Correct loadout: the drop tank and internal fuel problem

[gatt]

All this posting about the correct loadout for every aircraft (with experts enlightening us about every variant) makes me thinking about drop tanks and fuel loads.

AFAIK, real fighters with drop tanks carried 100% fuel in their internal tanks as well. In AH you can carry a big drop tank and 25% int. fuel. It would be interesting to have the option to carry drop tanks only if you have previously chosen the 100% int. fuel option. This way the loadout would be correct and the "drop tank + 25% fuel" trick would not be possible.


So, the fuel load choice (ext + int) should be made accordingly to the sortie you want to do. If you do a mistake you take the connected responsibilities. It is not different from the armament you choose in the hanger: if you want wing pods, rockets, heavy cannons ... you have to use them and fight heavy ... no matter the enemy you meet, be it a bomber or a fighter. Sure, it would be nice to drop the pods and fight light  

[gatt]

Ahhh, I guess there are so many people *gaming* the fuel that this thing should not be fixed ...

[bozon]

ok, in that case make the ranges between bases fit the fuel burn rate, so La7 won't even make it to the nearest base if it flies on 100% throttle.

This 100%+DT suggestion has been discussed before and it is silly. If a pilot could technically load 25%+DT in real life, no reason to disallow it in the game. It is part of the options of the plane and if it was an advantage in real life it would have been done as well. MA is not real life conditions.

Bozon

[straffo]

Originally posted by bozon
ok, in that case make the ranges between bases fit the fuel burn rate, so La7 won't even make it to the nearest base if it flies on 100% throttle.

This 100%+DT suggestion has been discussed before and it is silly. If a pilot could technically load 25%+DT in real life, no reason to disallow it in the game. It is part of the options of the plane and if it was an advantage in real life it would have been done as well. MA is not real life conditions.

Bozon

Wrong
Wrong
and wrong

Example  :
One of the tactical advantage the typhoon had was her high speed cruise
in AH : no go

In fact all tactical fighters like the Russian or to some extend the brit one are poked.

All is made to make long range fighter tactical fighter so.

[gatt]

Originally posted by bozon
ok, in that case make the ranges between bases fit the fuel burn rate, so La7 won't even make it to the nearest base if it flies on 100% throttle.

This 100%+DT suggestion has been discussed before and it is silly. If a pilot could technically load 25%+DT in real life, no reason to disallow it in the game. It is part of the options of the plane and if it was an advantage in real life it would have been done as well. MA is not real life conditions.

Bozon

Perfect example of gaming the game indeed

[Sable]

P-51 pilots actually made a habit of burning most of the fuel out of the fueselage tank on climbout before switching to the drop tanks - on shorter missions where they didn't need the extra fuel of the fueselage tank it wouldn't even be filled.  So pilots really did fly with a fuel load similar to 75% + drop tanks in many cases.

[straffo]

Look like you don't know what you're speaking about Sable.

[bozon]

Originally posted by gatt
Perfect example of gaming the game indeed

and how is that bad?
How realistic are P47s taking off to intercept spitfires 20 miles away?

The only "realistic" part of AH are the technical details of the plane modeling. How the planes are used is as unrealistic as it gets. Planes didn't use flaps for dogfighting, although 50 P51/P38/109 fans will now jump and post some evidence it was used in this or that occasion - it wasn't the norm although very much possible - ban flap use above 170 mph from all planes?. Technically planes can be loaded with 50%+DT. If I find some anacdotal evidence it was done on one ocassion will that satisfy you?

One of the tactical advantage the typhoon had was her high speed cruise.

It can cruise at very high speeds also in AH. Its range is pathetic and so it was in real life. It was not a problem since it was not ment to cruise to berlin.

[straffo]

The MA is more close to the way the typhoon was used than long range escort.

And instead of having long range fighter being porked by their design hitech choose to twist reality with fuel burn multiplier to make long range fighter more interesting.
Just because his customer are mostly american and won't stay if the US fighter canno't dominate in a way or another.

