Beating the dead horse

[-lynx-]

OK, I know that this poor animal has already been beaten into pulp but:

Let's talk about a feature that really (no offence BugJam) needs to be corrected: the dreaded fuel multiplier.

La-5FN is a very capable fighter - even with me at the controls I managed a 3 kill sortie once only to run out of fuel, to be forced to ditch and to be killed by HT (!!! of all people) before I could stop plane/exit.

The effect of the fuel multiplier on this plane is not even funny: it was a frontline fighter with limited (compare to American planes) range of *gulp* 400 miles - more than 3 hour endurance!!! - in AH you better head for home after 15 minutes. It's not fair, not right and must be made against the law...

I couldn't care less if P51 could stay in the air 10 times longer - there's no cross-ocean escorts in AH. Let's even up the playing field a bit - give us range and I'll kill that Pony even if she has half-empty tanks to my full.

------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF

[delta]

I agree,

The La5 needs more range, time in the air.

IE the fuel multiplier needs adjustments.

delta

[-blk--]

  What power setting are you at?  There's a BIG difference between Takeoff, Climb, Cruise Climb, Cruise....

  For instance, an R-1820-86 will burn somewhere around 120-130 GPH at just under Max Rated Takeoff Power (probably 150 or so with those last two Inches of MAP).  Reign it in to cruise power, and you're burning a relatively miserly 65 gph the first hour, down to 45 gph about the time you need to get more fuel.

  The point being, I know pretty much everyone in AH (myself included) climbs at full power, and often cruises at full power.  The real fix to your problem would be a more advanced engine management system.  If you had the ability to manage the engine such that the fuel flow were to significantly decrease (as it should if you manage it correctly), the problem would solve itself.

blk  (AT)

[Minotaur]

-lynx-

Thanks BTW, for not saying this poor animal was a "Cow"        

My opinion on the fuel burn rate muliplier --> I like it!

Are you saying that you just want the fuel burn rate multiplier to be fudged for your favorite plane(s) to make it(them) compete better?  
 
-OR-

Are you saying that the fuel rate burn multilplier for your favorite plane(s) is FUBAR and needs to be re-done?

-OR-

Are you saying that would like to change the current fuel rate multiplier for all planes?  The P-51 would then become an Extreme UberPlane, flying for a very long time on 25% fuel.  

This Beta Arena is VASTLY smaller than anything in the real world.  IMO, if you want to have real world fuel burn rates, then you have to be prepared to fly (simulatedly) for hours, just to reach the action.  

Flying through empty simulated airspace for hours would not be fun.  I prefer dogfighting. (95% boredom - 5% terror)  

For myself, I can compare fuel burn rates to eating grapefruit, which can be really sour at times.  I eat my grapefruit before I eat anything else and I have gotten used to not putting sugar on it.      

Mino

[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 11-22-1999).]

[bigred]

or we could end the entire debate by DISABLING the fuel mulitplier for ALL planes but FORCING all pilots to use MAX available fuel... its not your plane, after all its the crew chief's responsibility and he'll probably fill her up despite the pilot's whining about "lack of maneuverability"...

we just flyem, the Govt owns em... FULL fuel means more endurance=longer patrols, more effective combat vehicle, bigger chance of bringing the bird home.

[delta]

It's a Beta,

People need to try out all a/c, including the La5.   The La5 (and to a lesser extent the 109) is the only plane that is noticable by its absence in the beta arean.

So why is this?  Speed, firepower, or endurance?  Could it be one of the above, all of the above or none of the above?

The primary reason I don't try the La5 is endurance and to a lesser degree, firepower.

While AH is in beta, the fuel multiplier for the La5 should be relaxed.  Right now, the rpm setting does nothing (as far as I can tell) to engine management.   Until that and other features of total engine mamagement (like rpm effects and engine temp gauge) are implemented, give the La5 a chance to compete.

BTW, just what are the acceptable, correct cruise settings for all aircraft?


delta

[leonid]

lynx,
I know how difficult it is, but one can fly the La-5FN quite a ways, even with such limited fuel capacity.

I've found that even up as high as 25k, the Lavochkin can be flown from as low as 45% manifold.  Once you've gotten the alt you need, set it down to that amount.  It should help quite a bit.  It can get you from say F21 to F8 to F4, and then back again.  Combat time is limited, but I've scored kills on such sorties.

I actually like the limitedness of fuel in AH, because it makes everyone worry about fuel management.  This was a real concern in WWII, and resulted in a fair amount of attention for missions, etc.  In WB, the fuel modifier is so relaxed that a fighter even as short-ranged as the Bf 109 can afford to take only 60-80% fuel and have comfortable range and flight time.

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


[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 11-24-1999).]

[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 11-24-1999).]

[-kier-]

Funny, I see the La5 all over. I fly it too. When do you fly, Delta?

For me it is limited as a buff killer, but other than that it kicks butt.  

