Reduced Ranges

[HoHun]

Hi Rapier,

>Not being an aircraft expert, I do know that the Japanese and American planes all had much more endurance overall than the European planes.

They still have more endurance at 1.0.

>Who wants to fly for 2 or 3 hours to get to the battle area?  Not me

This has nothing to do with the fuel multiplier.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[bozon]

Originally posted by HoHun
The Soviets got about 200 lend-lease P-47D aircraft and did not like them at all. I'm not sure about the reasons, but the thirst for high-octane fuel and the need for long, firm runways probably had something to do with it, but of course they also compared performance to the light Soviet fighters they were used to.

I was just kidding with that remark. One has to take into account that the operational altitudes of the jug and yak are seperated by about 20,000 feet. Also the D11 is similar in performance to early D models which are late 1943 aircrafts while the yak9U is late 44. Hard to compare.

Bozon try something more difficult : the Typhoon.

Already on my todo list. I do remember taking it for a ride last tour and found the endurance with DT quite reasonable. Got one kill, died twice and the roll rate made me park it right back in the hangar till it finishs a 360 roll.

Bozon

[straffo]

Well the Typhoon is a better exemple than the yak of the problem generated by the FBM set at 2.

It climb slow and so had lot of trouble reaching an altitude where fuel is used more efficiently andso use a lot of fuel.
IRL one of the key tactical advantage of the Typhoon was her high cruise speed  but in AH  any plane not having to manage fuel can cruise faster (afaik typhoon cruise speed is lower than P51 MIL speed).
Plus don't forget the P51 will be lighter faster than IRL.


Give this choice to the average MA pilot :

Between a short ranged fast plane having to monitor fuel and a longer ranged fast plane not having to monitor fuel .

We know the answer ,as the weight difference is a important factor the MA is not a dueling environment you will allways find someone with more or less E in the same of different plane.


A FBM at 1.7 would be IMO be better giving longer legs to tactical fighter without penalizing to much the long range fighter.

[F4UDOA]

Thank you very much, now my sweat D11 really seems like crap!

Don't feel bad, he only has enough ammo for a few kills if he is a good shot.

When you reduced MAP did you reduce RPM?

[hitech]

A Little history: When AHII came out it was set at 2.5. A few weeks into it we changed it to 2.0.

Why it exist is because fuel load and range are major trade offs in Airplane design, just like power/weight/climb rate/speed/armor/lift/fire power. With the reduced ranges we fly, for range to be a tradeoff, the fbm had to exist.

I would still like to see it higher. The resone is map scale, not the  exact scale mutiple. Because of the shorter distances no one is force to fly distances at cruise power settings. At 2.5 most planes were forced to lower power quite often. This has the effect of makeing bounces from above totaly different than the way they happened.

HiTech

[Harry]

Originally posted by hitech
Why it exist is because fuel load and range are major trade offs in Airplane design, just like power/weight/climb rate/speed/armor/lift/fire power. With the reduced ranges we fly, for range to be a tradeoff, the fbm had to exist.

Or in other words; you want to give longer ranged planes an advantage they shouldn't have given the distances involved. An unfair advantage.

The ranges in the MA is very similar to those on the Russian front, and later Western front after the Allied invasion. Only the Americans and Japanese developed long range fighters because of the distances involved in operating in the Pacific. The P-51 was developed to operate from a fortress island (UK) and escort bombers to Germany and back.

ALL other fighters have very similar range on internal fuel because they were designed to operate in very much the same environment we do in the MA. Luftwaffe and VVS fighter airfields were usually no more than 10-20 miles from the frontlines, much like what we have in the MA.

Originally posted by hitech
I would still like to see it higher. The resone is map scale, not the  exact scale mutiple. Because of the shorter distances no one is force to fly distances at cruise power settings. At 2.5 most planes were forced to lower power quite often. This has the effect of makeing bounces from above totaly different than the way they happened.

