Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?

[straffo]

Ok Eddie I perhaps misunderstood.
Sorry I've not the time to make a long post.

Virage try some other plane like a slow climber fuel hog (aka typhoon)

[ergRTC]

I really dont see this as a problem.


How bout we give it a shot, then if there is a problem, htc fixes it.


personally i think the 100% only for drop tank, fixes all of this.  If in fact there is a problem.

[Walker42]

I agree with having the X2 multiplier to fuel burn,  however I also agree with what a few others have said about damaged Fuel stores ahistorically hampering shorter ranged fighters.


When a field is restricted to 50% fuel loads,  

A P-38 for example can load up on 200+ gallons of fuel in this condition, but a Bf109 is restricted to 50 gallons??    That doesn't seem right to me.

I think it would really balance this out if, instead of the fuel stores limiting % of fuel load.  They instead limited gallons available per aircraft.     Translating to % for the GUI of course.

This way if a field is really damaged down to 100 gallons per aircraft.     P-38's could only get 25% load,   but 109's would still be loading close to 100%.

This would compliment the multiplier well I think, and be the best of both worlds.    Sure the long range fighters can stay up longer if they can carry 100% fuel,  but at front line airfields where damage runs high.  They'll be really at near the same limits as short range aircraft.

[Edbert]

Originally posted by GScholz
Great idea!
25% - 50% - 75% - 100% - 100% +DT
Or simply make the DTs unavailable unless 100% is selected.

Thats my vote!

[bozon]

Point interceptors are harshly punished by the burn multiplier because the arena is not "compressed" in the vertical. In real life the P-51 could cruise for ages, true, but the point interceptors like the 109 and Spitfire had plenty of fuel to do their job, namely climb, find the enemy and fight. Now I'm limited to about 5 min combat time. There is no realism in this.

point interceptor are point interceptors. they climb and patrol (in cruise settings) and engage the enemy near their own teritory. you have enough fuel for that.

taking 100% fuel while others take 50% is NOT a disadvantage. as I stated before, 100% of a 109 fuel tank is less than 50% of a p47 fuel tank in gallons. People should not be afraid to load up their planes and take DT. the 109 will never be good for long range raids - it's an interceptor, same goes for the La7 and partially to spitfires. that was true historically (109's short legs in BoB, spitfires short legs in 1943).

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 ...

Yes, and one of the disadvantages of the typhoon was it's short range. You can still cruise in full throttle, but there's a price to pay. loading up 100% fuel in the typhi is not such a big problem since it's only 185 gallons, and you can take DT for the climbout. Just don't expect to fly 2.5 sectors at full throttle fight for 20 min and come back. It's not the planes purpose - and it can't load 8000 pound of bombs either.

Bozon

[bozon]

btw, this also means that defenders will have the weight advantage since attackers will have to keep a lot of fuel for the trip back, especially if it's a long range raid.

the "fly under dar 4 sectors and steal a base" missions are going to be hard, or one way only.

Bozon

[eddiek]

My own opinion, not that it matters much, is that the "problem" is just a matter of perception.
Plane A is a short range interceptor, with low internal fuel capacity.
Plane B is a long range escort fighter, with a large internal fuel capacity.
Seems to me that the 2:1 burn rate would possible be advantageous to the interceptor pilot as he would be much lighter sooner than the heavier escort fighter.  
Plane A takes off from base A1 and flies north to Point X.
Plane B takes off from base A22 and flies northeast to Point X.
Both planes take off with 100% internal fuel and one drop tank.
At Point X, Plane A has burned his DT and is on internal fuel, and is at 22K alt, with say 75% fuel remaining.
Meanwhile, Plane B arrives at Point X at 15K alt, he has dropped his DT also, but he is still at nearly 100% internal fuel.
Who has the advantage when they meet?
IMHO, it is Plane A.......he has an alt advantage, he is lighter, and he can translate his alt advantage into speed.
Let's go further.......
Plane A attacks Plane B, makes an unsuccessful pass, and the two begin dogfighting.  Let's say the pilots are of equal skill, and neither can really gain an advantage and finish the fight.
Soon, the advantage might swing toward Plane B.  He is getting lighter the longer he flies, yet he has a large enough fuel reserve to stay airborne longer than Plane A, who is getting close to the point of having to rtb or risk running out of fuel.  He also is lighter and more nimble, but fuel is now a critical issue for him.
To me, there is nothing unfair about any of it.
I choose to fly a Jug, which climbs slow, is not as nimble as other fighters, doesn't have spectacular range, etc....but my choice to fly it MINE alone, and I have to accept the drawbacks of the plane.  I stress the point that it is MY choice, I am not forced to fly that plane.  I accept the fact that if I want to get to the Jug's "sweet" alt, I will have to take max fuel and start out one or two sectors away from the fight.  Again, my choice of plane means I have to accept this.
That was what I meant with my remark about being more flexible in choosing your rides.  You only wanna fly a particular plane, fine, your choice, but you need to accept that plane's weaknesses along with it's strengths.  If it was range limited, accept that and stop trying to get HTC to cater to you because you perceive things as being unfair to you.  I don't come here crying to HTC because the Jug doesn't climb like a 109 (even though I would love to see an M model, which I believe could give a 109 driver fits....lol  ) or turn like a Spit or Zeke.  I adapt to what my favorite ride can and cannot do and go on.

