Author Topic: Reduced Ranges (Read 6066 times)

hitech · « **Reply #30 on:** January 03, 2006, 11:51:04 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.

Harry: You are full of dog dodo. And a true conspericyest.

HiTech

Larry · « **Reply #31 on:** January 03, 2006, 12:27:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Harry
Yes, 19-20k for the La-7.

BZZZZ WRONG! La5 and 7 were low level intercepters and are the best when they are under 7k but hold thier own up to 15 anything higher then that is just retarded. Most american planes are for high alt because in the war they escorted flgiths of bombers. LW is kindy stuck in the middle 5-20k is good for most sept the Ta152 25+ only unless you have the numbers.

Harry · « **Reply #32 on:** January 04, 2006, 01:29:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Larry
BZZZZ WRONG!

You should get that twitch looked at. The La-7 reaches top speed at 20k. Just as the P-51 at 25k, Dora at 18k etc. This is commonly known as full throttle height, and is the designed "combat altitude" of the aircraft.

Golfer · « **Reply #33 on:** January 04, 2006, 03:27:11 AM »

I think Harry forgot his oxygen mask climbing through 10,000ft in that La-7. Harry...from now on anytime you're above 3000 don those cannulas buddy...there's certainly not enough oxygen getting into your brain, your coordination and logic is going down the tubes and you're for some reason euphoric about it.

Harry · « **Reply #34 on:** January 04, 2006, 04:14:10 AM »

Perhaps you should check you own oxygen Golfer, perhaps you're flying that imaginary P-51 of yours again

.

The La-7's Shvetsov M-82FN engine has a two-stage blower. The second stage kicks in at 5000 meters or approx 16k with a full throttle height of 19,5k. Pretty much a waste of weight and engine power if the La-7 was meant as a "low altitude interceptor" (which is an idiotic and fictional term).

Kev367th · « **Reply #35 on:** January 04, 2006, 06:56:24 AM »

As the airfields are approx 25 miles apart on average wheres the need for a 1x fuel burn?
The fuel multiplier is a result of the airfields being so close. Without it a lot of aircraft would be flying around on only 25% fuel.

The only aircraft it really hurts is ones that have no DT option, or ones that have the option of DT or ord but not both.

Personally I'd be happier with the previous setup of 1.5x and fuel pork down to 25%, (25% would also limit spit XVI's as a side affect).

straffo · « **Reply #36 on:** January 04, 2006, 07:25:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
As the airfields are approx 25 miles apart on average wheres the need for a 1x fuel burn?

Alternatively where is the need to have a 100% loadout availlable ?

Kev367th · « **Reply #37 on:** January 04, 2006, 07:39:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Alternatively where is the need to have a 100% loadout availlable ?

Very true, but where would you find aircraft going into combat carrying only 25% fuel?
It's a good compromise, I just think the current 2x is too much and that we should go back to old system. (1.5x and min 25% fuel at airfields)

Harry · « **Reply #38 on:** January 04, 2006, 07:46:07 AM »

What I don't understand is how having historical fuel endurances somehow detracts from the fun? If you fly a P-51 and I a Spit, does it bother you that my Spit has the range it's supposed to have?

All I see is the unnecessary increase in running from fights by people who are low on virtual gas. More running = waste of time = less fun. If you want to do a lot of T-O, landings and fuel management FS2004 is the game for you. I play in the main arena to dogfight and have fun, not looking for the nearest fuel truck.

Morpheus · « **Reply #39 on:** January 04, 2006, 08:28:48 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.

lol you're not too bright are you.

Harry · « **Reply #40 on:** January 04, 2006, 08:38:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Morpheus
lol you're not too bright are you.

What an intelligent and mature response. Next you’ll insult my mother?

Morpheus · « **Reply #41 on:** January 04, 2006, 08:56:59 AM »

About as bright as....

Quote

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

Its pretty sad people like you are so lonely that you sink to trolling the A/C and Vehic. Forums for AH. I feel bad for you, almost.

Harry · « **Reply #42 on:** January 04, 2006, 09:25:16 AM »

Don't feel bad, I don't.

It's the only logical reason for limiting the range of planes in a completely fictitious game arena. It adds nothing to the enjoyment of the game unless you get some perverted pleasure of wasting other people’s time. Next you can explain how being able to take 25% fuel + droptanks somehow is historical and/or "realistic".

Morpheus · « **Reply #43 on:** January 04, 2006, 10:06:12 AM »

You should start doing your homework.

Range in planes is all relative. The maps are no larger than 512 miles... So you wouldnt need the range that a pony or even an La7 could go in real life to traverse an AH map. It would just be silly.

Stupid trolls.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #44 on:** January 04, 2006, 10:29:16 AM »

Harry,

I will give you the benifit of the doubt and take a legit shot at answering the question you are posing. It seems like a troll but what the hell, it is a new year.

Question: You would like to know why we have a fuel multpier because in your opinion it gives the Allied planes an unfair advantage.

Answer: Because in real life these aircraft either had to fly long distance to meet each other or they were limited to short range missions. The fuel multiplier allows HTC to avoid making ALL of it's customers stay online for hours to fly one mission by reducing the flight distance/time. But in order to regain some sense of realism they added the fuel multiplier to level (make even) the real life advantage enjoyed by longer range aircraft of loiter time and range.

You are free to disagree on this point but you have ask your self this question.

Why should a La-7 with 122 gallons of internal fuel have the same range as a Hellcat with 250 gallons of fuel? They both have 2,000+HP and the La-7 designers knew very well when they built it that it could fly very fast but not for very long. So isn't it a bit gamey to make some aircraft carry twice as much fuel to get the same range as a smaller A/C that couldn't fly very long at all?

If it seems like the allied aircraft have an advantage in this area it is because they did have an advantage in this area. They were purpose built for it just as the Axis aircraft were built for short range and fast climb.

Or of course we could fly real time over the English channel but then the short range aircraft won't have any fighting time and the long range A/C will always be on the offensive... Oh wait that is how it really was...........