That may be well intended, but in reality what the fuel multiplier does is force people to fly longer ranged planes for anything except base defense and furballing. No one will fly on cruise in hostile airspace and be bounced from above like you want. In the MA speed is life, and if people can't fly a plane like they want they will switch to a plane that can. In real life pilots didn't have that option.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by hitech
A Little history: When AHII came out it was set at 2.5. A few weeks into it we changed it to 2.0.

Why it exist is because fuel load and range are major trade offs in Airplane design, just like power/weight/climb rate/speed/armor/lift/fire power. With the reduced ranges we fly, for range to be a tradeoff, the fbm had to exist.

I would still like to see it higher. The resone is map scale, not the  exact scale mutiple. Because of the shorter distances no one is force to fly distances at cruise power settings. At 2.5 most planes were forced to lower power quite often. This has the effect of makeing bounces from above totaly different than the way they happened.

HiTech

Would create a real problem for aircaft without DT's or ones that can only have DT's or ord but not both, if the FBM was higher.
Tiffy is already hamstrung with this exact problem. When carring ord I usually find my self RTB after a very short time over target.
Given its relatively poor climb you are starting usually 50 miles back from the front line, upping the fuel multiplier would create a real problem.

Will also create real problem for all the Spits, but especially the XIV, unless at least the 45gal slipper tank is added. At FBM of 2.5 by the time you reach the XIV's best alt your DT would be dry. Be yet another reason not to use it.

I understand your reasoning though, it's just not going to work for all planes, even at 2.5.

Would even suggest the old AH1 1.5 FBM and min 25% fuel pork was better.
The 2.0 FBM and min 75% pork has created the mass La7 and Spit XVI numbers, at least the old way there were 'artificial' means to control them.

[F4UDOA]

That may be well intended, but in reality what the fuel multiplier does is force people to fly longer ranged planes for anything except base defense and furballing.

Where are you flying? Here are the kill stats for tour 71 top 10.

Rank      Type      Kills   Deaths   K-%     K/D
   1    Spitfire XVI    43991   38519 10.85    1.14
   2    La-7            36721   30634  9.06    1.20
   3    N1K2            30032   25117  7.41    1.20
   4    P-51D           25777   24621  6.36    1.05
   5    Typhoon IB      22640   15014  5.58    1.51
   6    Bf 110G-2       17592   22214  4.34    0.79
   7    SeaFire         16085   18221  3.97    0.88
   8    Hurricane IIC   15793   12328  3.89    1.28
   9    F4U-1C          12379    5346  3.05    2.32
   10   Fw 190D-9       12332    8245  3.04    1.50

How many of these are long range American fighters.

No one will fly on cruise in hostile airspace and be bounced from above like you want. In the MA speed is life, and if people can't fly a plane like they want they will switch to a plane that can. In real life pilots didn't have that option.

In real life pilot used cruising power to fly into hostile areas and only used mil and WEP power when in combat. It is not realistic to fly at Mil power all day, that IS why we have an FBM.

What are you flying that you do not get enough flight time out of?

The answer to realism is to make the FBM higher not lower, or just move the bases apart.

[Kev367th]

Would suggest that the FBM and the ability to pork a field go hand in hand and should not be treated as seperate issues.

[Harry]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Where are you flying? Here are the kill stats for tour 71 top 10.

Rank      Type      Kills   Deaths   K-%     K/D
   1    Spitfire XVI    43991   38519 10.85    1.14
   2    La-7            36721   30634  9.06    1.20
   3    N1K2            30032   25117  7.41    1.20
   4    P-51D           25777   24621  6.36    1.05
   5    Typhoon IB      22640   15014  5.58    1.51
   6    Bf 110G-2       17592   22214  4.34    0.79
   7    SeaFire         16085   18221  3.97    0.88
   8    Hurricane IIC   15793   12328  3.89    1.28
   9    F4U-1C          12379    5346  3.05    2.32
   10   Fw 190D-9       12332    8245  3.04    1.50

How many of these are long range American fighters.
 

Most of those planes are used for base defence and furballing. What part of that did you not understand earlier?

