Does plane fatigue reduce in training?

[Sieppo]

Or does the squadron need to be stood down?

[dr.hal]

This is a good question that I too would like to know an answer for. How does one "reduce" air fatigue of an aircraft? In reality one can not do so without a total rebuild and even then some aspects or areas of the craft can not be effectively "reduced". I do know that engine hours are carefully tracked and when a level is reached, the engine is replace if at all possible. But you can't really perform such radical surgery for the airframe itself!

A companion question is how does aircraft fatigue impact performance or aircraft aborting/not taking part in a mission? If the fatigue is over a certain % is it more likely the aircraft will not fly? Are individual aircraft tracked (or is there an individual roll of the electronic dice?) in this sense? Are such aircraft prone to ore crashes upon landing as a direct result of high fatigue? So many questions, so little time! Thanks in advance. Hal

[Bullwinkle58]

I don't know it it's the only way, but a total stand-down will reduce aircraft fatigue over time. It's not quick though. I've gotten carrier-capable squadrons from 40ish fatigue numbers to single digits in about three weeks in port. For LBA I don't know what goes into the calculation except av support. Probably other stuff. It's pretty slow too, but you'd expect it to be if it's a true airframe overhaul.

I always thought those numbers were indeed tracked by individual airframe, and influence ops losses. Crashing on landing qualifies as that. I don't see a reluctance to fly a high-fatigue frame, but there may be a cut-off I've never noticed.

[Sieppo]

It sounds like trying to reduce frame fatigue really isn't worth it?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

It sounds like trying to reduce frame fatigue really isn't worth it?

For the Japanese maybe, maybe not. For the Allies, given the plane quantity limits, that there's only one replacement cycle per week with limited numbers each time . . . it's something I watch. A B-17 already in a forward op area is worth some babysitting IMO. Also, ops losses count as VPs sameo sameo. And an ops loss can take a 75 pilot as easily as a 35.

Some players probably consider this part of the game too fiddly. It can be ignored, but doing so isn't cost-free.

[Sieppo]

Makes sense, thanks.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

It sounds like trying to reduce frame fatigue really isn't worth it?

For the Japanese maybe, maybe not.

Not. While there might be replacement planes, there is never enough good pilots to waste. Plane fatigue influence operational losses, and I believe also combat losses.

[Sardaukar]

Plane fatigue = Ops losses and Write offs.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Plane fatigue = Ops losses and Write offs.

Yup. And, AFAIK, the less durable the plane is, the more fatigue it gets during every kind of operations.
It's also true that the normally less durable planes have a low SR so they tend to reduce fatigue much faster than beasts like an Emily or a B17

[Capt Hornblower]

I believe that if the squadron has planes in reserve, high-fatigue aircraft will be taken out of service for maintenance/repair automatically, with no loss of strength to the squadron.

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: Capt Hornblower

I believe that if the squadron has planes in reserve, high-fatigue aircraft will be taken out of service for maintenance/repair automatically, with no loss of strength to the squadron.

This might be true! I have wondered what was the basis of taking planes into maintenance (as can be seen in the "planes")..

[Alfred]

Not quite so.

1. All aircraft models start off with a "raw maintenance index" of 100 points.

2. The "adjusted maintenance index" is determined by:

[center](raw maintenance index)/(Service Rating)[/center]

Hence a B-17E with a SR of 4 ends up with an adjusted maintenance index of 25. A single engine fighter with a SR of 2 has an adjusted maintenance index of 50.

3. When an airframe exceeds it's adjusted maintenance index, there is a chance the airframe will be taken offline and placed into "maintenance" to be worked on by the ground support staff.

4. If the squadron has spare airframes in "reserve", damaged planes are automatically rotated out to be repaired and are automatically replaced by airframes from the reserve.

5. Any plane which undergoes repairs also gets some work done to reduce airframe fatigue before it goes online again.

6. Squadrons tasked only with training are still using their aircraft. The same rules apply just as if they were conducting sorties over enemy territory.

7. Do not confuse a squadron which is stood down (ie engaged in zero activity) with a squadron which is training. Also do not forget the importance of having adequate aviation support present and the airfield not being overstacked.

