Reduced Ranges

[bozon]

I think pilots, when being shot at, were much more worried over the pilot lifetime than the engine's. They'd exceed the limits.

In the fuel case, they simply can't exceed the limit, therefore had to conserve. The example I think of was a P47 pilot (Gabi?) that was chased by a 109 on his way home. He could go full throttle and outrun it but then, due to fuel condition, would not make it across the channel. He decided to tangle with the 109, allowing it to take snapshots to run it out of ammo...

Players running at full throttle complaining their sorties are too short remind me of teenagers having sex.


Bozon

[justin_g]

[Bruno]

Players running at full throttle complaining their sorties are too short remind me of teenagers having sex.

Maybe so but that's what Jugs do in AH now. They take less then 100% fuel, a DT and then fly about all over at 100% power and all but unlimited emergency power (limited only by the cool down period). They use the DT to drop 'weight' with the click of a button and only have to worry about the 20-25 miles they need to get back to their lines. They would do that whether the FBM is at x1 or x2.5. For Amis their entry into the WETO until late '44 fuel management was much more a concern for them rather then the say the LW operating over the Reich. That certainly isn't re-created with a high FBM.

So while thanks for taking the time to post all that it's really of no relevance since a high FBM doesn't achieve anything close to ensuring all players run at reduced power, only some.

[bozon]

Bruno, have you flown a P47 for A2A lately?
In the D11, 75% internal flies less than a Yak9U. The DT lasts 8 min - at a climb rate of a little over 2kfpm how high will that get you? just about the climbout.

The D40/25 have larger fuel capacity, but still 50%+DT flies as long as a yak (and much heavier than a yak fuel load). 75% will add 10 min (NICE!) but also add over 700 lbs (about 3 250 lbs GP bombs hiding inside the plane...BOO!).

So yes you can be dumb, take 75% internal and go full throttle to you heart content, or 50% and last no better than a heavy yak. You can also choose to cripple yourself and not fold the gears.

since a high FBM doesn't achieve anything close to ensuring all players run at reduced power, only some.

It can't ENSURE all players run at reduced power, but it does ensure that all those that DO will benefit relavite to those that don't. Put FBM=1 and My Jug will hardly ever need more than 50% - meaning, I'm combat light right from takeoff. Most of my fighting will be when I'm 25%. No DT needed and I can go full throttle all the time. P51s will never need more than 25% in MA conditions, DT or no DT.

Actually, not a single plane will need to load 100% fuel unless it plans a 40+ min mission and all just need an on/off button as their throttle.
This sounds better?

Bozon

[Tilt]

Heat sources are the  effects of combustion and friction............

wear would incurr more heat thru friction (eventually)

Heat is removed by air flow around the primary heat exchanger (fins or radiator). wear is agrivated at higher temperatures.

So you can look at rate of engine wear as a function of running temperature, the heat it creates and the ability of the system to dissipate it.

If we took rpm and MP rates (wear/heat inducers) and off set them with IAS (cooling) and set the balance such that temp rose  with high levels of heat inducers and cooled with low levels of heat inducers. WE have pretty much what the temperature guage does now.

If we then assumed that rate of wear increased with temperature also then we can make a model to show engine degredation over time as a function of its running temperature because that is a function of rpm, MP and cooling.

From Kevs spit we would be talking about very long periods (possibly) but that does not mean that wear did not exist. It just means that it rarely (if ever) impinged upon the Spits availability of WEP. (Could a Spit be run at WEP for an hour? or given the fuel 2 hours? eventually there is a limit.)

A Lavochkin pilot was consantly worried about his cylinder head temperature guage...............Yak 9T was fairly robust but the Yal 9U was temperature critical.

Should the engine fail......well I guess not ................so lets only look at wear at the piston rings and valve seats.............assuming they are never going to break.

Whats going to happen as they wear? loss of power? burn some oil? increased rate of temprature rise?

The rate of wear against the rpm/MP/IAS and temp would vary from ac to ac........acording to many experts here it would hardly effect some.


So picture the Auto temp control (similar to combat trim control) the max rpm and MP is regulated to keep the temperature always near the bottom of the amber temp band. Or near the bottom of the red temperature band when WEP is chosen but WEP duration limited within the flight book reccommendations.

However you can turn Auto temp control off. (Just as you can Combat trim)

You can push the envelope by taking control of temperature.........there is no limit to how long you can run at WEP rpm............... but keep that engine at full power running hot for too long and a thin grey blue stream of smoke may begin to be evident from your exhaust stacks.............. as your rate of oil burn increases you may begin to lose some of your peak power availability........ eventually the engine may even develop a knock!

