Author Topic: wow, that fuel mod sure has had a drastic effect on the MA (Read 1588 times)

Karnak · « **Reply #30 on:** July 12, 2004, 01:01:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Widewing
I have not flown anything that has greater range than its AH1 version.

Sure you have Widewing. The Mossie in AH1 had less range than the Spitfire Mk IX and in AH2 has more range on internal tanks than any other fighter. That is distinctly more.

IIRC,
AH1 Mossie:
~45 minutes on internal at MIL power.

AH2 Mossie:
~75 minutes on internal at MIL power.

Edbert · « **Reply #31 on:** July 12, 2004, 02:24:21 PM »

If you are still seeing hordes of spits ans La7s, chances are that you are spending your time over an enemy airbase. You see very few of them (but there are some on one-way trips) travelling accross multiple sectors anymore. Of course there are places on the maps where they have enought fuel for a trip to an enemy base, 10-15 minutes of fighting, then RTB. I see a DEFINITE decrease in offensive use of both the Spit and the La.

Replicant · « **Reply #32 on:** July 12, 2004, 02:59:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Edbert MOL
I see a DEFINITE decrease in offensive use of both the Spit and the La.

Very good point! Come to think of it I've seen few offensive La7s in AH2.

Mister Fork · « **Reply #33 on:** July 12, 2004, 03:15:34 PM »

I think you're all forgetting where this fuel modifier will be most prevelant: TOUR OF DUTY.

MA furball dweebs will still use the NIK2's and La-7's for close base defence - that's not going to change.

Killjoy2 · « **Reply #34 on:** July 12, 2004, 04:02:40 PM »

Just saying these planes are the top 4 does not tell the story.

How many LA7's are flown as a percentage of the total?

I suggest that the percentage has dropped on the top 4. I would have to be compared with AH1 percentages too.

Fruda · « **Reply #35 on:** July 12, 2004, 06:36:36 PM »

FYI guys, this fuel model is quite realistic. Spits and 109's were known to have little range, only staying in the air for around 30 minutes.

And with my P-51D and KI-61, I get at least an hour's worth of fuel after I've climbed to about 15,000 feet. This is with drop tanks, though.

And I love not seeing so many LA7's and Spit IX's in the air these days. It's refreshing to see 109's and 190's, along with some 47's. I even see plenty of KI-61's at high altitude.

And, yeah, I like the E6B function. Now when I'm flying over an airfield before a goon arrives, I set my plane's power to cruise, and I get a lot of extra flight time. The cheese seems to be leaving

.

Hyrax81st · « **Reply #36 on:** July 12, 2004, 06:54:14 PM »

<--- Still fly La7 and Spit 5 for short-legs base defense. Fly P51. P38 and Spit IX (with drop tank) for longer legs. It sure would be nice if the 205 had a drop tank.

I love the E6B and use it religiously for maximum "on station" time.

B17Skull12 · « **Reply #37 on:** July 12, 2004, 07:11:24 PM »

lets perk everything except these planes.

RAf
spit1
hurr1
boston

Luftwaffe
109E4
110C4
Ju88
ju87

USAAF
P40B
F4F
A20

Japan
A6m2
B5n2
D3a

that would forsure get rid of all ubber plane:rolleyes:

I support Kweassa's perk agenda!!!!!!!

Overlag · « **Reply #38 on:** July 12, 2004, 07:14:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Widewing
I have not flown anything that has greater range than its AH1 version.

My regards,

Widewing

mossie and typh have increased range so im told

all planes have increased range at high alt im pritty sure of. Since the flight/fuel model takes into account of alt now.

Kev367th · « **Reply #39 on:** July 13, 2004, 12:46:16 PM »

Actully Typh with its either ord or drop tank option but not both is a real pain now especially as it has mysteriously lost a tank somewhere .

Only one prob with your comment FT_Animal, where in the war did planes suffer from 2x fuel burns? Remember HT is not trying to model "real life" or you wouldn't see hoards of Me163's upping to defend the HQ.

I still have no idea what the perk price is based on, numbers produced or when it was available. Because either way you take it, it still leaves some glaringly omitted perk candidates.
If its date introduced then all late war planes should be perked, but this will never happen. HT can't afford to perk things like P51s even moderately without a lot of whining. Same goes for the Spit 9.
If its by numbers made then I'm sure the LA7 falls into the same problem area as the P51.

Bottom line it's a game, governed by the whims of the powers that be.

Ohio330 · « **Reply #40 on:** July 13, 2004, 01:30:56 PM »

heh, It'll be awhile before I worry bout fuel burn.. i don't last long
enough to blow 25% fuel

Ohio330 · « **Reply #41 on:** July 13, 2004, 01:31:14 PM »

heh, It'll be awhile before I worry bout fuel burn.. i don't last long
enough to blow 25% fuel

Karnak · « **Reply #42 on:** July 13, 2004, 02:53:11 PM »

Kev367th,

The perk system is based on an aircraft's potency in the MA and it's usage in the MA. It seems, based on the Ta152H-1, that cases of extreme historical rarity can also be a reason to perk an aircraft.

Rare, but less potent aircraft, such as the C.205 (260 built) and N1K2-J (410 built) are left unperked.

Using introduction dates as a basis of perking units ends up with nonsensical things like free Spitfire Mk IXs (July, 1942) and perked A6M5bs (March, 1944).

g00b · « **Reply #43 on:** July 13, 2004, 05:35:45 PM »

I used to fly the LA7 almost exclusively for CAP. I now only take it for base defence or CAP only to one sector away. Even then I have to be in the thick of it to use all my ammo before my gas runs out. I now fly the F4U-C and D for longer range CAP. The F4U's have really been given teeth with the new FM.

I definately see less LAs ranging far from base.

g00b

Polaris · « **Reply #44 on:** July 13, 2004, 06:34:02 PM »

I fly the Yak-9 for base defense almost exclusively now. If I feel the need to spray and pray, I'll grab an FM-2.