Alfred

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: Alfred


1. All aircraft models start off with a "raw maintenance index" of 100 points.

2. The "adjusted maintenance index" is determined by:

[center](raw maintenance index)/(Service Rating)[/center]

Hence a B-17E with a SR of 4 ends up with an adjusted maintenance index of 25. A single engine fighter with a SR of 2 has an adjusted maintenance index of 50.
Alfred

THIS IS VERY INFORMATIVE AND CLEAR!
As I imagined the SR has a big role...
Thanks Alfred!

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

It sounds like trying to reduce frame fatigue really isn't worth it?

I have to admit, I hardly pay any attention to it except with the superforts. Operational losses go up but what the heck, this is war....

[sanch]

I totally ignored plane fatigue until about 3 weeks ago (in game time).

I've been flying my 4E bombers in a 2-day turn-cycle pbem game more-or-less nonstop for about 3 months without any real problems. I'd rest 2 days, train (or recon) for 2 days, then go drop bombs someplace for two days. Rinse and repeat.

But then, within a couple turn cycles, my squadron availability dropped like a rock. Instead of the usual 11 ready, 1 repairing (or something like that), I started having only 4 or 6 ready and the rest having an average repair time of something ridiculous like 17 days. And for most of my 4E squadrons.

We're using the latest betas, so my first thought was something changed in the beta. But not so.

So I stood them down, and started watching fatigue. I have saves of each 2-day turn, so I went back and tracked a squadron at a well-equipped level-7 base. I found that if you stand down the squadron, planes will tend to reduce fatigue. In 2 days, most planes reduced fatigue. But not by even increments; one plane lost 2, a couple lost 7, another lost 8, and some did not lose at all. For a couple planes, fatigue went up, as they got selected for 'maintenance'.

My other observation is that if you have a squadron training 100% at 0 range, the planes seem to maintain an average fatigue very close to 10 - most in the range 8-12 with the occasional odd one out at 19 or 2. It actually seems to be a reasonable bell-curve distribution with a range of 0-20 and a mean of 10.

I haven't tried the idea of placing planes in reserve. If I can scrounge some spare air frames, (I'm allies in late 1942, so there are no spares), I will shove them into the squadron reserves.

Another facet of this game that I never knew existed! Amazing.

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: sanch

My other observation is that if you have a squadron training 100% at 0 range, the planes seem to maintain an average fatigue very close to 10 - most in the range 8-12 with the occasional odd one out at 19 or 2. It actually seems to be a reasonable bell-curve distribution with a range of 0-20 and a mean of 10.

This was one of the observations that made me create this thread . Somehow planes in training have low fatigue levels, even though they are "in use"..

EDIT: of course training is not combat and might even be in a classroom etc but still I really wondered, why my training squadrons never created quite high fatigue.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

ORIGINAL: sanch

My other observation is that if you have a squadron training 100% at 0 range, the planes seem to maintain an average fatigue very close to 10 - most in the range 8-12 with the occasional odd one out at 19 or 2. It actually seems to be a reasonable bell-curve distribution with a range of 0-20 and a mean of 10.

This was one of the observations that made me create this thread . Somehow planes in training have low fatigue levels, even though they are "in use"..

EDIT: of course training is not combat and might even be in a classroom etc but still I really wondered, why my training squadrons never created quite high fatigue.

They really don't. Sometimes a unit on 100 per cent training will drop in morale. However, if you just drop the max range for training units to 1 or 0 they will still train up and you should never have to worry about them.

[Dragoastro]

Is this the only impact of Service Rating?

[duettoalfa]

I have my training squads at 0 range and 100%: their fatigue is very low and very rarely do I lose an aircraft

[alimentary]

ORIGINAL: Dragoastro
Is this the only impact of Service Rating?

By this, I assume that you are talking about its influence on the fatigue level at which planes begin being taken out of service for maintenance. No, that is not the only impact of service rating. Service rating has a profound effect on the time that it takes to repair a damaged airframe. This is most visible when, for instance, a squadron has 50% of its airframes damaged in combat. For SR1 airframes, almost all may be airworthy the next day. For SR5 airframes, it could take a week or more.