[Virage]

Originally posted by straffo

Virage try some other plane like a slow climber fuel hog (aka typhoon)

straffo, my remark was for those complaining about the 109.  However I did check out the tiffy as you suggested:

Mil power

AH1 : 100% = 27 min
           +DT   = 40 min

AH2 :  100% = 24 min
             +DT  = 35 min
             *(on deck times)



Not much of a difference,  which would average out with alt.

[Edbert]

I think part of the percieved problem here is just as Bozon said...point interceptors being used to prowl enemy territory. That is not the role the aircraft designers had in mind when they mated a high performance engine to a light weight airframe and installed smallish fuel tanks.

If you are a 109 fan, immerse yourself into the historical role of that aircraft (at least the latter models), don't blame HTC for this, blame Willy Messerschmidt.

If you are a Typhie driver, go in low and fast, hit your target and get out hoping the point interceptors don't see you down there (icons range could be lowerd if below 1,000 feet if you ask me). Don't climb to 20K looking for a dogfight, that is not what the plane was for.

I don't see a huge issue here but would also throw my vote to the 1.5 modifier, at least on the long-commute maps.

[eddiek]

You said what I wanted to without getting all long winded like I tend to do.
I fly just about all the planes in the AH stable, but I do gravitate towards the Jugs.  I am flexible enough to fly the plane that suits what I want to do on a particular sortie, and that sometimes means getting into a 109 and grabbing alt in a hurry, even though I have no affection for that ride beyond it's sterling climb rate.
Other's mileage may vary, depending on how fanatical they are about their favorite planes.

[Batz]

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.

No one is talking about the historical context of escorts vs. short ranged interceptors. These issues are dealt with in events and scenarios.

 We talking about what the artificial fuel burn rate should be in the non-historical context like the main arena and its impact on fun.

2 versions of your preferred plane, the jug, in AH carry 3 drop tanks. An aircraft like a Yak 9u at 100% internal and with the fuel mod at 2 only gets 28 min of flight time at mil power. At 1 it gets 55 min.

With the fuel mod at 2 the D30 with 3 dts and just 25% fuel gets 24 min. No one cares why or how jugs historically could carry more fuel. No one said take fuel away from the jug or give the yak more.

The point of this thread was about what the fuel mod should be.  At 1 or 2 the impact on planes like the p51s and jugs is less then the impact on planes like the 9u. Especially if you consider fuel porking.

No one said give the yak and the 109s more fuel then they had in reality or the jug less, we are just talking about how to balance the fuel mod so that those folks who prefer to fly yaks and 109s can do so.

Virage,

What are talking about?

No one said that the fuel mod set at 2 in AH2 is worse then if the fuel mod is set at 2 in AH1.

We are talking about what the fuel mod should be. I think it should stay at 1.5.

In addition I like the idea of requiring 100% internal fuel to add DTS.

Ideally I think all planes should be required to take off with 100% fuel but we know HT won’t do that.

[Zanth]

It's fundamentally shakey ground whenever you stray from the path of realism in the flight model.  Aircraft losing weight at 2x the actual rate changes things.  Having higher initial takeoff wieght changes things.  Aircraft fighting with DT's on changes things.