Originally posted by Harry
That may be well intended, but in reality what the fuel multiplier does is force people to fly longer ranged planes for anything except base defense and furballing.

We both know the furballers make most of the kills and deaths in the MA. Those who actually play the war game don’t affect killstats as much. Or I should say I choose to believe you’re intelligent enough to understand that.

Originally posted by F4UDOA
In real life pilot used cruising power to fly into hostile areas and only used mil and WEP power when in combat. It is not realistic to fly at Mil power all day, that IS why we have an FBM.

Again I choose to believe you’re just playing stupid.

Originally posted by Harry
… IN REALITY what the fuel multiplier does is force people to fly longer ranged planes for anything except base defense and furballing. No one will fly on cruise in hostile airspace and be bounced from above like you want. In the MA speed is life, and if people can't fly a plane like they want they will switch to a plane that can. In real life pilots didn't have that option.

How are you going to force people to fly short-ranged planes if they don’t want to? It doesn’t take a major in psychology to see that people will migrate to those planes that are more survivable and doesn’t waste their time with unnecessarily frequent RTBs. Furballers will always skew the statistics since they don’t really care about any of this, and we all know how realistic THAT is. Oh my! What will Hitech do about the totally unrealistic furballing?

Players WANT to fly on mil power because its safe. IF a given plane does not have the fuel for it they will pick another that does. OMG! Isn’t that dreadfully unrealistic? Shouldn’t Hitech simply FORCE people to fly short ranged planes so that we all can achieve this UTOPIAN main arena where everybody flies like it was real, and not actually do what THEY WANT?

Remember what happened to Warbirds.

[Bruno]

Originally posted by hitech
A Little history: When AHII came out it was set at 2.5. A few weeks into it we changed it to 2.0.

It went to 2.5 for like 2 weeks but before the rpm/fuel consumption adjustments (beta?) the FBM was 1.5

Why it exist is because fuel load and range are major trade offs in Airplane design, just like power/weight/climb rate/speed/armor/lift/fire power. With the reduced ranges we fly, for range to be a tradeoff, the fbm had to exist.

What you trade is flight time for the rest of the plane set to do what? Lighten the Ami planes?

I would still like to see it higher. The resone is map scale, not the  exact scale multiple. Because of the shorter distances no one is force to fly distances at cruise power settings. At 2.5 most planes were forced to lower power quite often. This has the effect of makeing bounces from above totaly different than the way they happened.

HiTech [/B]

You want to do what? Give to some planes a max of 15 min flight time? This will do nothing to Ami planes. They will just take a DT and 75% fuel instead of 50%. No 'fuel management' required... And you wonder why some folks claim the so-called 'Allied-conspiracy'. Some Ami planes were specifically designed for long range for a reason. If want to make 'fuel management' and 'range' an 'issue' why not force some Ami planes to fly long distances by only enabling those planes at rear bases?

We all know that won't happen because the majority of the AH player base will have fits.

At 2.5 the only planes that will have to 'reduce' power are the same planes that have to do it now. Bombers still fly about at max power all the time, so do almost all the Ami fighters. Players aren't forced to take off from close fields. So 'scale' is meaningless and an artificial creation of player choice. If Ami pilots are so upset about having to fight with 'high fuel weight' they can fly around and burn it off. The P-51 is already modeled to be more maneuverable then most no matter what the fuel load.

If you wanted to force players to fly at reduced power then take a tip from FB/AEP/PF and add an 'overheat scheme' rather then just upping the fuel mod. Neither are 'realistic' but at least with engine overheat all sides have to deal with similiar things. They have to preserve their engine for combat and thus fly at reduced power, ie 'cruise'...

As for bounces not being realistic in AH, it is the icons more then anything else that ensure that 'bounces' will remain unreal. At 6k any player who isn't asleep will just power up at the sight of a high inbound con. But whatever...

[F4UDOA]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Where are you flying? Here are the kill stats for tour 71 top 10.

