SteveMartin wrote:
Well Killer1, Yes
Allied aircraft pretty consistently had greater endurance than their German counterparts. Coupled with other factors, such as prevailing wind advantage, more economical cruising, shorter ranges to target and overall greater abundance of fuel supplies, meant that the German pilots often had to break off the combat before the Allied fliers simply to avoid being turned into armed gliders.
To put it in simple terms, the DR I could stay in the air for about an hour and a half, while the Snipe could stay up for three hours. That would equate to 74 fuel points for the Snipe to be true to historical accuracy.
If you want to give German aircraft the same fuel loads as Allied aircraft, then you are giving them an advantage that they NEVER had and will destroy the game as it was designed.
Steve, I beg to dissent. Flight endurance and combat endurance are not necessarily related to each other. This whole issue has already been discussed before: check http://www.youplay.it/play/forum_showmessage.asp?msgid=32649 for a post of mine regarding energy management and wwi dogfights.
The point is, engines were not powerful enough to maintain dogfight manoeuvring without trading altitude for speed, and there were no afterburning or emergency power technologies that could drain a fuel tank in a matter of minutes. According to Phil Hall, an air combat lasted about 2 to 3 minutes. If you consider the endurance of the dr.I, you can easily see that there is a difference of at least an order of magnitude between its flight endurance and a typical air combat duration. However, in BM, the dr.I starts always with an energy disadvantage (call it fuel, if you prefer, fuel is a form of energy storage). The same can be said of the D.VII and other German aircrafts.
If you don't believe what I have just written, you can check "Quest for Performance - The Evolution of Modern Aircraft"
at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/cover.htm Extrapolated values for the performance of a few examples are in the appendices. It is quite straightforward to derive the same conclusions of mine. Of course, the can not be considered authoritative because it relies on the accuracy of historical published data.
Moreover, what do you mean by "prevailing wind advantage"?  I think that would be even, since if it is easier for me to reach a target having a tail wind it will be harder to get back home with a head wind. Or is it related to the wind blowing combatants around?
Lastly, I do not understand all the fuss raised about an experimentation proposed by Nick. Nobody is going to compel you or anyone else to join non default games. While I agree that Phil did a great job, this game is far from being perfect, and I firmly think that everything is improvable and nothing is to be considered definitive and untouchable. Of course, I also find this game extremely fun, all its shortcomings notwithstanding.
Hope I made my point clear. Sorry for the long post, again  .
--
Calsir |
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
