Reduced Ranges

[Saxman]

There's a point that FD keeps bringing up that for some reason everyone is ignoring:

USE FUEL MANAGEMENT.

NO aircraft, not even the long-legged American and Japanese birds, flew to target and back at full combat power. Pilots cut back the throttle, RPMs and MAP to increase their aircraft's endurance for transit.

That SAME capability is modelled in the game. So like FD suggested: Instead of b****ing about a perceived imbalance, (range was a HISTORICAL advantage of American and Japanese fighters. Deal with it already) try looking up those extra buttons on the keyboard.

[gatt]

Originally posted by HoHun
Exaggerated fuel consumption encourages one-way missions, with everyone trying to score a quick kill before running out of fuel. To score the quick kill, greater manoeuvrability and lower weight are an advantage ... a vicious circle ...

And the shorter the flight time, the greater is the share of that time that I have to spend shuttling back and forth between a vulch-safe second-line airfield and the front-line. This is another factor that encourages one-way missions if fuel consumption is exaggerated.

Exactly. Give a look at the threads talking about "RTBing or not?" and you'll have a good idea of the induced Main Arcade attitude.

[HoHun]

Hi F4UDOA,

>Both of these statements are because the fields are close together as is the vulching you mentioned which is exactly why we have a fuel multplier.

And is it successful in stopping vulching?

>If not for the multplier you would just have hordes of La-7's and Spit XVI's flying over the same CAP'ed base endlessly vulching. Is that "realistic"?

Does it get more realistic if the endless vulchfest is carried out with a proportion of long range planes mixed in?

>Dude, where are you flying for an hour?

Sadly, there are no games today that support my flying style. AW and WB in the past did.

>The F4U has 2400rounds of ammo that weight 750LBS and only has 30 seconds of total trigger time which is more that any BF109 ever built. What are you doing for 59 minutes and 30 seconds?

If you use realistic tactics and take your time to set up the attack, you can kill with a burst of 3 s or less. Just don't take any low-probability shots, and you'll have no problem landing 3 kills after an hour with ammunition to spare.

(Technically, many Me 109s actually beat the F4U's trigger time. If you're talking about useful firepower, you're discounting the 7.92 mm cowl guns with good justification, though ;-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[straffo]

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

NOPE , I want to do exactly  like a P51 dweeb.
Nothing more nothing less.

Originally posted by Saxman
There's a point that FD keeps bringing up that for some reason everyone is ignoring:

USE FUEL MANAGEMENT.

NO aircraft, not even the long-legged American and Japanese birds, flew to target and back at full combat power. Pilots cut back the throttle, RPMs and MAP to increase their aircraft's endurance for transit.

That SAME capability is modelled in the game. So like FD suggested: Instead of b****ing about a perceived imbalance, (range was a HISTORICAL advantage of American and Japanese fighters. Deal with it already) try looking up those extra buttons on the keyboard.

Like we waited for you to post your infinite wisdom about how to play the game.

WE ARE AT 25 MILES FROM EACH OTHER WHY IS THERE THE NEED TO MAKE RANGE AN ADVANTAGE ?
We are at 25 REAL miles from each other why is there the need to make range an advantage ????

We are CLOSE.

If it was only for realism if would be a DIS-ADVANTAGE.

[HoHun]

Hi Bronk,

>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.

You seem to have missed my analysis of the real-world Spitfire XIV which addressed exactly that point.

And the critical issue is flight time anyway, not range. You might not have thought about that, but if the fuel multiplier is cranked up, flight times will never reach the status "as advertized" no matter if you push the throttle all the way forward or pull it back to maximum endurance settings.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Tilt]

If not for the multplier you would just have hordes of La-7's and Spit XVI's flying over the same CAP'ed base endlessly vulching. Is that "realistic"?

Well fast, light, highly manouverable aircraft optimised for low and medium alt performance with moderate endurance and a reasonable gun package would seem ideal for the job!

These aircraft are the best choice and therefore the most "realistic".

Unlike heavier long range multi functional aircraft designed to carry significant ordinance and or fuel stores optimised for higher alts.

FBM2 is a game play modifier................ on balance a sensible one IMO, but to argue that it enhances realism is a falsehood. It adjusts gameplay balance to bring more aircraft into effective play.

or is the question..............Is vulching realistic?