I feel realism is best and messed around with is always less.  

(Put to an in arena vote 1:1 would win with 90% of the vote or more.)

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Batz

No one said that the fuel mod set at 2 in AH2 is worse then if the fuel mod is set at 2 in AH1.

 

Actually in AH1 the fuel model for the lavochkins (for one) is porked.......it gives them unrealistically longer  endurance. Hence higher fuel burn rates in AH1 do not penalise these particular short legged AC as they should.

HTC has just gone to a lot of trouble to get the Fuel consumption model much better than it was..........

Now the higher FBM's will penalise such models in terms of access to combat.............  so in this respect FBM of 2 in AH2 is worse than FBM of 2 in AH1.

What surprises me is that this does not seem to follow the usual HTC ethos..........

It is unusual for HTC to modify AH game play (away from reality) to force a  negative consequence........... but this does.

It is usual for HTC when modifying game play (away from reality) to permit ease of play.

It is also usual for HTC when modifying game play away from reality to give optional access to the reality with an attached benefit.

I have not seen anything to change my reasoning posted previously above.

Re drop tanks

I would agree that drop tanks would logically only be available when 100% fuel was selected

On fuel attrition.

When a field is porked down to 25% fuel an La5fn can only take up just over 31 gal of fuel yet a P47D can take up over 92 gals of fuel.

Perhaps if HTC are determined to penalise the short legged ac HTC should also consider the gas guzzlers as well????????

An attrition model based on actual gals available per AC would be far more equitable........... to a fuel conservation model.........than one based upon a % of each AC's max internal capacity.

[Virage]

Originally posted by Batz
Virage,

What are talking about?

No one said that the fuel mod set at 2 in AH2 is worse then if the fuel mod is set at 2 in AH1.
 

I am saying that the fuel mod in AH2 set at 2 is better ( longer duration)  than the fuel mod in AH1 set at 1.5 for the 109g6.

AH1 @ 100% = 25 min @ 1.5

AH2 @ 100% = 30 min @ 2.0 ( on deck)

I don't know what you are complaining about.

[bozon]

just checked a few numbers:

in fuel burb rate of 2, tested the duration and GPH of several planes, both in full throttle and at the "normal" setting for fast cruise:

The short legged:

La7 - 340 GPH, 21 min (only internal).
normal - 232 GPH ~ 45% increased duration, range ~ 150 miles (6 sectors trip).

yak9U - 300 GPH, 28 min (internal only).
normal - 250 GPH ~ 20% increase. range ~ 150miles.

109G2 - 212GPH, 52 min (including DT).
normal - 177GPH ~ 20% increase.
* the G10 doesn't have the new fuel model yet.

Typhoon - 456 GPH, 36min (with DT)
normal - 365GPH ~25% increase.

longer legged ones:

spit IX - 252GPH, 43 min (with DT).
normal - 193GPH ~30% increase ~range 240 miles (about 9 sectors trip)

P51D - 300GPH, 50 min (internal, DT available)
normal - 179GPH ~65% increase(!)

the true flying tankers:

P38L - 668(!)GPH, 36min (internal only, DT available).
normal - 418 GPH ~60% increase (!)

p47D30 - 550(!) GPH, 40 min (internal, DT available).
normal - 415GPH ~32% increase.

mosquito - 456GPH, 71 min (internal only, DT available)
normal - 327GPH ~40% increase which gives amazing 97min(!)

conclusions:
* the "point intercaptors" (as la7 yak 109) have the range to fly and fight up to 2 sectors at most, with little time to stay. They will have to manage the throttle during the flight ib and back.

* the P51 and p38 can considerably increase their flight time by managing throttle in transition.

* the p47 and p38 eat away at the fuel at an alarming rate! the range is achived by loading up an insane amount of fuel. they are always "fuel heavy" if they keep enough (alot) for the trip back.

* the mossie is the new range king on internal fuel.

* since some designers never bothered to leave some room for fuel in their planes, to make them playable in AH, we do have to go easy on the fuel burn rate. So in order to enable the to participate in a 2 sector radius fights I think the modifier SHOULD be slightly less than 2, but over 1.5 to represent the limitations.
how does 1.75 sound?

Bozon