PDA

View Full Version : might be why you can't turn with ...



p-11.cAce
03-09-2007, 10:10 AM
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/bf-109gfuelchart.jpg

Almost 500 pound difference between starting with 100% fuel and 25% fuel. 374% difference in the % of aircraft weight that is fuel. The difference between flying it solo and strapping 2 of your mates and a case of Warsteiner in for the ride. In almost every server you are better off starting with 50% or less. In a "fast action" server your best bet is to start with 25% and a drop tank. Ditch the tank as soon as you engage http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Most dogfights in RL occurred after significant cruise flight at reduced fuel loads. If you take off with 100% fuel and meet the enemy in a short time (which you will on almost any server due to map size - even if you are a high flyer) and come up against someone who started with 25% you are at a huge disadvantage - I don't care what you are in.

JuHa-
03-09-2007, 10:43 AM
I don't think it makes such a difference with short-ranged fighters, but you're correct
when thinking of P38,P47,P51 etc.

Brain32
03-09-2007, 11:33 AM
Aposultely, fuel amount has influence on handling, but like JuHa noticed, the bigger the fuel load the greater the difference. Also you will not get far with 25% on Spitfire or ME109, in Me109 you wil practically take off with bingo fuel warning if you take 25% http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Anyway I use it like this:
FW190 - 75-100%
ME109 - 100%
Tempest 75-100%
P51,P47,Ta152H - 50%
P38,P63 - 25%
etc...

p-11.cAce
03-09-2007, 11:56 AM
That's why I carry a drop tank http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Brain32
03-09-2007, 11:58 AM
Yes but drop tank is attached to the rack, and rack adds drag sooooo it may actually hurt more...
Tempest has awsome solution for drop tanks, as racks drop together with the tanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DKoor
03-09-2007, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Yes but drop tank is attached to the rack, and rack adds drag sooooo it may actually hurt more...
Tempest has awsome solution for drop tanks, as racks drop together with the tanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif True. G14 at SL:
-549km/h with drop tank
-561km/h after releasing
-576km/h clean, without rack
Difference is noticeable, and huge between droptank and clean conf, almost 30km/h!

From my experience the best thing is to go with 100% fuel with most Bf-109's... especially with G10 as that bird really sucks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
I remember times when F4 could travel for over 3 hours on 100% fuel... those were the times http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Waldo.Pepper
03-09-2007, 02:45 PM
True. G14 at SL:
-549km/h with drop tank
-561km/h after releasing
-576km/h clean, without rack
Difference is noticeable, and huge between droptank and clean conf, almost 30km/h!

This is kind of an impressive detail that Oleg et al modelled. I am impressed anyway.

JG52Karaya-X
03-09-2007, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
especially with G10 as that bird really sucks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Why does the G10 suck? It's actually my favourite Gustav and a very decent performer, 575km/h at sealevel and nearly 700km/h (695) at 7k and a very high rate of climb plus the 30mm on default (which I've grown to prefer over the 20mm lately).

The G14 is for low altitude fighting, the G10 for high alts and the G6/AS (or actually G14/AS) for in between.

ViktorViktor
03-09-2007, 03:02 PM
Microsoft combat flight simulator doesn't model this stuff ? Shame on them noobs !

VW-IceFire
03-09-2007, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
especially with G10 as that bird really sucks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Why does the G10 suck? It's actually my favourite Gustav and a very decent performer, 575km/h at sealevel and nearly 700km/h (695) at 7k and a very high rate of climb plus the 30mm on default (which I've grown to prefer over the 20mm lately).

The G14 is for low altitude fighting, the G10 for high alts and the G6/AS (or actually G14/AS) for in between. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dito...the G-10 is arguable as one of the best balanced late war 109s (not as well balanced as the F-4 but close).

F0_Dark_P
03-09-2007, 04:04 PM
Guys i dont think DKoor mean that the G10 sucks i think he intended to say that the G10 "sucks" like in "sucking fuel", thirsty engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

msalama
03-09-2007, 06:21 PM
FW190 - 75-100%
ME109 - 100%
Tempest 75-100%
P51,P47,Ta152H - 50%
P38,P63 - 25%
etc...

Regardless of the mission you're flying? Another doggieserver star again I see http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

msalama
03-09-2007, 06:23 PM
Ah, sorry. I forgot. In IL-2 there's no missions of course. There's just BANG-BOOM-BING-CRASH & rinse & repeat.

