|
|
|
Mordel's Bar & Grill |
|
  |
» |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Vagabond
Mercenary
Mr. Referee
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 5647
Location: United States
|
 Posted: 23-Nov-2004 19:54 Post subject: Fighters, Fuel, and You! |
  |
|
OK, I was doing some converting, which I enjoy doing, today of WW2 Aircraft into similar AT2 Craft. During this conversion i had reached the point were i add fuel. These are the numbers i came to for conventional fighters:
1 BT scale map = 0.5km [480 meters average]
1 AT2 Atmosphere MP = 1 BT Map.
2 Maps = ruffly 1km [.96km exactly]
2 MP = 1km
1t fuel = 160 MP
1t fuel = 80km [76.8km]
80km = 50 Miles [47.7 miles]
Distance from Las Vegas to LA = 275 miles [estimated]
275 Miles = 5.5t fuel [5.76t]
Ferry Range of F-16 = 4000km [average]
4000km = 50t fuel [52t]
4000km = 8000mp [8320mp]
These numbers show that a Turbine powered F-16 that weights 17t [average] would need 50t [52t] of fuel to travel the distance it can in RL in AT2. note: Internal fuel weight of F-16D is 2.69t with an external weight of 3.21t, which totals at 5.9t. I assume Ferry range includes max internal and external fuel loads.
I would say for a supposedly more powerful and more efficient vehicle that is 1000 years ahead of us and can travel in space that these numbers are really really sad. I know that BT is not RL, which is a fact i like, but did they try doing any math at all when they made AT2? I admit that fuel efficiency drops in dog fights, but i do not recall any special rules that decrease the full used in atmosphere when not in combat.
My personnel thought is to increase the fuel points for each ton from 160 to 1600 for Conventional Fighters. Aerofighters get 1/2 the mp per ton of conventional fighters, so i would also increase there fuel from 80 to 800 mp per ton.
What is everyone else's thoughts?
_________________
one must work hard to cultivate the mind and body. and one must always cultivate the mind.
//^(^_^)^\\
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
Seraph
Blighted Sun Battalion
2nd Company
"Seraph's Slaughter"
Major
Joined: 11-Mar-2004 00:00
Posts: 1744
|
| Posted: 24-Nov-2004 00:19 Post subject: RE: Fighters, Fuel, and You! |
|
|
I agree. I always thought the rules for fuel were way out of wack.
_________________
If ignorance is bliss, then why are you so miserable?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Boneshaman
Draconis Combine
Go-cho
Joined: 13-Aug-2004 00:00
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: 24-Nov-2004 07:28 Post subject: RE: Fighters, Fuel, and You! |
|
|
| i only use fuel for fighters with ICE. its the year 3025-3067 i think they would of got the fuel part solved for fusion engines by now.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Nightmare
Lyran Alliance
Kommandant-General
Joined: 03-May-2002 00:00
Posts: 2214
|
| Posted: 24-Nov-2004 08:50 Post subject: RE: Fighters, Fuel, and You! |
|
|
Reaction mass?
Not that I care much about fuel. The game doesn't make sense if you slavishly follow every rule that's been created without thinking. Fighters are quite useless in defense of planets if they can't even fly a few hundred miles to a fight and return. Normally we just count fuel in battles.
_________________
A tree fall in the forest, and no one is around, and it hits a mime. Does anyone care?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Peter_Smith
Capellan Confederation
Yi-si-ben-bing
Joined: 25-Mar-2002 00:00
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: 24-Nov-2004 11:29 Post subject: RE: Fighters, Fuel, and You! |
|
|
Flip over to the Optional Rules section of the book. There you will find the rules for fuel consumption. Yes, tracking fuel use is an Optional Rule in AT2. If you don't want to track it, you are not obliged to.
And even then, there is *another* optional rule that allows turbine-powered conventional fighters to pay .5 fuel points per point of Safe Thrust and 1 fuel point per point of Maximum Thrust in atmospheres. Fustion-powered conventional fighters can, under this rule, spend .5 fuel points per point of thrust up to the Safe Thrust, but still have to spend 2 fuel points per point of thrust above Safe Thrust up to Max Thrust.
There is also the ability to carry .5 tons of fuel underwing in place of a bomb slot, with the standard bomb limits being your maximum restriction. So the range is extended even further (your example did include the use of external fuel stores for the RW aircraft).
The fighters in AeroTech 2 are more efficient than you're making them out to be. Are you sure you're up to date on the current rule set?
[ This Message was edited by: Peter_Smith on 2004-11-24 12:07 ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Vagabond
Mercenary
Mr. Referee
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 5647
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 24-Nov-2004 14:48 Post subject: RE: Fighters, Fuel, and You! |
|
|
Quote:
|
And even then, there is *another* optional rule that allows turbine-powered conventional fighters to pay .5 fuel points per point of Safe Thrust and 1 fuel point per point of Maximum Thrust in atmospheres. Fustion-powered conventional fighters can, under this rule, spend .5 fuel points per point of thrust up to the Safe Thrust, but still have to spend 2 fuel points per point of thrust above Safe Thrust up to Max Thrust.
|
|
Even with this optional rule, you are only doubling the range. So you can fly 200 milies on a 1t tank of fuel. IMHO that is still pethetic.
Quote:
|
There is also the ability to carry .5 tons of fuel underwing in place of a bomb slot, with the standard bomb limits being your maximum restriction. So the range is extended even further (your example did include the use of external fuel stores for the RW aircraft).
|
|
Only 0.5t per bomb. hmmm, i will take a liberty and say that THAT is ludicrious. If i can carry a 1t bomb, i better be able to carry 1t of fuel. Thems are the rules thou.