Vulch tendancy has nothing to do with FBM2.

and vulching is very realistic...........what is unrealistic is the tendancy for a pilot to repeatedly attempt to take off whilst having a large number of enemy fighters over his field.

You can be sure that during the many LW raids on VVS fields around Leningrad that the LW "vulched" if given the opportunity.

Further if pilots continued to attempt to launch and a pattern of no counter attack from neighbouring fields was common practice then those LW pilots would have hung around to enjoy the feast if AA suppression permitted.

Same was true on the Crimea peninsular and  was true in the reverse as the LW was pushed back in 44/45 thru Courland and Prussia.

Same was true over Belgium and Holland and Germany in late 44/early 45

Indeed in 45 the majority of LW Me262's taken out of action due to enemy fire were to "Vulching" activities over LW airfields by Allied aircraft.

[Squire]

"NO aircraft, not even the long-legged American and Japanese birds, flew to target and back at full combat power. Pilots cut back the throttle, RPMs and MAP to increase their aircraft's endurance for transit."

"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."

You both seem to forget that the opposing a/c can still climb at max power, and cruise at much higher speeds for longer, wether the Yak cruises or not.

A P-51B can go max MIL power from the word go, and either climb like hell, quickly, or cruise to the battle area and face a merge doing 90 percent its rated level speed, right off the mark.

Yes, the Yak can drop to a cruise and face a merge while trying to accelerate to combat speed or be bounced from on high, or both, and then when combat is joined, must go to 100 power and watch the gas tank go dry in record time.

It also does not address the issue of fights taking a while to get to sometimes, which they do. They arent always 1/4 sector away.

Going to cruise isnt some magic fix all that the rest of us have not figured out.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Squire
[B

You both seem to forget that the opposing a/c can still climb at max power, and cruise at much higher speeds for longer, wether the Yak cruises or not.

A P-51B can go max MIL power from the word go, and either climb like hell, quickly, or cruise to the battle area and face a merge doing 90 percent its rated level speed, right off the mark.

Yes, the Yak can drop to a cruise and face a merge while trying to accelerate to combat speed or be bounced from on high, or both, and then when combat is joined, must go to 100 power and watch the gas tank go dry in record time.

It also does not address the issue of fights taking a while to get to sometimes, which they do. They arent always 1/4 sector away.

Going to cruise isnt some magic fix all that the rest of us have not figured out. [/B]

Squire  I think that is the price you pay for lighter and more nimble bird.
Didn't mean for my last post to seem so sarchastic but it was late and i had a few.
I still say leave the FBM alone.  



Bronk

[bozon]

Originally posted by Squire
You both seem to forget that the opposing a/c can still climb at max power, and cruise at much higher speeds for longer, wether the Yak cruises or not.

A P-51B can go max MIL power from the word go, and either climb like hell, quickly, or cruise to the battle area and face a merge doing 90 percent its rated level speed, right off the mark.

Climbout is not the time to reduce throttle, you won't save much there. After you got some alt THEN you switch to cruise setting as cruising at alt is both faster and more efficient.

P51s or even more, P47/38 that cruise at full throttle is loading too much fuel to start with. The only thing that matter is total sortie time and as long as it is within your plane capacity, you want as little fuel as possible on board. If a P38 and a yak want to fly for 25 min. The 38 will have to load about twice the fuel load of the yak. Meaning, if the yak takes 100% P38/47 takes 200% in yak terms. The high fuel burning planes are the ones that require more throttle management to be efficient in terms of load, or show up heavy to the battle. The only advantage they get is longer potential sortie time - much too long for AH gameplay (several hours sortie ?!).

Several planes, such as P51 and A6M have both a large fuel capacity and relatively low GPH rating. It is an historical advantage.

Reduce FBM to 1.0 and most planes will never need more than 25% plus throttle management will become unneeded. Which is more historical? none is - this is an entirely game-play related issue.

Bozon

[Bruno]

There's a point that FD keeps bringing up that for some reason everyone is ignoring:

USE FUEL MANAGEMENT.

He only brought that up after all his other silly arguments failed.