Engine robustness should be appropriately modelled.............

You can switch back to auto temp control to stop it getting worse or you may be able to manage it your self..............

But your foes will see the blue/grey  smoke.....they will know you may suffer a power limitation.........you may be vulnerable.

Also if you engine took batle damagel its life expectancy may be radically reduced below normal damaged engine life expectancy.

You would be motivated to fly with care and at appropriate rpm and MP or by choosing auto.
 
In or near combat you will often switch auto off having more regard for your immediate safety than the future effects of engine condition.

[Pooface]

Originally posted by Harry
The maps are not compressed in altitude or time. Climbing to combat alt or loitering is all but impossible in some aircraft.

harry, in all our maps, the bases are close to each other, to make it more fun to play, without having to fly hours to an enemy base

because the bases are so close, they make fuel burn faster, so that planes that had a poor range in real life also have a poor range in here, otherwise, things like la7's which had a short range in RL (at max power of course), would find it easy to fly about and find kills, being able to fly many sectors. making fuel burn faster means that long range planes can keep their edge that they had in real life.

and its not 'an american conspiracy', because american planes all had fairly long ranges so they could fly over the vast pacific ocean.

[HoHun]

Hi Bozon,

>Players running at full throttle complaining their sorties are too short remind me of teenagers having sex.

Here is a mission profile that has been posted earlier, though you you appear to have missed its significance:

Real Spitfire F. XIV, based on the Pilot's Notes for the type:

At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 25000 ft: -26 gals
Cruise out: -15.5 gals
5 min combat power: -15 gals
10 min climb power: -22 gals
Climb from 10000 ft to 20000 ft: -6 gals
Cruise back: -15.5 gals
10% reserve: -11 gals

The 15.5 gals for cruise each way yield a combat radius of 73 miles.

Now just have a look at exactly the same mission profile flown at a hypothetical FBM of 2.5:

At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 25000 ft: -65 gals
Cruise out: forget it
5 min combat power: -37.5 gals
10 min climb power: -55 gals
Climb from 10000 ft to 20000 ft: -15 gals
Cruise back: forget it
Equivalent reserve: -27.5 gals

Those parts of the flight that cannot realistically be flown under anything but climb or combat power already use up 200 gallons of the 111 gallons carried.

You are 89 gallons short of being able to include any cruise at all in this mission profile. At what throttle setting you would have liked to cruise does not matter at all because there won't be any cruise with this mission profile.

All the Spitfire can do is to climb to 25000 ft, fight for 5 min at combat power, another 2 min at climb power, and then it has to glide home. Engine management can do nothing to change that as it takes more fuel, not less, to climb to the same altitude at a lower power setting.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[straffo]

Originally posted by Pooface
harry, in all our maps, the bases are close to each other, to make it more fun to play, without having to fly hours to an enemy base

because the bases are so close, they make fuel burn faster, so that planes that had a poor range in real life also have a poor range in here, otherwise, things like la7's which had a short range in RL (at max power of course), would find it easy to fly about and find kills, being able to fly many sectors. making fuel burn faster means that long range planes can keep their edge that they had in real life.

and its not 'an american conspiracy', because american planes all had fairly long ranges so they could fly over the vast pacific ocean.

Your not affraid by contradiction I see.

long range planes can keep their edge  that they had in real life.

There was a FBM in real life ?

[Bruno]

Bruno, have you flown a P47 for A2A lately?
In the D11, 75% internal flies less than a Yak9U. The DT lasts 8 min - at a climb rate of a little over 2kfpm how high will that get you? just about the climb out.

Who cares about the D-11? No ones flies the D-11 in AH any more. Check the past few tours, here's tour 71:

43 - P-47D-11 - 1445 - 1106 - 0.36 - 1.31

With the FBM at 1.5 it used to get more use, or maybe the players that preferred the D-11 just don't fly any more.

43 in kill % is just slightly better then the Ta-152 and 190F-8. The Jug people fly in Ah is the N and with its large internal fuel load and it's ability to take up to 3 DTs (1 x 75 2 x 150 gal) fuel management is never a concern.

As for your 2kfpm in the D-11 with a DT you must be using default speed in auto climb because I can get considerably better then that. Should I film it?

I don't fly Ami planes. I don't care for them but don't build an argument over an aircraft almost nobody flies. Maybe if the FBM was lower some folks might..?