Quote:
|
The fighters in AeroTech 2 are more efficient than you're making them out to be. Are you sure you're up to date on the current rule set?
|
|
Considering i am designing blind with just HMAero and what data i've gain thru asking people and looking over help files it is safe to say that i am no current on the rules LOL. Even then thou, the rules you posted here do not solve a basic issue. AT2 Fighters are worse then SUVs. Atleast an SUV can make it 300 miles on a single 10-15 gallon tank.
ps: i am not attacking you, and i noticed my post could be taken as such. i'm just lettin you know.
[ This Message was edited by: Vagabond on 2004-11-24 14:48 ]
_________________
one must work hard to cultivate the mind and body. and one must always cultivate the mind.
//^(^_^)^\\
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Peter_Smith
Capellan Confederation
Yi-si-ben-bing
Joined: 25-Mar-2002 00:00
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: 24-Nov-2004 15:53 Post subject: RE: Fighters, Fuel, and You! |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-11-24 14:48, Vagabond wrote:
Even with this optional rule, you are only doubling the range. So you can fly 200 milies on a 1t tank of fuel. IMHO that is still pethetic. |
|
Let's look at the F-16 then. From FAS.org, the Combat Radius for a strike mission (2x 2,000lb bomb, 2x AIM-9 missile, 1040 gal external fuel stores) is 740 nautical miles. That external fuel tank accounts for 6933 pounds of fuel. Or 3.1 metric tons. Which gives you a range of 238 nautical miles per ton.
In fact, looking over all the entries for combat radius, they *all* have external fuel stores. Makes it hard to figure out how much fuel it loads internally if they're going to only list external fuel usage (or not list empty weight).
For the C-130 transport, as a side note, you get 191 miles per ton of fuel assuming the aircraft is empty, 86.5 miles per ton of fuel fully loaded (5200 miles and 2356 miles respectedly, 27.2 metric tons fuel).
The B-52 comes in at a whopping 105.7 metric tons of fuel. That will fly the aircraft 8800 miles. 83.2 miles per ton of fuel.
Wow. The bigger the airframe, the more fuel inefficient it is. Thankfully they can carry more fuel.
So is seems that 200 miles/ton of fuel is about right for modern performance.
Quote:
| Considering i am designing blind with just HMAero and what data i\'ve gain thru asking people and looking over help files it is safe to say that i am no current on the rules LOL. Even then thou, the rules you posted here do not solve a basic issue. AT2 Fighters are worse then SUVs. Atleast an SUV can make it 300 miles on a single 10-15 gallon tank. |
|
Apples to oranges. Aircraft generally have worse fuel efficiency than ground vehicles. More of the energy in an aircraft engine goes right out the back as exhaust. It flows, gets past containment (the engine), and generally starts to spread off in all direction. Ground vehicles have a mechanical connection to the ground and can transmit that power directly. Less waste.
And you're overstating the fuel efficiency of SUVs. I\'m looking over the 2005 Fuel Efficiency Guide, and the average I\'m seeing is 17.5/22.7. On a ten gallon tank (who uses tanks that small anyway?), that 175-227 miles, on a fifteen gallon tank (my '93 Honda Accord still has a bigger tank) that 262.5-340.5 miles. And that's assuming you're getting full rated MPG. And that is going by the 2WD SUVs. 4WD SUVs have even worse fuel efficiency.
Quote:
| ps: i am not attacking you, and i noticed my post could be taken as such. i'm just lettin you know.
|
|
I know. This is a frank discussion on the fuel use of aircraft in AeroTech 2. Like I said before, fuel tracking is an optional rule anyway. You are not required to use it if you don\'t want to.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Peter_Smith
Capellan Confederation
Yi-si-ben-bing
Joined: 25-Mar-2002 00:00
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: 24-Nov-2004 16:09 Post subject: RE: Fighters, Fuel, and You! |
|
|
| I need to come back to this one later (it's my birthday, time to fly), but now that I look over this again, something doesn't seem right. I think it has to do with confusing thrust points with velocity. Give me a day or two to figure things out.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Seraph
Blighted Sun Battalion
2nd Company
"Seraph's Slaughter"
Major
Joined: 11-Mar-2004 00:00
Posts: 1744
|
| Posted: 24-Nov-2004 18:39 Post subject: RE: Fighters, Fuel, and You! |
|
|
Well, Happy Birthday!!! 
_________________
If ignorance is bliss, then why are you so miserable?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
SaberDance
Federated Suns
Colonel
Joined: 07-May-2004 00:00
Posts: 837
|
| Posted: 27-Nov-2004 13:15 Post subject: RE: Fighters, Fuel, and You! |
|
|
I probably misinterprited the rules when I did this the first time, but I liked it, so I kept it on as a house rule. I read the rule that says a fighter must spend one fuel point to maintain altitude in atmosphere as meaning that, as long as the fighter didn't try any harsh moves (which would require thrust, e.g. the 17 special moves, or a tight turn), the fighter could cruise at its max speed for only one fuel point.
Now, when dogfighting starts, this rule goes out the window. The fighters are accelerating and decelerating and pulling crazy manuevers, the fuel efficiency should go through the floor.
_________________
"Politics is the Art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, misdiagnosing the problem, and applying the wrong solution."
-Groucho Marx
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| |
» |
All times are GMT-04:00 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
