Normal fuel burn rate in the main arenas please.

[Anaxogoras]

I am also in favor of 1x fuel burn.  Yes, I do understand the arguments for 2x burn, but they do not convince me.

[PFactorDave]

I'd suggest a better technique is to pull some power when you don't need it.

Agree 100%!  The mind set that the throttle must be firewalled at all times is what causes folks like the OP to whine about durations.  It's amazing the difference in range you'll have if you simply throttle back to cruise power on your way to and from the fight.

[AWwrgwy]

    I agree completley.   Some planes range is so short as to be a joke.

  2x burn rate really punishes any plane that does not have a drop tank option.

  Back in Air Warrior I used to love flying the La5, I flew it a few runs almost every shift.  Yet in Aceshigh with the fuel burn rate at 2x I never fly it.   I'm sorry but 21min of fuel is not much.....AND YES I am well aware that you can trim back RPM's and Throttle ....this adds a whoping 4min of flight time!! ....lame


Frankly the whole 2x burn is "Gamey" ....our bullets dont fly twice as fast? ....our planes dont fly twice as fast?  ...yet our fuels runs away from us?
lame


Helm ...out

I, more often than not, take 75% in a Yak.

How far are you taking off from the fight?  How long does it take you to climb your LA to 20K?

 

wrongway

[guncrasher]

I take 50% plust extra tank in a spit it will last more than I care to fly

semp

[Spikes]

It was nice when it was 1.0, but it won't happen again. If you change that, you'd need to change other things. Then people would complain about longer flights. The list goes on.

[BnZs]

I am also in favor of 1x fuel burn.  Yes, I do understand the arguments for 2x burn, but they do not convince me.

I'm guessing your reasoning is that you think this would lead to fighting at higher, more realistic altitudes. I do not believe it would lead to this, due to the nature of the capture system. As the other posters have pointed out, it would lead to some hyper-modeled point interceptors having more dominance than they already do.

[ink]

good arguments for the x2

thumbs down

[straffo]

And this is exactly what fuel burn 2.0 is for. It's there because the distances on map are compressed as well.

But not altitude.

[Anaxogoras]

I'm guessing your reasoning is that you think this would lead to fighting at higher, more realistic altitudes. I do not believe it would lead to this, due to the nature of the capture system. As the other posters have pointed out, it would lead to some hyper-modeled point interceptors having more dominance than they already do.

No, that's not my reasoning.

Punishment of the high-performance interceptors is a lousy justification for 2x fuel burn because it equally punishes the mediocre interceptors. It is collective punishment where many of the victims have nothing to do with the guilty.

Basically, I approach these questions by asking whether the initial concession was necessary in the first place.  I don't assume that the gameyness of AH is already justified and that the burden is on history to prove its own value.

[Lusche]

Punishment of the high-performance interceptors is a lousy justification for 2x fuel burn because it equally punishes the mediocre interceptors. It is collective punishment where many of the victims have nothing to do with the guilty.

Yes they do - short range.

If you put fuel burn to 1.0, the distinction between short range & long range fighters is more or less lost when even those with the smallest endurance have a crusing time of 40-50 minutes even without reducing power. You just remove one performance attribute that is setting planes apart from each other from the game.

Then drop the fuel burn.  I guarantee the number of 109s will shoot up.

You wanna know which planes numbers will shoot up? Spit 16 and La-7

Fuel is no reason at all you don't see that many 109's. At cruise speed, they can go for long distances even without DT, which is also available. Unlike the La-7, I never had any fuel problems and could easily reach any fight I did want to, even at high altitudes.

[VonMessa]

<----    flies 109's all the time.

I agree with the Snail.   

Fuel is NOT the reason you don't see that many 109s

[RTHolmes]

How about flying historic throttle/power (realistic) settings?

even the spit XIV is fine if you manage fuel properly. with MA 2x fuel burn after climbing to 20k you can still cruise at 350ish for 50mins.

[Anaxogoras]

Yes they do - short range.

That was implied when I said they were interceptors.  If you read more carefully, you'll see that the "guilt" refers to performance, not range.

Spit16?  La-7?  Oh noes!   Everyone is all for freedom of choice in AH until it means that someone might do something they don't like.  Gosh, I love that.

[Helm]

   It like the old joke ...If Duke Basket ball gets busted with a recruiting violation ....the NCAA punishes Fresno State??

     I have no fear of La7 or spit16's .....nor do I fly them ....I have flown 1 spit16 sortie all year ...and maybe 1 La7 sortie all year.  

     Fuel economy engine settings? ...sure I know how to do this.... but in the case of the la5 it's alot of work for an extra 4min of flight time ....its hardly worth the effort ....when the mustang pilot using the same method can extend his time by all most 15min

.....also using economy settings further handicaps planes with short range .....they arrive at the "battle" doing lower speeds then they are capable of ....yet the P51 driver arrives at the battle doing top speed? .....how is this fair?

stoney mentioned at 1.0 burn rate p51's could up 25% fuel? ....they can do that now ....25% fuel and a drop tank and you have the same situation you wish to avoid? .....yet Yak's, La5's, I16's, c205's and others are all hampered by the 2.0 burn


here is an example:  La5 21min flight time at full power ....5 min to get to 10k ....5min to fly to the front ....you have 11min left to find enemy..kill the enemy and RTB ...lets say it takes you 4min to rtb and land ....you basically have 7min of combat time ....that's not much

....ok lets say you saved gas by using economy settings ....your best case scenario is 11min combat time ....still not much time ....most times you spend 5min trying to convince a p51 to even engage you...much less kill it and RTB


Helm ...out

[Lusche]

Spit16?  La-7?  Oh noes!  Everyone is all for freedom of choice in AH until it means that someone might do something they don't like.  Gosh, I love that.

Spit 16 and La7 increase is just my counter argument to those that think reducing fuel burn will lead to more variety - which is exactly the opposite to what is really happening.
Range is just another reason to chose planes beyond other performance aspects than speed, turn or whatever.

My main argument is still the same. Fuel 1.0 will eliminate one very distinct performance attribute. Remove the distinction between short- & long ranged fighters. One tactical facette of AH.