My apologies.

msalama
03-09-2007, 06:32 PM
And yet they call this the most historically accurate WWII aerial simulator there is? Hmmm...

Now why exactly it is why that doesn't work out is left as an exercise to the reader, but suffice it to say however that the worst culprit - IMHO - is the context. In that there isn't one - we just fight each other & don't really connect with a whole because, for us, it doesn't exist...

msalama
03-09-2007, 06:39 PM
...which then again, if anything, is a testimony to Oleg actually, in that - all these my-plane-is-porked-and-yours-isn't threads notwithstanding - he actually did succeed in creating something that isn't (much) lacking anything but the world it naturally should connect to, i.e. the global WWII which sadly (and understandably) isn't included...

Am I making any sense, BTW?

No.79_Cole
03-09-2007, 06:48 PM
Arrrreee you working on your post count? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

msalama
03-09-2007, 06:49 PM
Arrrreee you workingon your post count? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Maybe that too, plus being a bit inebriated as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

No.79_Cole
03-09-2007, 06:51 PM
Hehehe I'm gettin' there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

msalama
03-09-2007, 06:54 PM
Hehehe I'm gettin' there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm off to bed now however... S!

Brain32
03-09-2007, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">FW190 - 75-100%
ME109 - 100%
Tempest 75-100%
P51,P47,Ta152H - 50%
P38,P63 - 25%
etc...

Regardless of the mission you're flying? Another doggieserver star again I see http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well as you can see the values VARY, I never played a mission online where I really needed 100% of fuel on American planes. I don't know if there is a map big enough for mission in which you would need so much fuel however I did take 100% on occasion, once I decided to stick with it and flew one sortie for 2h and 47 minutes until I finally gave up and I needed to take a leak anyway.
I see you also never heard of economical cruise flying, you know at speed which gives you best speed for as little power as possible, but I guess you only fly at 103+wep kinda t3h pwnzor setings http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG52Karaya-X
03-10-2007, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by F0_Dark_P:
Guys i dont think DKoor mean that the G10 sucks i think he intended to say that the G10 "sucks" like in "sucking fuel", thirsty engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

m'kay, that makes more sense http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But so do all other late 109s with MW50 injection, the fuel consumption on full power is extreme!

msalama
03-10-2007, 03:55 AM
but I guess you only fly at 103+wep kinda t3h pwnzor setings http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BZZZZ! Wrong guess. No cigar that man http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But OK, true, you usually don't need full fuel load when flying fighters in IL-2. Bombers, however, can be a different kettle of fish altogether...

Xiolablu3
03-10-2007, 01:59 PM
I just leave fuel on 75% unless its likely to be a really long flight.

For playing online miniwar maps (dogfight servers with historical ground objectives and team objectives) I tend to leave it on 75% all the time, I fly all the planes int he game, depending on the map and find 75% is a good all round figure..

JG52Karaya-X
03-10-2007, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">FW190 - 75-100%
ME109 - 100%
Tempest 75-100%
P51,P47,Ta152H - 50%
P38,P63 - 25%
etc...

Regardless of the mission you're flying? Another doggieserver star again I see http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are also standard values for online war missions, not just dogfights... also on bombers like the Ju88 and He111 you will never have to take more than 50%.

Xiolablu3
03-10-2007, 03:48 PM
I find the term 'Dogfight server' a bit misleading when you are talking about Warclouds, Ukded1/2/3, WInds OF War, Historia etc.

Its certainly not just about dogfighting when I play these servers, there are ground targets for each side to destroy and only a concerted bombing effort will win the map for your team.

Therefore there are flights of bombers being escorted to the targets and troops being protected by fighters. The maps are usually based on real situation and are semi historical but tweaked just a little for gameplay, to make it balanced and fun to play. When you get a good team on these servers, its very much like a coop with all human players.