So yes you can be dumb, take 75% internal and go full throttle to you heart content, or 50% and last no better than a heavy yak. You can also choose to cripple yourself and not fold the gears.

There's is no such thing as a 'heavy Yak' At 50% fuel a Yak has no noticeable (well marginally) 'weight loss' in terms of combat and maneuverability then one at 100%. Any idea you have about those lightened Yaks tearing up the sky is ridiculous. A Yak is just as combat worthy at 50% as it is at 100%.

It can't ENSURE all players run at reduced power, but it does ensure that all those that DO will benefit relative to those that don't. Put FBM=1 and My Jug will hardly ever need more than 50% - meaning, I'm combat light right from takeoff.

So what, they are doing that now. What's the difference in whether you take 75% at x2 in your D-11, or 50% at x1, by the time the fight closes you have burnt off that 25%. Or have dumped the DT. All the FBM does is limit total flight time. Who cares about take-off weight. Since almost no one flies the D-11 I bet even fewer use it for base defense.

Actually, not a single plane will need to load 100% fuel unless it plans a 40+ min mission and all just need an on/off button as their throttle.
This sounds better?

Yes, given the one-sidedness of the FBM now. I notice its mostly folks who fly Ami planes that love the FBM at x2. Where were you all when its was x1.5? I mean if things would be so obviously terrible with a lower FBM you think some one would have said something all those years ago when the FBM was lower and the maps much smaller.

For the record I only fly LW planes (in game nik is Wotan), I have DTs available and my range is reasonable with them, fuel management or not. In the end it would make very little difference to me what the FBM is in terms of how or what I fly. However, limiting some planes to 'fuel management' and / or 'unrealistic' flight times and mission profiles is no good for game play overall, unless of course you fly Ami. After all a lower FBM just means Ami pilots will be forced to 'tow a battleship behind them' and we all know how 'unfair that is'.

[Karnak]

The effect of the FBM for me:

Spits: Conserve fuel when possible by using cruise settings.  Usually this means a slow flight home that I will not make if any pursuit is given.  Using cruise settings on the flight out isn't worth it as encountering an enemy using full MIL when I am cruising at 260mph is a Very Bad Thing(tm).

Bf109s: See Spits.

Fw190s:  See Spits.

Ki-84: Take less fuel for better combat performance and use MIL and WEP power as desired.

Mossie: See Ki-84, also note that cruise settings never need to be used on this flying gas tank.

[bozon]

Who cares about the D-11? No ones flies the D-11 in AH any more.

How many Yaks do you see? I only gave the D11 example because that's the one I know. The P47N is a fuel load trap. People see 50% and think they are light on fuel and feel happy, but carry about 275 gallons (way over 2000 lbs) of fuel - P51 at 100% is 269 gallons btw. In the N, performance really kicks in when you are down to 25%, which is the typical 100% fuel load of most LW, VVS fighters. Lower FBM will actually make it easier on the jugs, but that's not what I'm asking for.

There's is no such thing as a 'heavy Yak' ...

You missunderstood me here. Yaks can't be fuel heavy, it's an oxymoron. What I meant was you fly a plane with a yak range but a whole lot of fuel more, like a yak with 165% fuel load.

Where were you all when its was x1.5?

I said above I don't know if x2 is the golden number, but having FBM > 1 does have merit. In AH1 my common P47 loadout was 50% and P51 I took often with 25%. DT were meaningless (and often porked anyway).

HoHun,
I didn't check the numbers but I do fly the Spit 14. That's the only spit I fly, the Only perk ride I fly and pretty much the only non-Jug fighter I take for A2A. I always take 100%+DT and never feel short legged. Even if I take it 2 sectors away. The plane climbs and cruises so fast there's simply no point in flying full throttle.

So while I didn't test the numbers I KNOW there is no problem with it. It's the Spit XVI that has a smaller fuel load and is slower, that feels short legged.

Bozon

[Bruno]

How many Yaks do you see? I only gave the D11 example because that's the one I know

Many more then the D-11:

24 - Yak-9U - 5014 - 5241- 1.24 - 0.96

1.24% of total kills in tour 71 compared to .36% for the D-11. This is consistent through several tours. I can post that info if you like.

Lower FBM will actually make it easier on the jugs, but that's not what I'm asking for.

