Flying I-16 at 29th IAP = bingo fuel

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

Basically, many missions generated by the dynamic career for this flight group require more range than the Rata has, which means your flight will often call bingo fuel and turn back before objective is met, which means mission failures.

 

It happens very often in the early days of BOM when performing ground attacks or escorting Peshkas. Pretty unfortunate because its the only squadron that is equipped with Ratas only.

Edited December 31, 2021 by I./JG52_Woutwocampe

[Alexmarine]

7 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

Basically, many missions generated by the dynamic career for this flight group require more range than the Rata has, which means your flight will often call bingo fuel and turn back before objective is met, which means mission failures.

 

It happens very often in the early days of BOM when performing ground attacks or escorting Peshkas. Pretty unfortunate because its the only squadron that is equipped with Ratas only.

 

Unfortunately that's a limitation of the mission generator, I don't think it's able to factor in the max useful range of the planes a squadron is using and this is coupled with a tendency of generating missions close to the frontline as much as possible (missions that take place in the depth of one own areas are rare)

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

6 hours ago, Alexmarine said:

 

Unfortunately that's a limitation of the mission generator, I don't think it's able to factor in the max useful range of the planes a squadron is using and this is coupled with a tendency of generating missions close to the frontline as much as possible (missions that take place in the depth of one own areas are rare)

 

Yep, indeed the missions are generated regardless of the range of the aircraft used by the squadron. Normally I would simply request a transfer but in this case, it pisses me off to have to because it means flying a new aircraft, MiG3 or P-40. 

 

 

[LukeFF]

I can try to reduce this by eliminating bomber and ground attack escort missions for the I-16, but it doesn't mean the problem will go away entirely. Otherwise, unless we receive drop tanks for the I-16, the only thing I can recommend is starting the missions in the air instead of on the runway.

Edited December 31, 2021 by LukeFF

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

I can try to reduce this by eliminating bomber and ground attack escort missions for the I-16, but it doesn't mean the problem will go away entirely. Otherwise, unless we receive drop tanks for the I-16, the only thing I can recommend is starting the missions in the air instead of on the runway.

 

If, as of now, the mission generator doesnt take range of the plane into consideration when generating the objective and the flight path, what will make the generator understand that it must add the fuel tanks for such a mission? 

 

The generator has no clue the aircraft doesnt have the range so why would it add tanks as loadouts to the flight? 

 

 

[LukeFF]

5 minutes ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

If, as of now, the mission generator doesnt take range of the plane into consideration when generating the objective and the flight path, what will make the generator understand that it must add the fuel tanks for such a mission? 

 

The generator has no clue the aircraft doesnt have the range so why would it add tanks as loadouts to the flight? 

 

What I'm getting at is that, if and when we have drop tanks for the I-16, I can add them as a default loadout for these sorts of missions where the mission distances are typically long. But no, I can't tell the game's config files to only load drop tanks when the mission distances is over a certain value.

 

It's like for the Bf 109: I don't plan on adding them as part of the default loadout for the Eastern Front maps, because the ranges there don't necessitate their use. But, on the Rhineland map, they will be especially helpful, since the ranges there are typically quite long. 

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

5 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

What I'm getting at is that, if and when we have drop tanks for the I-16, I can add them as a default loadout for these sorts of missions where the mission distances are typically long. But no, I can't tell the game's config files to only load drop tanks when the mission distances is over a certain value.

 

It's like for the Bf 109: I don't plan on adding them as part of the default loadout for the Eastern Front maps, because the ranges there don't necessitate their use. But, on the Rhineland map, they will be especially helpful, since the ranges there are typically quite long. 

 

I guess that having fuel tanks as default loadout for some type of missions when it isnt necessary is better than the opposite ;).

 

It'll work for escort missions, but not necessarily for ground attack missions though, when you already need to carry bombs. 

Edited December 31, 2021 by I./JG52_Woutwocampe

[LukeFF]

Ok, so I just had a look at the Moscow map, and yes, I see that some of the mission distances are just wayyyy too long for the I-16 to be flying escort. My first thought is to just chop the escort missions from the I-16s, which would work, since in mixed MiG-3 / I-16 units, the MiGs can still be assigned to escort missions by default while the I-16s stay at home - which is probably how it was in reality. In my reading on I-16 operations, it seems they mainly were flying intercept and patrol missions, plus the occasional ground attack mission near the front lines.

 

But, I want to run that decision by the devs first to see what they think before making any changes. Stay tuned.  

[LukeFF]

Oh, also, one other thing: I see the current cruise speed for the I-16 is 385 km/h. That is way too high, especially when carrying bombs - at 1500 meters (the typical bombing altitude for the I-16), one has to apply just over 90 percent throttle to reach that speed. Little wonder, then, that the I-16 is having fuel consumption issues. I'll ask the devs to dial it back to the rated cruise speed listed on the Spec page, which is 350 km/h.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

Thanks @LukeFF