Author Topic: Reduced Ranges (Read 5668 times)

Harry · « **Reply #165 on:** January 13, 2006, 10:37:37 AM »

F4UDOA, I’ve already answered all your questions in my previous post. American planes did not have more endurance over the battlefield than say the Russians or Germans. The American planes did not have 1000 mile ranges over the battlefield since they had to spend most of that range on cruising to- and from the battlefield. In combat the Allied pilot operating over enemy territory with a long way home had to watch his fuel a lot more than the (European) Axis pilot. This is not simulated in AH.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #166 on:** January 13, 2006, 11:21:43 AM »

Harry,

Quote

American planes did not have more endurance over the battlefield than say the Russians or Germans. The American planes did not have 1000 mile ranges over the battlefield since they had to spend most of that range on cruising to- and from the battlefield. In combat the Allied pilot operating over enemy territory with a long way home had to watch his fuel a lot more than the (European) Axis pilot. This is not simulated in AH.

Any conclusion you draw from this statement is wrong because your facts are wrong. The P-51D despite having a range of 1330 miles on internal fuel (Not including warmup, climb and reserve fuel) would still use DT's to arrive at the combat area in Europe. He would also burn first the Aux fuel tank before arriving but he would none the less arrive with more than enough fuel for combat, strafing and a cup of coffee.

What range did the 109/190 have? The 109A8 had a max range of less than 600 miles on internal fuel. The P-51 has far more loiter time even with the drive home.

Also you are drawing the senario were the American fighters have to fly a great distance and the Euro-fighters have to fly base defense. Would you like to draw those limits in AH where you cannot leave your base?

Why not just eliminate the weight of fuel in every aircraft and have unlimited flight time. That way you are not penalized and either are we.

Golfer · « **Reply #167 on:** January 13, 2006, 01:07:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Harry
Here's the thing Pooface: American planes did NOT have a fuel range "edge" in real life. In real life American planes HAD to fly long distances to- and from the battlefield. If AH is to simulate "realistic" WWII combat conditions without using realistic ranges and flight time, it would require American planes to remove a big portion of their fuel capacities (but not the weight thereof) to simulate the fuel spent cruising to- and from the battlefield.

Edit: This would of course apply to ALL long-range fighters, not only American ones.

That's so silly it's funny.

In the statement above you say yourself that American planes (P-51D) "HAD" to fly long distance to and from the battlefield. That follows a sentence saying they did "NOT" have an edge in range. How's that work? If the P-51s are flying 3-4x as far as the 109s they're fighting how is that not an edge. It doesn't matter why the fuel is there...it's there. It's the way the airplane was built and designed hence why its modeled so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New point.

Has anyone ever even thought about how much "fun" it would be to fly around for 3 hours without seeing a bad guy? "Real-life" sorties took darn near all day from waking up to flying to debriefing. If you want all the things you've been talking about why not make all AH runs a requirement to do the following for a bomber escort over Germany.

-Take a day off work
-Wake up at 0345
-Eat powdered eggs, SOS and chase it down with some nasty black coffee
-Sit through an hour briefing
-Smoke a pack of cigarettes waiting for takeoff time
-Fly with exact engine management and power limitations
-If hit by flak and bail out...you can't get back to work for the weeks you spend with the French underground because we're so realistic you need to save yourself
-If you're captured you must go spend time in your local prison institution using your laptop to figure out a way to escape from the virtual stalag before you're released.
-If shot down, you're thrown into an alligator pit with tigers on shore with steaks tied to various parts of your body.

The most realistic aces high ever!!!!

straffo · « **Reply #168 on:** January 13, 2006, 03:16:09 PM »

Putain quelle bande de crétin.

HoHun · « **Reply #169 on:** January 13, 2006, 03:47:18 PM »

Ho Bozon,

>So while I didn't test the numbers I KNOW there is no problem with it.

That only proves that you castrated your own mission profiles.

Cruising at reduced power cannot overcome the flight time restrictions imposed by an unrealistic fuel multiplier, you have to cut out important parts of a mission profile in order to get along with the reduced endurance.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Harry · « **Reply #170 on:** January 15, 2006, 09:41:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Putain quelle bande de crétin.

lol! You're absolutely correct, but be careful. Skuzzy could whip out his old French dictionary you know

Angus · « **Reply #171 on:** January 15, 2006, 05:38:08 PM »

So, the long ranged U.S. fighters didn't have the range and yet they did, for they had to cover a long distance to the fight.
Where is this getting???

F4UDOA · « **Reply #172 on:** January 16, 2006, 09:19:19 AM »

How do you say conspiracy in French?

straffo · « **Reply #173 on:** January 16, 2006, 09:21:34 AM »

"conspiration" but I never wrote that!

I don't want to see black helicopters over my house !

the french post was an friday outburst because of the high amount of substances (legal ones) I had in my blood.

ChopSaw · « **Reply #174 on:** February 19, 2006, 02:52:26 AM »

I don't know why some people think most of the fighters being flown are american. Most I run into are of other nationalities.

Saxman · « **Reply #175 on:** February 19, 2006, 03:23:15 AM »

AAAAAAAAAH! Zombie thread!!!!

That's a good point, tho. The overwhelming number of Spits, ElGays, and other planes that people have been complaining about being unfairly impacted by the FBM in the MA--defensively AND offensively--seems to suggest that it doesn't have so much of an impact that it's a major argument against flying them.

Anyway...

*Runs away screaming as the undead thread shambles after him*

ChopSaw · « **Reply #176 on:** February 19, 2006, 04:27:05 AM »

It's gonna getcha.

icemaw · « **Reply #177 on:** February 26, 2006, 02:56:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Harry
They increase fuel burn to give the US planes an unfair advantage. Customer satisfaction is more important to them than accuracy.

HAHAHAHA!!!:noid

[SIZE=10]NO SOUP FOR YOU!![/SIZE]

icemaw · « **Reply #178 on:** February 26, 2006, 02:59:13 AM »

If you have to rely on low fuel loads to win fights you just plain suck!
Go to the TA and learn some acm

ps NO SOUP FOR YOU!

parin · « **Reply #179 on:** February 28, 2006, 02:07:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
Here is an idea stop flying with the throttle at the fire wall. All this talk about realism and no one mentions this. Drop the yak into cruse and see how far it goes sheesh. But the people screaming gamey want to be able to fly at top speed AND still have the range as advertized.
Some of you realy make me laugh.

Bronk