Nothing gets 'easier' you just get more time in the air with a lower FBM. A D-11 taking 75% at x2 vs a D-11 taking 50% at x1 means that once combat begins the D-11 will just as light regardless of the FBM. All that happens is the D-11, like the Yak, gets less time in the air or in 'combat' with the higher FBM. In fact a higher FBM means the D-11 burns fuel faster and gets 'lighter' quicker.

Fuel weight in Ami planes is on no concern to me. As Squire said the players are 'stupid'. If the FBM were lower they would just take less fuel or no DT. AT the very least they have the option to take-off at a deeper airfield and tool about the map burning off the fuel weight. No one forces a P-47 or P-51 pilot to fight at 100% fuel, the choice is left to the player.

What I meant was you fly a plane with a yak range but a whole lot of fuel more, like a yak with 165% fuel load.

Range isn't an issue, it's time in the air or 'combat time' as it relates to time in the air while on ingress/egress. A Jug, any of them, can use their DT option to to make fuel consumption on ingress irrelevant. Since the most prolific Jug that you see in AH is the N an FBM of x2 means nothing for it.

Changing the FBM to something lower then x2 doesn't mean the Yak gets 165% fuel, or some unrealistic or game 'unbalancing' range, it just brings the Yaks time in the air closer to what it was in real life. The Yak, like many other aircraft in AH weren't necessarily 'short range' point defense fighters. They flew a whole host of mission profiles even escorting VVS bombers in rotation just like western escort tactics. The only difference between it and the P-51 in this regard is that the Yak didn't have to fly from England across NW Europe to reach Germany. Long range was a necessity, not necessarily a 'design' advantage of Ami planes. In AH it's a clear advantage because it allows players to overcome the high FBM and the 'necessity' to 'manage fuel' (run at max power as long as you want). In fact if anything 'fuel' and 'engine management' was a much higher concern for those long range escort Ami sorties as any other. The chances of reaching friendly lines if engine or fuel trouble is encountered was much lower.

The idea that 'some fuel management' is better then none just doesn't make much sense in terms of game play.

Since this is now one of those never ending circular arguments there's no reason to say much else. Unless of course you have some new insight that shows me how a high FBM is any more 'real' then any other setting. If you do please post it. However, as HoHun said above I think that for quite a few it doesn't really matter what the FBM is.

In fact, I suspect that for some people the fuel multiplier realism argument just serves to justify an emotional decision long after it has been made.

[Harry]

Originally posted by Pooface
harry, in all our maps, the bases are close to each other, to make it more fun to play, without having to fly hours to an enemy base

because the bases are so close, they make fuel burn faster, so that planes that had a poor range in real life also have a poor range in here, otherwise, things like la7's which had a short range in RL (at max power of course), would find it easy to fly about and find kills, being able to fly many sectors. making fuel burn faster means that long range planes can keep their edge that they had in real life.

and its not 'an american conspiracy', because american planes all had fairly long ranges so they could fly over the vast pacific ocean.

Here's the thing Pooface: American planes did NOT have a fuel range "edge" in real life. In real life American planes HAD to fly long distances to- and from the battlefield. If AH is to simulate "realistic" WWII combat conditions without using realistic ranges and flight time, it would require American planes to remove a big portion of their fuel capacities (but not the weight thereof) to simulate the fuel spent cruising to- and from the battlefield.


Edit: This would of course apply to ALL long-range fighters, not only American ones.

[bozon]

Since this is now one of those never ending circular arguments there's no reason to say much else. Unless of course you have some new insight that shows me how a high FBM is any more 'real' then any other setting. If you do please post it.

Your arguments also support FBM=0 since for a 20-30 min sortie in planes that could fly several hours, the fuel needed will be insignificant anyway.

I see I can't convice you about this and definitly not some of the others who actually think this is a conspiracy. Since I already have it my way, I'll leave it at that.

Bozon

[F4UDOA]

Harry,

You said

American planes did NOT have a fuel range "edge" in real life. In real life American planes HAD to fly long distances to- and from the battlefield. If AH is to simulate "realistic" WWII combat conditions without using realistic ranges and flight time, it would require American planes to remove a big portion of their fuel capacities (but not the weight thereof) to simulate the fuel spent cruising to- and from the battlefield.

Could you expand on this please?

1. American planes did not have a fuel range "edge" in real life.

How many European fighters could fly 1000miles on internal fuel?

2. If AH is to simulate "realistic" WWII combat conditions without using realistic ranges and flight time, it would require American planes to remove a big portion of their fuel capacities (but not the weight thereof) to simulate the fuel spent cruising to- and from the battlefield.

How do you burn fuel without losing weight?