[bozon]

If you are such a realism fan you must be aware that no plane was cruising at full throttle for long durations - perhaps the only ones that did it for a somwhat longer durations were the high alt, long range fighters (those 51/38/47). As I recall, they were encourged to fly at full throttle while in "danger zone". Definitly not in transit just to get there faster.

Just because his customer are mostly american and won't stay if the US fighter canno't dominate in a way or another.

Are you aware of the dominating planes in the areana?!
La7 - sneaky russkies!
Spits - a great and famous american fighter. ok, at least those who built it speak english.
N1K - as american as Toyota.
P51d - It's such a great predator that it's one of the only planes I never fear.

Bozon

[gatt]

The truth is that a Pony with more than 50% fuel is very difficult to ride during a dogfight. A Spitfire with 75% fuel is not the butterfly it is with 25% and so on. People want range *and* a light fighter in the right moment. This means gaming the game in my book.

Our loadout are so accurate that even the fuel load should be the same. This fuel usage seems unfair against fighters without drop tanks (C.205, La-7 and so on) and above all seems unhistorical, AFAIK.

[straffo]

Originally posted by bozon
If you are such a realism fan you must be aware that no plane was cruising at full throttle for long durations - perhaps the only ones that did it for a somwhat longer durations were the high alt, long range fighters (those 51/38/47). As I recall, they were encourged to fly at full throttle while in "danger zone". Definitly not in transit just to get there faster.

Did you know the cruise setting speed for the Typhoon is superior to all the planes you mentioned ?

 

Are you aware of the dominating planes in the areana?!
La7 - sneaky russkies!
Spits - a great and famous american fighter. ok, at least those who built it speak english.
N1K - as american as Toyota.
P51d - It's such a great predator that it's one of the only planes I never fear.
[/B]

See Gatt post.

[Sable]

Originally posted by straffo
Look like you don't know what you're speaking about Sable.

Actually I know quite well what I'm speaking about.  The fuselage tank in the P-51 was an afterthought that they threw in to help increase the range of the aircraft, but when it was filled completely it pushed the CG past the aft limit and made the aircraft handle very poorly.

From "Mustang Ace" by Bob Goebel - "The standard procedure was to burn the fuselage tank down to about 30 gallons immediatly after takeoff, even before going on the external tanks."

From "To Fly and Fight" by Clarence Anderson - "So you wanted to burn half the contents of the fuselage tank before entering combat. On the shorter missions, you would burn half the tank after takeoff, and then go to the drop tanks."

[straffo]

I know that Sable.



I'll help you understanding my post Sable :

1st part of your post.

P-51 pilots actually made a habit of burning most of the fuel out of the fueselage tank on climbout before switching to the drop tanks - on shorter missions where they didn't need the extra fuel of the fueselage tank it wouldn't even be filled.  

2nd part of your post (they one who make me believe you are a lawyer IRL )

So pilots really did fly with a fuel load similar to 75% + drop tanks in many cases. [/B]

So did they or didn't they ?

More clearly now :
Did the P51 pilot took off with 75% + DT or did they flew with 75% + DT ?

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by bozon
MA is not real life conditions.

Bozon

See I never bought this arguement.

We should either have RL stuff or we shouldnt
when it suits us we make the arguement.
"but this isnt real life"

well the sam thing can be said about everythign else we demand about the game.
We argue "in real life this plane could or couldnt do this or that" performance wise.
IRL the Fw rolled better
IRL this plane had this kind of gun
IRL that plane  had a climb rate of..
IRL this other plane had a range of...
IRL this plane had a flight envelope of...
etc etc etc.
And we demand that these planes perfomr as their real life counterparts did.

Yet when we want to be more gamey we make the excuse "this isnt real life"
BS arguement as far as Im concerned.

If it wasnt done IRL it shouldnt be done here.
If planes didnt up with 100% fuel tanks and only 25% fuel. they shouldnt be able to here.
If heavy bombers didnt commonly dive bomb on a regular basis they shouldnt here and so on and so forth.

And just because something could have been done doesnt mean it should be done here