Would 1X Fuel burn rate be good for the game?

[Debrody]

I would like to see an 1.75x burn rate.
My ride has an average fuel duration, 27 mins from the startup. 3 mins to climb up to 10k, 6 mins to reach the fight, 6 mins for an rtb, thats a good 15 mins spent with nothing. If i burn all of my fuel, its 12 mins remaining for actual combat, but i like to save 1-2 mins for safety reasons. So 15 mins empty time for 8-10 mins of combat.
The 1.75x multiplyer would gimme like 5 more mins, what would be awsome in the experience side yet wouldnt hurt much the strategic component of the game.
<S>
Debrődy

[Lusche]

Two charts, based on data Kvuo's Fuel Burn V2.3 compilation:






The second one is a very rudimentary range calculation, based on a combat time of 10 minutes, full mil power and traveling at sea level. Actual ranges can vary a lot due to mission profile (different power settings, climbing to altitude and so on), but IMHO it still gives quite realistic MA numbers.

[Delirium]

The second one is a very rudimentary range calculation, based on a combat time of 10 minutes, full mil power and traveling at sea level.

That is exactly the point- there is little need to ever throttle back to extend your range in AH. If fuel burn was a little higher, you wouldn't see everyone flying at firewalled throttle all the time.

[SmokinLoon]

That is exactly the point- there is little need to ever throttle back to extend your range in AH. If fuel burn was a little higher, you wouldn't see everyone flying at firewalled throttle all the time.

DING DING!!!!

A 2.5X burn rate would hardly change the flight times **if players managed fuel consumption**.  A wee bit of throttle and manifold pressure adjustment is all that would be needed.  Managing fuel is just as important as anything else.  It is not that complicated, if players get confused that bring up the E6B and "puuf" there it is.

[Delirium]

Thinking about it, it is too bad that fuel burn isn't set depending on the map. Some maps, the airfields are close together and could use a higher burn rate. Others, are much farther apart and having a lower burn rate would keep the transit times shorter and vary the aircraft seen.

Probably too confusing for some, having a global setting that changes, but that would be the ideal.

[Karnak]

DING DING!!!!

A 2.5X burn rate would hardly change the flight times **if players managed fuel consumption**.  A wee bit of throttle and manifold pressure adjustment is all that would be needed.  Managing fuel is just as important as anything else.  It is not that complicated, if players get confused that bring up the E6B and "puuf" there it is.

What is the advantage of making it take longer to get to fights when on the offensive?  It seems to me that that could increase horde sizes as a compensation for the additional time it takes for reinforcements to reach the fight.  Defensive fighters would still just fly at full MIL and WEP, as would the long ranged fighters and all bombers.

[Wiley]

That is exactly the point- there is little need to ever throttle back to extend your range in AH. If fuel burn was a little higher, you wouldn't see everyone flying at firewalled throttle all the time.

...and that would improve gameplay how?

Wiley.

[bozon]

...and that would improve gameplay how?

Wiley.

In the same way that limited ammo does.

The current x2.0 is fine

[SmokinLoon]

What is the advantage of making it take longer to get to fights when on the offensive?  It seems to me that that could increase horde sizes as a compensation for the additional time it takes for reinforcements to reach the fight.  Defensive fighters would still just fly at full MIL and WEP, as would the long ranged fighters and all bombers.

Larger horde sizes???  Because of a 1/8th less flight time???     Hordes are not because of anything other than some player's need for over-whelming force to get a base capture, that is it.  Very rarely do we see the La's in a horde anyways because they don't have the staying time (unless fuel is managed) to hover over a base for the vulch.   

My suggestion of a 2.5X burn rate would decrease current "flight time" capabilities by roughly 1/8th.  Since most people are going to be concerned with the range of the La7 first and foremost, we'll use that as a test platform.  Under the current 2.0X burn rate setting, at take off the La7 has 21 minutes of fuel at full power.  Reduce that by 1/8th and we get close to 17 minutes, that is a reduction of 4-5 minutes.  I hopped in to an La7 on the current LW arena map "Tagma" and upped from a sea level base and messed with the manifold settings just to see what I'd need to do to make up for the 1/8th loss of "flight time" capability.  Here is what I found: by reducing the manifold setting from 39lbs down to 34-35lbs at take off the La7 gained 4-5 mins of extra "flight time".  With the slightly reduced throttle settings, the La7 climbed at 3000 ft a minute at 150+mph and once to 5000ft it was moving at 366 TAS before it hit the radar ring and it still managed to climb to 371 TAS just a few more miles further.  For the La7 aficionado, they wont hardly notice that 1/8th less "flight time" if they can broaden their attention span beyond the trigger and gun sight.  Case in point: The 1/8 less time of flight capability is not going to effect the length of time to the fight worthy enough to measure. 

