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

[icepac]

I can get the spit XIV to 39,000 feet with 40 minutes fuel at 370mph cruise.

Why adapt the game to make it easy when one can adapt thier flying to get what they desire with the current setup?

If you go to burn multiplier of 1.0, we will have heavy buffs flying the entire map on 25% fuel load and performing way in excess of historical values in the areas of speed and climb.

[Shuffler]

I believe the fuel burn is set higher to offset the closer bases. If they set fuel burn to 1x then moved bases further apart we would spend all our time commuting to a fight instead of actual fighting.

[Tank-Ace]

In the same way that limited ammo does.

The current x2.0 is fine

Not nessicarily. Ammo limits just makes you leave the fight after you shoot it all off, it doesn't delay your arrival to the fight.

[Puma44]

With a 1.0 there is always the option of taking off with a light internal fuel load, use drop tank(s) to transit to the fight and blow them off for the fight, regardless of the distance between bases. 

[SmokinLoon]

With a 1.0 there is always the option of taking off with a light internal fuel load, use drop tank(s) to transit to the fight and blow them off for the fight, regardless of the distance between bases. 

That is called gaming the game and in no way shape or form is anywhere near SOP regarding fuel loads or the use of DT's in WWII.  A 1.0 X burn rate would give aircraft with otherwise limited range unlimited range on AH maps.  Only on very rare circumstances did aircraft take off with less than %100 fuel and that was usually out of combat zones and for ferry operations only.  If DT's were carried they were not dropped unless the enemy was *engaged*.  Certainly, I can %100 guarantee you that a P51D did not up with %50 fuel and DT's "so they could be light" for dog-fighting purposes vs 109's and 190's. 

As it is, the aircraft that had limited range in WWII have limited range in AH, thing is though some people think those ranges are still a bit long and w slightly higher burn rate (2.5X) would lend towards a bit of realism.   

[chaser]

I've always though a burn rate of 2.0 is to high. But I do think 1.0 may be to low for MA use. I think something like 1.25 or 1.5 would be better.

[Lusche]

I think FB is fine as it is.

[Tank-Ace]

Agreed luche, don't make me throttle back when trying to reach combat speeds. 190's don't do well when slow.

[SmokinLoon]

Agreed luche, don't make me throttle back when trying to reach combat speeds. 190's don't do well when slow.

So doing 340 TAS vs 360 TAS in route to the battle is going to effect your ability to perform maneuvers at full power (360TAS) once you arrive at the combat zone? 

[bozon]

Not nessicarily. Ammo limits just makes you leave the fight after you shoot it all off, it doesn't delay your arrival to the fight.

Fuel makes you leave the fight after you burn it off. It does not delay your arrival to the fight if you are willing to pay with reduced time over target.

An unrealistic burn multiplier makes the fuel management more realistic, then a real burn multiplier. Between a technical detail and tactical consideration, I prefer the latter to be more realistic, especially in a game like AH that is more about realistic tactical combat than a pure "down to the last switch" simulator. We do not even have authentic cockpits or radiator settings or fuel mixture, just because of this consideration.

[Karnak]

A higher fuel burn multiplier has a disproportionately negative effect on short range, high altitude fighters such as the Bf109K-4, P-47M, Spitfire Mk IX and Spitfire Mk XIV because while the ranges are compressed, altitude is not compressed, nor is there a way to compress altitude.

Further, the burn modifier has little effect on long range fighters such as the A6M2, A6M3, A6M5, Mosquito Mk VI, P-47N, P-51B, P-51D and Ta152H-1 and mp effect at all on bombers.  Fuel Burn 2.5X would actually further distort the speed advantage that bombers have in AH.

[SmokinLoon]

A higher fuel burn multiplier has a disproportionately negative effect on short range, high altitude fighters such as the Bf109K-4, P-47M, Spitfire Mk IX and Spitfire Mk XIV because while the ranges are compressed, altitude is not compressed, nor is there a way to compress altitude.

Further, the burn modifier has little effect on long range fighters such as the A6M2, A6M3, A6M5, Mosquito Mk VI, P-47N, P-51B, P-51D and Ta152H-1 and mp effect at all on bombers.  Fuel Burn 2.5X would actually further distort the speed advantage that bombers have in AH.

That can be dealt with by limiting the speed in which bombers can drop ordnance.  B24's did not drop ordnance at 280 TAS, and B29's didnt drop ordnance at 350 TAS either.

I have yet to find the typical bombing run speeds for B29's.  For B24's and B17's it was typically in the low 200's (TAS). 

The bomber hunters/interceptors such as the Ta152, 109K-4, 190D-9, and P38 (yes, the P38 was designed from the beginning as a bomber interceptor), etc, would still not have hardly a worry in grabbing altitude and chasing down the bombers.  Drop tanks and higher altitude fuel efficiency save the day!!!    The La7 might if it tried to do more than what it was designed to do in the first place (low altitude interceptor).

[icepac]

I have no trouble flying a spit XIV to the enemy HQ, waiting for a 163, and flying back to a friendly base afterward.

[bozon]

A higher fuel burn multiplier has a disproportionately negative effect on short range, high altitude fighters such as the Bf109K-4, P-47M, Spitfire Mk IX and Spitfire Mk XIV because while the ranges are compressed, altitude is not compressed, nor is there a way to compress altitude.

Further, the burn modifier has little effect on long range fighters such as the A6M2, A6M3, A6M5, Mosquito Mk VI, P-47N, P-51B, P-51D and Ta152H-1 and mp effect at all on bombers.  Fuel Burn 2.5X would actually further distort the speed advantage that bombers have in AH.

I agree that FBM does not compress the vertical, but still maintain that the overall result justify it - and by "it" I mean FBM of x2.0 . Pushing it to higher multipliers will cause problems. Lowering it to 1.0 will take fuel out of tactical considerations. 2.0 is a nice compromise and there is only little wiggle room around it.

It is not accurate to say that the multiplier has little effect on long range fighters. It is less limiting on their range which is perfectly fine or alternatively, it is less limiting on cruise to short distances allowing them to load 100% and cruise at full throttle to burn it off before reaching target. Again that is perfectly fine in the same way that a larger ammo count allows more spraying time. The big effect is on planes with very high fuel consumption rate - mostly radials with high drag that compensate by brute engine power. To get the same duration of flight they have to carry a fuel load proportionally increasing with FBM. P47N for all its potential range is a dog when carrying 100% and a beast on 25%. Its range is achieved by carrying a ridiculous amount of fuel. Changes to the FBM that operate by percentage mean a lot more absolute weight added vs. a more fuel efficient Merlin P51.

I say this again just to be clear - x2.0 is a good compromise.

[Karnak]

What I mean by little effect is that all the talk of throttling back is only for the short ranged interceptors. None of it is for the long ranged fighters and certainly not for the bombers.  Fuel Burn 2.5X is a highly biased way of trying to enforce throttle controls as it would only do so for a subset of the aircraft in AH.