1.0 fuel burn in main arena

[Anaxogoras]

We did a fun Luftwaffe bombing raid tonight, Ju-88s escorted by 190s and a couple 152s.  Even with 100% fuel and a drop tank, I was nearly out of gas by the time we reached the 2nd target about 3+ sectors from our starting airfield.  Granted, a lot of that burn was from running WEP defending our bombers from attacking fighters, but it would be nice to have the actual, historic range of our 190s and 109s to make these raids practical (the enemy enjoys them too!)

[macerxgp]

Second. The fighter cover of the MoM missions often has to turn back (even the ponies!) due to fuel.

[Krusty]

Having the actual historic range would imply your missions ran the actual historic ranges. Most airfields are 1 sector apart. Sectors are only 25 miles square.

You want historic fuel, make it so you have to fly 2 hours before seeing the enemy. Oh, wait, people won't pay to do that in an MMO flight sim.

If you're interested in historic ranges try historic throttle settings (read: not FFS).

I regularly take 100% and DTs in 190s of all types, and I usually can fly around (assuming I'm not killed early on!) for 40-mins and more on internal fuel only, including multiple engagements that require WEP. This is in the MAs with 2x fuel burn.

If your mission ran 2-3 hours long, it's your own fault for not getting to the point faster. If you ran out of gas in under 30 minutes with 100%+DT you didn't take full fuel in any 190 variant. Even if you ran full WEP as much as you could as long as you could, the 190s with DTs will still give you over half an hour of full throttle. This increases GREATLY by easing back off the throttles by the smallest margins.

[BnZs]

Anax, the 2x fuel burn in the MA is the only thing which makes the historically critical attribute of an airplane's range relevant to the MA. Without the fuel-burn, most planes would fly far longer than anybody wants for a single sortie, long-ranged planes would not be used, or would be flown with insanely light fuel loads. Without it, the over-use of what are supposed to be short-range point interceptors would get crazy. You'd have Spixteens and Lalas and the like roaming all over the map at full throttle and climbing to 20K if they wanted, instead of more or less being used for base defense and the like. The only counter would be to greatly extend distances between bases, which would be too unpopular to be implemented.

[mipoikel]

Having the actual historic range would imply your missions ran the actual historic ranges. Most airfields are 1 sector apart. Sectors are only 25 miles square.

You want historic fuel, make it so you have to fly 2 hours before seeing the enemy. Oh, wait, people won't pay to do that in an MMO flight sim.

If you're interested in historic ranges try historic throttle settings (read: not FFS).

I regularly take 100% and DTs in 190s of all types, and I usually can fly around (assuming I'm not killed early on!) for 40-mins and more on internal fuel only, including multiple engagements that require WEP. This is in the MAs with 2x fuel burn.

If your mission ran 2-3 hours long, it's your own fault for not getting to the point faster. If you ran out of gas in under 30 minutes with 100%+DT you didn't take full fuel in any 190 variant. Even if you ran full WEP as much as you could as long as you could, the 190s with DTs will still give you over half an hour of full throttle. This increases GREATLY by easing back off the throttles by the smallest margins.

Amazing but this time i agree krusty. 

[Squire]

I know the Yak flyers would like to see 1.0

[SmokinLoon]

No way.  There are already too many pilots that up fighters with %50 fuel and bombers that up with %25 of fuel.

If anything... I'd vouch for a 2.5 burn rate.  Or... inhibit the ability to take less than %75 fuel for aircraft and I might consider supporting the 1.0 burn rate for the MA.  Otherwise, no way.  You really think someone's going to take %100 fuel in a Spitfire if it last 55 minutes?  Drop tanks will be used even less.  The longest ranged fighter currently in the AH2 MA is the P47N, iirc.   

Aircraft in WWII did not take off for combat operatons without %100 in their tanks and a DT if able.  Stop gaming the game.   

[moot]

Variable base distances could allow it. You'd have player density biased to the closest bases; could be a way to get some novel map dynamics.

[Delirium]

Amazing but this time i agree krusty. 

I was thinking the same thing. 

Fuel burn imho should be slightly higher than it is now and they should only allow DTs on an aircraft if you are already carrying 100% internal.

[waystin2]

I was thinking the same thing. 

Fuel burn imho should be slightly higher than it is now and they should only allow DTs on an aircraft if you are already carrying 100% internal.

I do not necessarily agree with a fuel burn change, but the drop tank idea is a good one Delirium.  Drop tanks were used to extend range, not to give you gas to get to a fight and then go super light to improve aircraft performance.

[moot]

As if they wouldn't have done it if they had the opportunity?

[BaldEagl]

I used to think I wanted the fuel burn back at 1 like it was early on but then there'd be no use for drop tanks in the arenas and porking fuel would mean even less than it does now which is almost nothing.  Leave it alone.

[Rebel]

I do not necessarily agree with a fuel burn change, but the drop tank idea is a good one Delirium.  Drop tanks were used to extend range, not to give you gas to get to a fight and then go super light to improve aircraft performance.

yeah, they were worried about silly things like returning to base 

In the arena as it is, I'd support a reduction in the burn- maybe not to 1.0, but there's bound to be some middle ground that allows 109's to actually escort bombers for more then 3 measley sectors. 

 

[Pannono]

We will need to deal with La7s, 109s, Spits that much longer, and we'll see them further away from their bases
I say no

[Delirium]

I posted a new topic in regards to drop tanks, rather than hijack this one anymore than I have already.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,253551.0.html