Author Topic: Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?  (Read 7830 times)

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #75 on: May 26, 2004, 06:41:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
A typical 109 flight for me with a droptank would be T/O and climb to 25K (6-7 min) cruise while looking for prey (limited to 10 minutes to reserve fuel for RTB), engage enemy (limited to 5 min), extend and climb to conserve fuel (5 min), RTB and land (10 min). It's the climbing part and actual combat that sucks most of my fuel. The cruising part where I can use fuel management is trivial.


Quote
Originally posted by GODO
109G10 WEP 100% fuel + DT 43 mins
109G10 mil 100% fuel +DT 43 mins


That leaves me a 6 min reserve in my example above, unless I do a lot of loitering at cruise.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

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 #76 on: May 26, 2004, 07:11:53 PM »
Can I have about 40 mph on the hurricane 1?  Then I could fight with other planes more easily.



Pyro/hitech, why exactly is land compressed in the horizontal?  




I think some people are not realizing that enemy planes will also suffer these issues.  Which enemy planes do you worry about the most?  la7 g10 yak9u 190d9... so on.

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #77 on: May 26, 2004, 07:24:49 PM »
I'm not worried about any plane in particular. I'm annoyed because I'm restricted to furballing or hunting with 5 min of combat unless I take a KC-10 along. I'll take the 5 min if that's what I get, but I'd prefer a bit more.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #78 on: May 26, 2004, 07:53:02 PM »
My only problem with P-51s and other long range aircraft taking 25%+DTs is this:

A Spitfire Mk IX or Bf109G-10 and a P-51D are on climbout.  The Spit/109 has 100% fuel+DT and the P-51D has 25% fuel+DT.  During the climbout they meet an unexpected raid and both aircraft drop tanks.  Now the Spit/109 is at a fully laden 100% internal fuel load and the P-51 is at a light 25% fuel load.  That is a combat advantage that never would have happened as DTs never would have been used without maxing out the internal capacity.

It is fine to offer less than 100% fuel loads and it is mostly fine (except for altitude) to have FBM of 2, but the long range aircraft should suffer their penalties right along side the short ranged fighters.  They should not be able to dump DTs in an unexpected combat situation and find themselves in an extremely light configuration where the short ranged fighters cannot do so.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

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 #79 on: May 26, 2004, 09:38:47 PM »
Karnak, I have a feeling that the 100% to load drop tanks will be added.  It is such a sensible fix for such a gamey problem, there is no way they cannot implement it.  Historically you were supposed to bring the empty drop tank back if you could.  So I doubt they were as disposable as they are in AH.


As far as furballing and hunting, you should really give it a shot.  I found it thrilling and original.  I took a 205 up tonight, climbed to 20k (e6b said 17 minutes of flight when I got to alt), then throttled back to 2100 and man 31.4, just as the e6b suggested.  This gave me 41 - 50 minutes of flight time.  I was able to get myself into a massive furball, get two kills, and then die a terrible terrible death.  All together I was in the air for nearly 45 minutes.  I was wep and full throttle for the last 8-15 minutes.  

I thought it was perfect.  

btw

I had to cross 1.5 sectors to get to the fight.  

I could have upped closer but I wanted to get some alt.  I did climb at wep and mil after 13k.

I think the issue is that 'you' are not learning how to fly the plane, but just gaming the game you knew before.


edit>
I was planning on returning to base by the way.  I think I would have had enough fuel if I had really crept along.  Not sure though, as I was in it really deep for quite a while and did not look at the fuel gauge.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2004, 09:41:10 PM by ergRTC »

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #80 on: May 26, 2004, 10:40:33 PM »
Quote
There's no advantage of less weight.


Yes there is, a Jug at 50% fuel weighs less then one at 100%. Relative weight between the 2 is not in question. Some planes just weigh more regardless of fuel load. That’s not what I said at all. If you follow the context of my reply you see I was responding to Karnak when he said

Quote
If you simply force 100% then all long range aircraft will simply fly around at full MIL power all the time.


My reply to that specific point was that they do this anyway now but with less then 100% internal by carrying drop tanks.

If you take a dt and 50% fuel, as you said,  you get the benefit of longer range(Dt) and once you drop the tank you get the advantage of the reduced weight (50% fuel as opposed to 75 or 100) during combat. With the Dt you can fly at mil power the whole time so you get the advantage of a high speed "cruise".

The typh otoh hand may burn more fuel and have less then 100% when it reaches combat but does so at reduced range and duration (combat time). The only way to gain range is to reduce cruise speed and restrict combat time.

Leaving it at 2 is fine as long as the planes with low fuel capacity can still take off with 100% fuel. If the fuel tanks at the fields stay the target of suicide players then there’s no reason for me to bother flying in the main if the choice is between long flight times from rear bases (effectively limiting combat time but with added boredom of a longer flight; Read GS’s flight profile) or upping for 6 min sorties at a front line field  that has its fuel porked.

I was all for what Pyro talked about in Vulcan’s “engine management thread”. But after actually flying under those restrictions I realized that it effects the planes I fly with reduced combat time, and/or slower cruise speeds and the effects of fuel porking on my choice of rides make the AH2 main less attractive then AH1s.