I'm guessing Spitfires are even less effected with throttle management, but I will test multiple Spitfires, 109's, and other aircraft with the 25-40min flight time just for kicks.  I think the aircraft that might notice it more would be the aircraft that are already on the performance threshold such as the P40, but then again they have the larger fuel tanks to begin with so perhaps not.  The only bomber that might be affected is the Boston III, it has just over 30 mins of burn time at max throttle under current settings, but then again it is a low altitude bomber not meant for those long range high alt bombing runs.  The Boston III will adapt as well, I'm not concerned.

So again, there are three things that I propose with regards to adding importance to fuel: increase the burn rate to 2.5X; no DT available unless %100 fuel; and increase the penalty for the destruction of fuel tanks (2=no DT, 3=%75max, 4=%50max).  Make fuel an important part of AH, not an after thought like it currently is.       

[RTHolmes]

so how am I supposed to fly my XIV to 20k+ and have any combat time left with 2.5x fuel multi? its already pretty marginal with 2x multi.

please remember that not everyone playing in the MAs is a take-25%-fuel-never-fly-over-10k-airquake-furballer ...

[SmokinLoon]

so how am I supposed to fly my XIV to 25k and have any combat time left with 2.5x fuel multi? its already pretty marginal with 2x multi.

please remember that not everyone playing in the MAs is a take-25%-fuel-never-fly-over-10k-airquake-furballer ...

I hear your concern loud and clear.  Fact is, I'm a fan of the 14 I've always throttled back in the Spit14 in the climb out and even once to altitude.  Once up to that 22-25k altitude players can loiter all they want, the Spit14 is real easy on fuel at that altitude **if the throttle is managed**, the Spit14 still moves 370+ TAS on reduced settings. 

Throttle management does wonders for Spitfires, especially the higher up they get. 

[coombz]

increasing the fuel burn as mentioned in a few places on this page is an especially stupid idea, but luckily there is no danger of it being implemented      

[RTHolmes]

I hear your concern loud and clear.  Fact is, I'm a fan of the 14 I've always throttled back in the Spit14 in the climb out and even once to altitude.  Once up to that 22-25k altitude players can loiter all they want, the Spit14 is real easy on fuel at that altitude **if the throttle is managed**, the Spit14 still moves 370+ TAS on reduced settings.  

Throttle management does wonders for Spitfires, especially the higher up they get.  

sure, climb MP to 20k and on proper cruise settings (not the E6Bs MC setting) you should have ~50mins loiter time at 330mph+ with the current 2x. thats great, but as soon as you engage that ~50mins drops to ~10mins. I'm guessing that with 2.5x youd have used all of the slipper and be bleeding the main tank well before you get to 20k, leaving hardly anything for combat.

btw I fuel manage in everything (which annoys my squaddies on fighter sweeps no end - just ask Pipz ) so I'm already taking that into account. I even fly buffs at NP not MP for realism (except the Lanc of course.)

the XIV is a good example, as an interceptor it should be able to climb at high power settings to its service ceiling, have some loiter time and still have enough fuel for combat. it can barely do that at the moment.

[SmokinLoon]

increasing the fuel burn as mentioned in a few places on this page is an especially stupid idea, but luckily there is no danger of it being implemented      

Stupid?  Come now Mr. Coombz, you can surely find better words than that.     Let me guess, you're a full throttle all the time guy, right?   

[bozon]

The spit 14 is an interesting example. It carries same fuel as the 8, but flies much less time on it.
Why?

It is not that the engine is that much less efficient - it produces roughly the same number of horsepower per gallon/hour. The difference is that it simply produces more HP at full throttle. If it throttles back and fly with the same HP as a spit 8 for example, it will have roughly the same flight time.

Look at it like an afterburner in a jet - the fact that you have it does not mean that you use it 100% of the time. You have the extra HP to be used when needed in combat, but for transit the extra horses should stay in the stable. The LA7 is the fastest (close second if Temp is considered) plane on the deck. That does not mean that it must/should fly faster to reach its target, but instead throttle back, fly with a similar cruise speed as most planes and firewall the throttle only when engaging, then throttle back for the trip home.