[CombatWombat]

I'd have to disagree on setting the fuel rate to 1:1.  By increasing the rate, endurance of the real aircraft actually comes into play.
Air combat is all about playing to the strenghts of your aircraft.  If limited fuel was a problem, like in the 109, spit, and la5, well then, TOO BAD!  Fly something else if it's that bad.  It was said that the 109's over Britian only had around 10 minutes to loiter before having to rtb.  If you want that climb rate be prepared to pay for it!  If your so jealous of the P51's range why not fly one?  
It seems whenever people compare aircraft for one of these online sims, the one thing that is always left out is range.  It's just not a factor in Brand W/AW.  It's no different from turn rate or top speed.  
I can picture it now.... Next they'll be asking for 190's that turn like spits because it's "unfair"!  geez....

[fats]

The fuel burn rate multiplier is simply put - boring. Who has the time to use ( not just spray! ) all ammo in a Spitfire or Fw 190, before you run out of 100% internal fuel and the DT w/o option to RTB? I know I don't, can't comment on other planes because I haven't flown them more than few sorties, unless it's a totally safe 0ft vulching event at some field.

The current 2.5 ( ? ) multiplier is totally arbituary, who says the concern the pilots feel over fuel endurance is _correct_ compared to WWII? After all it would be nice if all things were modeled accurately and not fudged. People above threw arguments like Bf 109's in BoB and such. What about Eastern Front, where La-5FNs operated, did the pilots have more than N minutes of time over combat area? Or how about LW in the 44/45 period that our plane set is depicting. How many passes, leave out escort fighters of the equation, could a Fw 190 make at a bomber stream with its fuel ammount and how many can you do in AH?

On a hypothetical sortie you take off and enter a fight almost immediately, say those vulching 8th AAF P-51s jumped your JG's field as your JG was headed for the bombers so you head back to field and find them there. In AH you will only have 40% of the time you are supposed to have to try and down them before you will run out of fuel and become dead for sure.


//fats

[-blk--]

  I still think the key in in engine management.  As it sits, I climb the pony 200 KIAS, 55 InHg and am usually down to about 1/2 of the drop tanks left.  That doesn't seem wholly unlikely to me.  That leaves me with enough fuel to move great distances (read: corner to corner, and back).  And that's at a relatively high cruise power setting (45 InHg).  If I throttle back to 38-40 InHg, I bet I could do it three times before getting below 1/4 in each wing tank (letting the computer manage it).  And that's still moving around at a decent 300 KTAS with the tanks, up to about 325 when I drop them.

  Note that this is all with drop tanks.  If I only take internal fuel, and climb at full power (which I'll do if I'm only going over the mountains to find low --25K bombers), I'm down to 1/2 on the aux tank byt eh time I get to 25K.  That's a HUGE fuel burn.

  Now, I know we're talking about the La-5 here (since the stang has more than enough gas for most people in AH), but I'd bet that you could make it work just fine.  In fact, I'll try flying the La-5 only tonight and see what I come up with...

blk  (AT)

[Minotaur]

Fats;

Not sure that I really got your point.

Did you mean that pilots often, after scoring numerous kills, were forced to RTB because they were out of fuel and not ammo?  

In essence, they had to RTB because their ammo load was too large for their fuel capacity?

This raises one issue, I had not thought of before.  Some players want more fuel (time per sortie) for the purpose of extending their streaks.  Not sure how I missed that altogether.  Duh!        

Why not just come out and say it?

Us "Dweebs" -OR- "MinoTaurgets" have it tough enough as it is, so it makes no difference to me what the Whooyah Fuel Multiplier is.  I feel lucky to get 1 kill per 2-3 sorties.  Although; I might think too myself "This argument holds very little water".

Mino

[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 11-22-1999).]

[funked]

I don't like fuel consumption multipliers.  If you want to limit how much fuel is available at the airfield, that is fine.  But the bogus inflated fuel flow rates are silly.

Maybe there is some benfit I'm not realizing?

[Minotaur]

I am pretty sure that some issues about simulated reality are well excepted, like 3 to 9 kill sorties on a regular basis.  Other issues are not well excepted, like high value fuel burn rate multipliers

Comparitivly speaking "I Dweebish Minotaurish Rubbish, have more kills in AH than any Allied Ace of WW2 flying real planes with real fuel comsumption rates".  (BIG pat on the back, BABY!   )  This is not as bad as it might seem considering that I am blacked out for about half the time in my dogfights.

Some players have more kills than all the German Aces combined(or so it seems).  Since AH went Beta, more kills than the top German Ace flying in 5+ years of war. (Historians please feel free to "Flame On")

I am unbelievably still missing somthing here?

Mino

[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 11-22-1999).]

[fats]

--- Minotaur: ---
Did you mean that pilots often, after scoring numerous kills, were forced to RTB because they were out of fuel and not ammo?
--- end ---

The first paragraph or so was about what I experience in AH, I run out of fuel before I run out of ammunition quite often. I have more ditches than landings on my score - I don't get to RTB that often you know.

--- Minotaur: ---
This raises one issue, I had not thought of before. Some players want more fuel (time per sortie) for the purpose of extending their streaks. Not sure how I missed that altogether.

Why not just come out and say it?
--- end ---

Hmm, I thought I did say it. I want more fuel to be able to spend all the ammo I have loaded on the plane. It's not for the purpose of extending the streaks per se, but to get as much time of flying AH spent fighting against someone, for some people it might mean higher kill count on sorties. Personally I seem to enjoy the actual fights more than take offs and landings.


//fats