read 7763 times)

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #255 on: May 31, 2004, 07:39:09 PM »
Use of WEP in the F4U-4 reduces fuel consumption substancially.

In AH2 the F4U-4 has a 21 minute duration at Mil power one of the shortest in the simm. This causes no problems what so ever in climbing to alt, arriving at target or getting kills.

In fact I have been flying it with 50% to 75% in most cases with no DT's and have had more than ample time by merely reducing MAP and RPM on my return trip.

Offline Citabria

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5149
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #256 on: May 31, 2004, 08:09:17 PM »
is the ah2 fuel burn curve exponential?

ie:

full throttle fuel burn 2.0

cruise throttle setting 1.0?

or is it a linear multiplier?
Fester was my in game name until September 2013

Offline ergRTC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
      • http://bio2.elmira.edu/DMS/index.pl?table=content&faculty=1&page=1
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #257 on: May 31, 2004, 09:18:01 PM »
Ignorence?  I am full of it.  If you every need more let me know.


fester I think it is non linear.  I think they mapped it to the books as far as the p51 and the 109g6 is concerned.  Hard to tell with the rpm and throttle.

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #258 on: June 01, 2004, 03:06:07 AM »
Quote
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.

Batz, you can relax. I'm not after your La7s.

They will still catch me, so will yaks, 109s, 190s, P51s, typhoons, F4us. At typical MA altidutes they all outrun the Jug. Even the spit IX the jug can barely outrun. Heck, La7 will catch the jug down low even while flying at cruise settings, FBM changes nothing.

Then you disregard me stating that I think FBM=2 is on the edge of playability for yaks and LA7s and I think it should be LOWER, just so these planes are still used. USED yes, that's USED and have enough quality fight that's fight, not just flight) time.

I do want fuel load and management to mean something. Since most MA sorties are around the 20-30 min time, since by then you are either shot down or out of ammo, while real sorties were a few hours long, setting FBM=1 makes any fuel considerations negligible.

the non-compression in the vertical means nothing to low flying planes of the eastern front. 25 miles between bases sounds a little even by eastern front standards - it means about 12 miles from the front line. Perhaps some forward landing strip for refueling but not a base. If you have other info, I'd be happy to learn.

you can relax. La7 will still be the popular plane, Yaks are rare as it is, and P51s will always have the longets range and be called runstags.

Bozon
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7357
      • FullTilt
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #259 on: June 01, 2004, 03:28:48 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Citabria
is the ah2 fuel burn curve exponential?

ie:

full throttle fuel burn 2.0

cruise throttle setting 1.0?

or is it a linear multiplier?


The multiplier (found in the arena set up table) is linear.

The new fuel consumption model (how much fuel is consumed at what power)is modelled (it seems) to be a function of manifold pressure and rpm...........adjusted by certain additives.
Ludere Vincere

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #260 on: June 01, 2004, 03:41:47 AM »
I have never flown a la7 in the 4 years I have been in AH I could careless about flying one now. But I don’t think it’s over used or that the player who enjoys flying “ought to pay some unrealistic price” because they enjoy it.

So it isn’t my la7. Its just is just more fun to fight most Ami runners. The same with nikis and spits. I never fly those either. I rather fly into 20 spits nikis and la7s then fight 1 boring b n z then run 51 or jug (there are of course exceptions but I am generalizing here).

I didn’t disregard your statement that the FBM should be lower then 2. What I said was that any argument to make the FBM higher then 1 is nothing but a game play issue and has nothing with the fact "la7s are over used" or "La7s should pay the price for low fuel capacity".

None of that has any bearing on "reality". The jug will always have more fuel then a la7, it will always weigh more. Range is an issue that can be left to the player. He can take off further back or adjust his fuel weight as he sees fit at any fuel multiplier.  So where we are left with is "how can I use the fbm to my advantage". You said this:

Quote
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.


As if the la7 at its historic fuel burn rate is some how wrong or gains more range then it should have. Its just nonsense.

Dogfight a la7 in rl in a jug and more then likely you won’t be able to run away. Creating an artificial situation where you can do that in the main is certainly not  "real" or "historic". So what is the basis for such a claim?

An FBM of 1.5 would be fine with me, but I don’t kid myself into thinking its any more real then 2. Its just gives some planes a few extra minutes of fuel.

Quote
I do want fuel load and management to mean something.


Mean something to who? It means very little to the p51 regardless of the FBM.

FYI: Planes didn’t all fly "low" on the eastern front. Another misconception some have.

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7357
      • FullTilt
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #261 on: June 01, 2004, 04:12:39 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by bozon

the non-compression in the vertical means nothing to low flying planes of the eastern front.  


In comparative terms i think it does..............

Climbing to an altitude where you can travel further for lower fuel loss is a benefit for all ac........... even if those altitudes are different.

Because the arena is not compressed in the vertical it creates a "threshold" phenomenom in the game play model.

Its a sort of double hit on small fuel capacity ac when higher FBM's are chosen........the fuel consumption to a chosen altitude is not alieviated by a smaller map size.

Even Eastern front VVS ac would climb to 15/16k  OTW to an area of patrol............ and yes Yaks and La7's did patrol.

They were not primarily rapid reaction interceptors (detection and communications systems on the eastern front were not effective enough for this) .........they were air superiority fighters and short/medium  range escorts.

The true (ETO) rapid reaction interceptors we have are the BoB Spitfire/Hurricane and the ME 163.
Ludere Vincere

Offline ergRTC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
      • http://bio2.elmira.edu/DMS/index.pl?table=content&faculty=1&page=1
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #262 on: June 01, 2004, 07:36:37 AM »
hehe I was flying the hurri 1 last night.  Took 50% fuel, gave me something like 60 gallons of gas.  hehehehe.  Was crusing at 160 mph at 14k, and I thought that might be too much.  Still, shot down a p38.  Dont ask me how.  I think he went into a flat spin and I got a 303 into him.

hurri and rapid.  Not two words put together often.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #263 on: July 24, 2004, 06:20:15 PM »
whine whine whine and whine :( :( :( :(


Because I ditched at 20 centimeter of the runway out of fuel.

Offline SirLoin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5705
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #264 on: July 24, 2004, 06:35:15 PM »
FBR at x2 is too much...You barely have fuel in some planes to fly to the closest base and rtb...

I'm with Tilt FBR 1.0
**JOKER'S JOKERS**

Offline Overlag

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3888
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #265 on: July 24, 2004, 08:44:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SirLoin
FBR at x2 is too much...You barely have fuel in some planes to fly to the closest base and rtb...

I'm with Tilt FBR 1.0


no way not with these stupid 256/256 maps.

the tip is fuel management ;)

a 109 with 100% will fly 200ish miles with EASE.....hell maybe even 300. fact is at alt (15-20k) these planes have ALOT more range than they did back "then" so a FBR of 2 is needed
Adam Webb - 71st (Eagle) Squadron RAF Wing B
This post has a Krusty rating of 37