Rank Type Kills Deaths K-% K/D
1 Spitfire XVI 43991 38519 10.85 1.14
2 La-7 36721 30634 9.06 1.20
3 N1K2 30032 25117 7.41 1.20
4 P-51D 25777 24621 6.36 1.05
5 Typhoon IB 22640 15014 5.58 1.51
6 Bf 110G-2 17592 22214 4.34 0.79
7 SeaFire 16085 18221 3.97 0.88
8 Hurricane IIC 15793 12328 3.89 1.28
9 F4U-1C 12379 5346 3.05 2.32
10 Fw 190D-9 12332 8245 3.04 1.50

How many of these are long range American fighters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Most of those planes are used for base defence and furballing. What part of that did you not understand earlier?

Really? So you telling me that the hordes of vulchers that appear over every base are not flying these Aircraft? Oh those poor people, they can't vulch 5 sectors away.

We both know the furballers make most of the kills and deaths in the MA. Those who actually play the war game don’t affect killstats as much. Or I should say I choose to believe you’re intelligent enough to understand that.

What is your point? The MA is already flooded with short ranged aircraft everywhere. Would like all of the A/C to be short ranged? You are making my arguement for me, thanks!

Originally posted by F4UDOA
In real life pilot used cruising power to fly into hostile areas and only used mil and WEP power when in combat. It is not realistic to fly at Mil power all day, that IS why we have an FBM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again I choose to believe you’re just playing stupid.

Are you saying you don't like my use of throttle and RPM or you disagree that in reality pilots managed their fuel? Or maybe you have just decided to call me names because you ran out of bullets and decided to throw the gun at me? That always works.

How are you going to force people to fly short-ranged planes if they don’t want to? It doesn’t take a major in psychology to see that people will migrate to those planes that are more survivable and doesn’t waste their time with unnecessarily frequent RTBs. Furballers will always skew the statistics since they don’t really care about any of this, and we all know how realistic THAT is. Oh my! What will Hitech do about the totally unrealistic furballing?

Force people to fly short ranged aircraft? Have you looked at the kill stats? That is all people fly! The HurriIIC has more kills that any American plane other than the P-51D! Furballs, vulching and defense most people fly Spits and La-7's.

Players WANT to fly on mil power because its safe. IF a given plane does not have the fuel for it they will pick another that does. OMG! Isn’t that dreadfully unrealistic? Shouldn’t Hitech simply FORCE people to fly short ranged planes so that we all can achieve this UTOPIAN main arena where everybody flies like it was real, and not actually do what THEY WANT?

Players want to fly at mil power because it is easy. If the planes didn't have enough fuel they would fly something else but that clearly is not true. HTC wants people to use fuel management, that is why they modeled it in the simm. They even listed cruise power settings in the E6B. I wish we had cowl flaps and overheats but that is just me, I like realism and I do not wish to play games like Fighters Aces or WB.

BY the way Harry, what do you fly?

[Harry]

It seems I chose wrong.

[straffo]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Where are you flying? Here are the kill stats for tour 71 top 10.

Rank      Type      Kills   Deaths   K-%     K/D
   1    Spitfire XVI    43991   38519 10.85    1.14
   2    La-7            36721   30634  9.06    1.20
   3    N1K2            30032   25117  7.41    1.20
   4    P-51D           25777   24621  6.36    1.05
   5    Typhoon IB      22640   15014  5.58    1.51
   6    Bf 110G-2       17592   22214  4.34    0.79
   7    SeaFire         16085   18221  3.97    0.88
   8    Hurricane IIC   15793   12328  3.89    1.28
   9    F4U-1C          12379    5346  3.05    2.32
   10   Fw 190D-9       12332    8245  3.04    1.50
 

It's pretty incoherent to use Kill stat to illustrate a discussion about fuel or range


no ?

[F4UDOA]

Straffo,

As even someone with your genius intellent can see the playing field is so badly slanted toward American Aircraft that exactly two of them are in the top ten and one of them is perked.

You should try flying a box of tissues for all of the crying you are doing

Maybe the next thread can be about unlimited ammunition since that is also unfair, no?