Fuel Multiplier Sucks

[leonid]

A couple things I should like to point out.

1. Only in the Russian front did fighters patrol at full throttle(and AFAIK only Russian pilots).  The reason of course was extremely short ranges to combat.  In just about every other theater/front, maximum throttle was strictly used for climbing and combat alone due to fuel limits.

2. I flew the 109 a bit online a couple nights ago, and was noticing that it ate fuel about as badly as the la5.  Then I looked the speed resulting from my reduced throttle setting and lo! I was pleasantly surprised.  You see, a la5 at 20k needs at least 45degrees manifold to maintain enough airspeed for lift, the engine output drops that much.  Hence, I had set the 109's throttle to that very setting: 45 degrees.  And it was going a cool 250mph IAS, much faster than a la5 at that setting.  What a revelation!  The 109 could probably patrol around at 35-40 degrees manifold, making a much greater savings in fuel.  Add that drop tank and I bet the 109 could range further than anyone's tested it for.

...hmm, maybe I'll see just how far the messer can really go...

------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA

[Laika]

Maybe this is off the point a little but what is the deal with reduced fuel loads at bases that have been damaged (or is it cos someone hit your city). I can live with the reduced supplies to the front idea but the fuel should be given to planes is equal amounts not percentages. Anyone know the fuel cap of the P51 and say the 109 ? , as a guess shouldn't the 109 get half a tank and the pony only a quarter a tank to be even ?

Just because you have a bigger glass doesn't mean you'll get more beer does it ??    

[Flathat]

Laika, I imagine it's that way now because fuel loads (apart from drop tanks) are calculated by % of capacity instead of by the gallon (okay, okay, or by the liter, pipe down back there in the Metric Peanut Gallery(tm)   ). If HTC ever decided to change fuel loadouts to actual volume instead of percentage-of-capacity, then what you suggest would happen. I have no idea whether or not it would be easier to program, or harder, or even whether that's "historical" (in other words, when weaponeering a mission, did the operations staff micro-manage the fuel load, or just say top 'em off and go? Somebody who's more informed than I am please chime in).

PS--I vote to keep the multiplier (maybe tone it down a little. Some aircraft, fortunately or unfortunately, were short-legged and didn't have much combat/loiter time, depending on the mission. That's a fact, not evidence of a conspiracy.

------------------
Flathat
'Black Dahlia'
No10 RNAS "The Black Flight"
Angel on your wing, devil on your tail



[This message has been edited by Flathat (edited 12-07-1999).]

[Fishu]

Leonid: Me109 still eats alot gas, even if goes 35-40.
Guess have I done so often  
(btw. 109 doesnt keep altitude at 20k without 40-45 MAN if you want to peer little bit around too)
Talk about spitfrie, it goes forever with half throttle. (been doing so)

[Minotaur]

HTC;

Please, give all planes in the set extended range(AW range seems OK).  Toss away any of your thoughts on "Relative Realism".  

Mino

[Kirin]

I vote for laika - came up with the same idea in an other post:

<Maximal fuel load on destroyed fields should be calculated in absolut numbers (e.g. liters, gallons or whatever) that would be much more fair to planes with smaller tanks. I mean 1/4 on a pony prolly means full on a macchi (just figuring). So, if a planes with 500 liter capacity is limited to half its tank, a 250 liter plane still could go full!!! Get the point? That would stop 1/4 ponies still flying all over the map while 1/4 La5s only can round trip over their field.>

[leonid]

Well, I tried the 109 with drop tank and took off from f18.  Got to 22k a little south of f21, then brought throttle down to 45 degrees manifold(drop tanks really drags), cruising at about 175mph IAS.  At f8 increased throttle to 50 degrees and climbed up to about 25k, then expended drop tank which was empty.  Flew to f4 with approximately 75% fuel in internal tank.  Spotted a B17 and bailed attacking it(only had 20mm).  However, had I not attacked buff, then could have continued on to f3 I believe, then rtb'ed back to f22 or F21(maybe even f18).

------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA

[indian]

Kirin that sound fair to me. But all should remember the sguares are 25 miles acroos arentt they a ten minute flight is a long flight in miles. I did not believe the La5n could fly well at 20k? I allways thought it was a low level 15k and lower fighter.

[Fishu]

Leonid: Do that same trip again with a two fights, you'll find yourself short of fuel soon.
About Spitfrie, I once took off from f19, flew to f14 at 23k, spotted enemy, climbed to 34k after him, he dived to 15k, I killed him, then I spotted B-17 near by f14, I kicked WEP in again for climb and climbed to 32k, followed B-17 all the way to f10, shot it down bit before, then I cruised back through f14 to f23, spotted there enemy airplane about 30k, followed it just a while, then I flew to f19 to get home (f23 was enemies), bit before home I noticed that enemies up from f23, I wen't to kill one and ran home to f19, had 5-10% fuel left on landing  

I guess that Me109 is plane with third worst fuels after macchi and La5.
In combat, I think 109 eats more gas from main tank than La5, with wep on and so on.
(note that La-5 is currently faster than 109 with full power)

[jedi]

Hmmm.  I didn't understand the fuel multiplier, but Leonid turned on the lightbulb for me    It forces you to actually manage your fuel.  You must determine how much to take (and face it, in most airplanes the answer to that was "full tanks, all the time"), you must decide whether to take drop tanks or not, whether to jettison them or not, and how to set your engine power to maximize your range.  And of course, it even rules out certain airplanes for certain missions, just as in real life.  What would the Battle of Britain have been like if the LW had been equipped with the long-legged A6M instead of the 109?

Surely that's all good stuff?  Now imagine what will happen when the rest of the engine control modeling is completed.  You'll have a whole new thing to learn to master: engine and fuel management.  (Of course some guys won't want to do that, so I bet we see an "auto-engine" option at some point).

I think this is shaping up as a desireable "feature," although undoubtedly there's a lot of quibbling and whining left before it's completely tweaked  

--jedi

[funked]

Jedi - My problem is that it rules out the wrong planes for the wrong missions.  The La-5FN was an air superiority fighter used for fighter sweeps and escort of CAS aircraft.  It was an offensive weapon!  In AH, it's a nice point interceptor but useless for taking the fight to the enemy.

[flakbait]

I have to agree to turn down this fuel multiplier. I fly the 109 or the 190 most of the time, and I get tired of meeting a high spit or Mudstain   with a half tank remaining. I'd like to have this turned down more than a tad, down to some place where I can still go after a spit and not have to worry about turning into a glider after 5 minutes. The P-51D can run from F9 to F3 and back to F9 only using the drop tanks at about 50 degrees manifold pressure. I've done it at 27k before. The 109 can barely make it to F3 from F9 without the drop tank at 28k. Even then, I wound up landing in a field somewhere near F6 because I ran outa gas.

Flakbait
Admin, Delta 6's Flight School