IL2/FB may use the artificial “fly XX min at XX power setting or your eng will over heat” but there’s no fuel mod. Players fly at reduced power settings to keep their eng cool so that when they enter combat they can fight longer at full power. I had thought that the way fuel management was being modeled in AH2 that it would be a better solution and that players would fly at lower power settings to conserve fuel so that when they enter combat they can fight longer at full power. Well the result is only some planes are effected while others are not. The planes affected are the planes I fly.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2004, 12:35:40 AM by Batz »

Offline eddiek

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1437
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #81 on: May 26, 2004, 11:10:53 PM »
What's it gonna take to make some of you guys happy?
Keep the fuel burn multiplier at 2 for planes with longer range or more fuel capacity than your ride, but make the burn rate 1:1 on your planes?
This has gotten way out of hand, IMO.  The fuel burn rate affects all planes.
Guys who took a light Pony with 25% fuel in the AHI MA find themselves out of fuel twice as fast in the new arena.  So, they have to load up with more fuel to get to the fight, and watch their fuel more closely than they might be used to.  If they fly around at full throttle and don't practice fuel conservation they too run out of fuel.  Just like you do in your 109's, but a Pony driver has the advantage of being in a plane that was renowned for it's long range.
You, by your own choice of planes, limit your sortie times.  You see it as being unfair to your rides, when in actuality, it just amplifies the fact that your planes were short range planes in real life, and sortie times were generally short.  Very short in comparison to the time spent in the air by USAAF fighter pilots on escort duty.
Might I suggest being less flexible in your choice of planes?  If you are too stuck in a "I only like to fly 109's" mode, and refuse to fly anything else, you are pretty much the source of your own aggravation, and you can only blame yourself.

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #82 on: May 26, 2004, 11:24:38 PM »
Quote
Might I suggest being less flexible in your choice of planes?


No you cant suggest anything to me...

I fly what I want, you can do the same...

The p51 maybe renowned for long range then make him fly long range to burn off fuel if he wants to fight at reduced fuel weight.

Setting up the arena just so that planes like the p51 are 90% of the players restricts my choice just as much as my own descision in only flying 109s or the guy that only flies yaks, spits or typhies etc... The difference is its fun to fly 109s...

So save the self rightious bs...
« Last Edit: May 27, 2004, 12:28:38 AM by Batz »

Offline Saintaw

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6692
      • My blog
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #83 on: May 27, 2004, 12:21:59 AM »
AHII = Pee51 only sim ;)
Saw
Dirty, nasty furriner.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #84 on: May 27, 2004, 01:06:52 AM »
eddiek,

I fly a long range aircraft.  The current settings benefit me.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #85 on: May 27, 2004, 01:29:48 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by eddiek
Might I suggest being less flexible in your choice of planes?  If you are too stuck in a "I only like to fly 109's" mode, and refuse to fly anything else, you are pretty much the source of your own aggravation, and you can only blame yourself.


Why should I be forced to play in a p51 ?

This plane got ZERO interrest for me , nor historical neither the way it fly.

Same for almost all long range fighters like the Japanese or the American.

I'm a interrested only in 2nd TAF planes or Russian planes I did already gave up on the Yak in the AH1 main because of fuel issue.

I'm interrested in short ranged interceptor because it's the way I play or played if this game become a long range fighter only sim
Should I stay or should I go ?


You fail to see the difference I explained in a previous post : one of the advantage the typhoon had was her high cruise speed but this high cruise speed is lower than the MIL of the others ...

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #86 on: May 27, 2004, 01:43:49 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by hitech
Straffo, you would be taking away the advantage of long range, that some planes had.

I'll try to find a proposal to not give advantage to one or another kind of plane (note that I'm sure you already tought of it :)) and not to difficult to implement.


 
Quote

As to the less nimble question, if burn multiplier was less, you would just take off with 25 or 50 instead of 75. After tank drop would be even more nimble.

HiTech [/B]

Thanks :)
Btw it's not a problem I think ,knive fight are rare in the arena.

Offline DipStick

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
      • http://www.theblueknights.com
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #87 on: May 27, 2004, 03:21:58 AM »
Think the 1.5 compromise would  be ok and agree with the 100% fuel to get a drop tank. Even with the 1.5 I think the minimum fuel available at a porked field should be 50% (call them underground tanks) ;) My $.02

Offline eddiek

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1437
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #88 on: May 27, 2004, 07:33:00 AM »
Straffo,  no one is forcing anyone to fly anything.  I don't fly Ponies myself.....my ride of choice is the P-47, which is a notorious fuel hog.  The fuel multiplier affects me too.  I have to load out max fuel internally to get to alt and make it over to a fight, then hope I can rtb before my fuel runs out.
Cutting the multiplier back to 1.5 or so would seem to be the difference, giving the short range planes more sortie time.
I also agree with making 100% internal fuel a requirement if you wanna take drop tanks.
My point is that we seem to have folks who are thinking how unfair things are for them, and they fail to realize that they are being confronted with similiar issues as their heroes of WWII faced.  From most accounts of German pilots who went up to confront the USAAF bomber streams, they had fuel to get to alt, get set up, make one, two, maybe three passes, then it was time to rtb and refuel so they could hit the buffs after they were headed home.  They didn't have a lot of loiter time either.

Offline Virage

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1097
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #89 on: May 27, 2004, 07:50:45 AM »
I don't get it.. 109g6 in Ah2 has longer endurance than in AH1.. using the 2.0 setting, without setting for max cruise.  whats the problem?
JG11

Vater