'Dogfight server' to me means 334th/AFJ etc servers where you just dogfight in a very small arena and both sides have the same (usually uber later war fighters) planest..

fordfan25
03-10-2007, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/bf-109gfuelchart.jpg

Almost 500 pound difference between starting with 100% fuel and 25% fuel. 374% difference in the % of aircraft weight that is fuel. The difference between flying it solo and strapping 2 of your mates and a case of Warsteiner in for the ride. In almost every server you are better off starting with 50% or less. In a "fast action" server your best bet is to start with 25% and a drop tank. Ditch the tank as soon as you engage http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Most dogfights in RL occurred after significant cruise flight at reduced fuel loads. If you take off with 100% fuel and meet the enemy in a short time (which you will on almost any server due to map size - even if you are a high flyer) and come up against someone who started with 25% you are at a huge disadvantage - I don't care what you are in. problem is even after you drop the tanks you still lose around 20MPH and excellration in alot of planes

msalama
03-11-2007, 02:41 AM
also on bombers like the Ju88 and He111 you will never have to take more than 50%.

A wise man never says never.

An experienced bomber jock always takes a (sometimes bloody long) detour route to - and from - the target, because fools approaching from / departing to an obvious direction get shot down. Also, some overhead is a good thing to have in the case of your tanks getting punctured which as you should know happens quite often...

Well of course the size of the map is a factor too, but there definitely are cases where even a full fuel load is a good thing to have IMHO - and that even if you don't run around at constant full power contrary to what Brain recommended up there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG52Karaya-X
03-11-2007, 04:17 AM
Well my squadron flies online wars regularly and we have a bunch of dedicated bomber pilots, they never take more than 50% fuel. And then they also never go in directly but fly around the sectors which are anticipated to get the most action. More than 50% is absolutely unnecessary, even with 50% you get a range of around 1000km, more than you'll ever need to travel and it also leaves enough fuel in case of a puncture. Anyway, when you get attacked by fighters you're least trouble will be a fuel leak http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

msalama
03-11-2007, 08:15 AM
...they never take more than 50% fuel.

Yeah, well, I used to drive around in Mitchells and Havocs w/ a 50% fuel load at some point until I _did_ run out of gas after having had my tanks punctured once or twice. Honestly, that has happened to me a couple of times!

None of which is to say that I always take a full fuel load however. Of course I don't, but does it really make that much of a difference? These beasts are regardless of your fuel load _still_ heavy, slow and unmanouverable so you usually don't stand a chance against a competent fighter pilot anyway... unless your tail-end Charlie is quite a marksman that is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Anyway, when you get attacked by fighters you're least trouble will be a fuel leak

True, but running out of avgas is _still_ something I don't want to add to my already considerable list of worries if I can avoid it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DKoor
03-11-2007, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by F0_Dark_P:
Guys i dont think DKoor mean that the G10 sucks i think he intended to say that the G10 "sucks" like in "sucking fuel", thirsty engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Bingo! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Ironically G10 will run outta fuel fastest out of all Gustavs and it does not have drop tank http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JG52Karaya-X
03-11-2007, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
None of which is to say that I always take a full fuel load however. Of course I don't, but does it really make that much of a difference? These beasts are regardless of your fuel load _still_ heavy, slow and unmanouverable so you usually don't stand a chance against a competent fighter pilot anyway...

It sure does make a difference because quite often in online war missions you end up with your bomber on a relatively small airfield, however you want to take the largest bomb for your task that's available (SC1000 or even 2000s), taking 50% fuel in this case saves quite a bit of weight and shortens the takeoff roll!

msalama
03-11-2007, 10:09 AM
...taking 50% fuel in this case saves quite a bit of weight and shortens the takeoff roll!

Sure it shortens it, but I've still yet to encounter a situation where the runway is physically too short. I've always gotten them off regardless of the total weight so far, except for one takeoff a year ago or so where I made a stupid mistake... the results, needless to say, were quite spectacular with a loadout of 3 x 1000Lbs. bombs and 75% of fuel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Now I'd say we've a difference of tactical notions here. Your guys seemingly favor a faster and more direct approach to the target and also count on being able to manouver slightly better if their ride is that much lighter - and nothing wrong with that of course - but this actually is not where I stand, in that I've lately favoured a _very_ indirect approach with as much spare avgas as possible in order to fly a VERY circuitous and long approach route to the target if the situation calls for it - and also to have some spare fuel if and when my tanks get punctured. And part of this tactic is actually counting on being not found at all, or at least not until I've already dropped my load, after which I'm _anyway_ much much lighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But each to their own I suppose?

cawimmer430
03-11-2007, 12:27 PM
No thanks. A Me-109 with 50% fuel is a scary thought. When my Germany pilot career was functioning before the April 27, 1945 bug, I feared the low fuel warning lamp more than the Russkies. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif