Normal fuel burn rate in the main arenas please.

[bustr]

Bustr you are both insulting people and show your complete lack of intelligence in on sentence .

And btw this discussion doesn't matter anyway as I'll delete my AH account for several reasons ,FBM being one but not the only.

Naw Im just too old to enjoy the art of people hideing what they really want behind supercilious rhetoric. It could lead one to wonder if this post is another troll to allow some participant(s) to feel their years of education means something other than old lamb skin dressing a wall. From your tone you may have quite a collection of lamb skins.........

[Motherland]

i think the short ride for those planes is that if you take one up, you agree to actually fight in it.  if you wanna just fly around trying to just pick, then up a p plane (p51, p47..) or an f plane (fw190...)then you can just fly around for hours and they have unlimited ammo 

semp

I wish my Fw 190 had unlimited ammo and decent fuel capacity.

[Anaxogoras]

let me get this right,

you think everyone should have the same amount of fuel as each other because we all pay the same amount of money

Nope, that's not what he's saying at all.

His point is that when you pork fuel at a base, a P-51D shouldn't be able to load, e.g. 100 gallons of fuel, but another aircraft can only load 50 gallons, all because they have differently sized gas tanks and those quantities are percentages of total capacity.  The disparity is also there when drop tanks are disabled, because some aircraft can load more fuel internally than others can load with full internal and drop tanks combined.  All of this is to say that if fuel can be limited by porking the base, then fuel should be rationed by absolute quantities, and not percentages of fuel tank capacity.

As for the burn multiplier, the long legs of aircraft like the P-51D aren't used for going places in the arena, but for climbing to ridiculous altitudes.  And therein lies the rub of the fuel burn multiplier, it doesn't so much limit range as the ability to get to an altitude where you're not a sitting duck but have fuel left over.

[Stoney]

Nope, that's not what he's saying at all.

His point is that when you pork fuel at a base, a P-51D shouldn't be able to load, e.g. 100 gallons of fuel, but another aircraft can only load 50 gallons, all because they have differently sized gas tanks and those quantities are percentages of total capacity.  The disparity is also there when drop tanks are disabled, because some aircraft can load more fuel internally than others can load with full internal and drop tanks combined.  All of this is to say that if fuel can be limited by porking the base, then fuel should be rationed by absolute quantities, and not percentages of fuel tank capacity.

As for the burn multiplier, the long legs of aircraft like the P-51D aren't used for going places in the arena, but for climbing to ridiculous altitudes.  And therein lies the rub of the fuel burn multiplier, it doesn't so much limit range as the ability to get to an altitude where you're not a sitting duck but have fuel left over.

Relative equality will not be achieved in this manner either.  What arbitrary fuel quantity should be the total gallons available when fuel is porked then?  100 gallons to a Spit pilot is practically a full bag while a Jug pilot will take off with a quarter of a tank...  You get rid of the 2.0 multiple, no P-51 pilot in his right mind would ever load more than 50% fuel...even for long escort missions.

[guncrasher]

I wish my Fw 190 had unlimited ammo and decent fuel capacity.

has at least twice the ammo of a spit and the p47's have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than twice and some other planes have something like 500-800 20mm rounds. considering that I normally use about 100 to 150 cannon rounds per sortie in a spit.  that's really unlimited ammo unless you like to shoot lots of 2 and 3 second burst like most people that fly them do. 

semp

[Motherland]

has at least twice the ammo of a spit and the p47's have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than twice and some other planes have something like 500-800 20mm rounds. considering that I normally use about 100 to 150 cannon rounds per sortie in a spit.  that's really unlimited ammo unless you like to shoot lots of 2 and 3 second burst like most people that fly them do. 

semp

Hispano's also fly straight and are about 33% more damaging than MG151/20's. Makes up for the 260 round deficit IMO. Not to mention that the Spitfire is a much more capable aircraft for pulling lead.
I use most of the 500 rounds in the Dora each sortie I fly with it.

[Anaxogoras]

Relative equality will not be achieved in this manner either.  What arbitrary fuel quantity should be the total gallons available when fuel is porked then?  100 gallons to a Spit pilot is practically a full bag while a Jug pilot will take off with a quarter of a tank...

That is the point.  It's not logical that when fuel is porked, some aircraft can load up far more gallons of gas than others.  I don't have any set ideas about what the threshold should be

You get rid of the 2.0 multiple, no P-51 pilot in his right mind would ever load more than 50% fuel...even for long escort missions.

So?  Even now 50% or 75% internal fuel is a good loadout for the P-51D.  All 2x fuel burn does is allow some aircraft to go light, and others not.

[guncrasher]

Hispano's also fly straight and are about 33% more damaging than MG151/20's. Makes up for the 260 round deficit IMO. Not to mention that the Spitfire is a much more capable aircraft for pulling lead.
I use most of the 500 rounds in the Dora each sortie I fly with it.

we'll I'll be damned u made me look.  I was under the impression that all were using 20mm hispano rounds.  I was wrong  .  still 500 20mm is a lot of rounds but that's another thread  .

btw guys give it up they already said no, stop trying to convince each other that you are right  .

semp

[Tilt]

Relative equality will not be achieved in this manner either.  What arbitrary fuel quantity should be the total gallons available when fuel is porked then?  100 gallons to a Spit pilot is practically a full bag while a Jug pilot will take off with a quarter of a tank...  You get rid of the 2.0 multiple, no P-51 pilot in his right mind would ever load more than 50% fuel...even for long escort missions.

Thats the point.......fuel attrition should hurt the gas guzzlers ............... not those of little tank.

How ever to apply it rigedly would generate some difficult math to COAD and (more importantly as the debate shows) be difficult for folk to understand............

A simpler approach (and one that folk may understand) is to link fuel attrition/field fuel capacity to max endurance available thru fuel available.............

This would be a HARD cap and could even be applied to vehicles

125% field fuel capacity = no fuel based limit to endurance
100% field fuel capacity = 100 minutes mil power fuel limit
75% field fuel capacity = 75 minutes mil power fuel limit
50% field fuel capacity = 50 minutes mil power fuel limit
25% field fuel capacity = 25 minutes mil power fuel limit

The fuel burn has nothing to do with the outcome other than it has to be factored into the COAD equation. Its only other influence on the debate is that it was when it was increased (or as HT reminds us(me) when the fuel COAD was upgraded) that the desparaity ( under fuel attrition) became more obvious

[Boozeman]

While I understand that there is a need for a method to practically distinguish between long range fighters and short range interceptors in the scaled down main arenas (and i think the concept behind is absolutely correct), but the current system leaves a lot to desire.

The argument that a 1x burn rate makes (powerful) short range interceptors go a much longer distance to a target and then loiter there for ages is quite correct and in some respect "unrealistic".

However, a 2x burn isn't that great either. It robs the endurance option of the short range fighters, but long range fighters are not affected at all. More so, the long range fighters still have the option to give up on endurance for performance, something the interceptors cannot afford. This is contrary to the often cited realism approach, because while the short range interceptor stays what it is (realistic), the long range fighter has a choice (unrealistic). As said before, I'm quite sure all LA pilots go up with 100% fuel (realistic) while most pony drivers may only take 75%, 50%+DT,50%, 25%+DT (unrealistic) to boost performance.

IMO, the best way solve this problem is to keep 2x burn rate and to eliminate fuel load choice, making 100% mandatory. That way you have the clear distinction between short range interceptors and long range fighters, without favoring one over another via loadout "games".

[Anaxogoras]

IMO, the best way solve this problem is to keep 2x burn rate and to eliminate fuel load choice, making 100% mandatory. That way you have the clear distinction between short range interceptors and long range fighters, without favoring one over another via loadout "games".

That's an interesting idea for compromise.

[hitech]

I do believe this discussion is nothing but a disguise for people want to make their plane which has a low fuel capacity better.

Take the current sugestion of 100%

1. This would severely hurt the long range planes, because they normally would have arrived at the fight with much less fuel.
2. It assumes that long range fighters would always load 100% even if they were being used in a short mission roll. (They would not have)

HiTech

[Plazus]

Thread just got pwned. Sorry, but I agree with HiTech here 100%.

[BnZs]

As for the burn multiplier, the long legs of aircraft like the P-51D aren't used for going places in the arena, but for climbing to ridiculous altitudes.  And therein lies the rub of the fuel burn multiplier, it doesn't so much limit range as the ability to get to an altitude where you're not a sitting duck but have fuel left over.

You hardly ever see anyone over 15K, 20K tops. And if you do, so what? The bandit fifteen thousand feet above you is not a threat, the one five thousand feet above you is.

[BnZs]

IMO, the best way solve this problem is to keep 2x burn rate and to eliminate fuel load choice, making 100% mandatory. That way you have the clear distinction between short range interceptors and long range fighters, without favoring one over another via loadout "games".

Short range interceptors are already *wildly* favored in this game because of short distances, low altitudes, the nature of the combat, AND the physics of building a long-range aircraft vs. a short range one. Minute of flight time per minute of flight time, they La7 with 10 minutes of fuel a lot better performance than the P-51 with 10 minutes left because empty tankage *still* costs you in weight.

Furthermore, most planes with exceptionally short ranges have short ranges because they have extraordinarily powerful engines in relation to their sizes. But they can also effectively be throttled way down and still have decent performance. For instance, take an La7, shortest legged fighter in the game. Up with 100% internal, and simply reduce RPMs to 2,100. You now have an airplane with basically the range, climb, and top speed performance of an P-47D on WEP with 75% fuel, that can also has a whole hell of a lot of thrust in reserve and can accelerate like a bat out of hell when you go balls to the wall.

Oh, and if you're a Spit pilot, have we never heard of the VIII? 30 minutes, full fuel, balls to the wall. Don't come whining to me about its sluggish roll rate when it has such range while retaining all the other Spit qualities...