What you and he ignore is the fact that 'fuel management' is only a concern for planes other then Ami, which in RL fuel was one of their greatest concerns.

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.

As Straffo said:

NOPE , I want to do exactly like a P51 dweeb.
Nothing more nothing less.

Which goes directly to what Harry said early on:

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

I don't necessarily agree with it but you can see how some one would arrive at such conclusions. AH earned the nick name 'Allies High' a long time ago.

Squire I think that is the price you pay for lighter and more nimble bird.

And what price do the those flying the 'long range planes' face? They take 50% fuel and a DT, fly around at max power all the time, dump fuel weight at a push of a button...

Reduce FBM to 1.0 and most planes will never need more than 25% plus throttle management will become unneeded. Which is more historical? none is - this is an entirely game-play related issue.

What difference does that make? Ami pilots fly around with minimum fuel weight now. A Yak running at 50% fuel rather then 100% doesn't get that much of a 'weight savings'. Most who would fly the Yak would still take 100% fuel. Those who fly Ami planes will still take 50% fuel. They might just skip the DT, big deal. The only thing lowering the FBM does is increase flight time. This mostly only affects those planes that currently have less then 30 minute flight times.

The FBM wasn't always at x2 btw, it was at x1.5. When they changed it several long threads just like this took place.

[Bronk]

Ok if this is a big american conspericy, how do you explain japaneese aircraft?
 They to can alter fuel loads to mission at hand.
Also most german aircraft use drop tanks also.

I guess HT just doesn't like the Italions and russians then.





Bronk

[straffo]

Stop being grotesque.

I hardly see any Japanese plane in the MA perhaps 1 niki per evening and often none but I see countless of P51 spit lala 190 etc ...

[bozon]

What difference does that make? Ami pilots fly around with minimum fuel weight now. A Yak running at 50% fuel rather then 100% doesn't get that much of a 'weight savings'. Most who would fly the Yak would still take 100% fuel. Those who fly Ami planes will still take 50% fuel. They might just skip the DT, big deal. The only thing lowering the FBM does is increase flight time. This mostly only affects those planes that currently have less then 30 minute flight times.

It was said above that the yak has 29 min at full throttle. Manage it a little and you can go over 35 min. How long do you want to fly?

A P51 with 29 min of fuel has about the same amout of it as a yak. It might show 50% on the gauge but it's the same amount in gallons and lbs. No advantage what so ever regardless of FBM. P51 can fly longer than 29 min, an option which a yak dont have. Unless you claim a maximum of 29 min at full throttle and ~35 min managed fuel time is too short to make sense in the MA than FBM is a non issue.

Long range fighters have the option to be flying pigs but fly long or be light and nimble but manage the fuel like everybody else. High FBM means heavier average fuel loads in ALL planes. Too low FBM means low average fuel load to the point that they don't matter any more and no fuel management is needed at all - just load a few lbs on the plane and firewall the trottle.

Somehow the second option sounds less realistic than the first to me. But that's just me.

Bozon

[HoHun]

Hi Bozon,

>It was said above that the yak has 29 min at full throttle. Manage it a little and you can go over 35 min. How long do you want to fly?

As I said, at least an hour, and then land with a reserve.

And I'm not ever going to believe that if the Yak had 58 min of flight time at full throttle in real life, it's more realistic if it gets 29 min in the game.

Try to take that Spitfire XIV example and apply a fuel multiplier of 2. You'll notice that you won't even have enough fuel left to fly that mission profile even at a combat radius of zero.

Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 20000 ft: -46 gals
No Cruise out: -0 gals
5 min combat power: -30 gals
10 min climb power: -44 gals
No Cruise back: -0 gals
No Reserve: -0 gals

Fuel used: 120 gals, fuel available: 111 gals

So the Spitfire XIV, able to fight a 15 min fight with a combat radius of 73 miles and then land back with a 10% reserve in real life, can not even sustain 15 min of combat at 20000 ft right above its base with a fuel mulitplier of 2.0 even if I cut down the reserve to nothing.

It might be possible to fly standard MA mission profiles in 29 minutes, but if we are talking about realistic mission profiles, these need a realistic fuel multiplier.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[straffo]

So far in IL2 where there is no fuel multiplier none seems to have trouble with it ...
Are we different player ?