As I said before, restore the original 1.5 fuel burn and you will see less use of drop tanks.
And the differences in plane ranges that was apparent disappears in turn.
Quite a simple thing really - leave the fuel multiplier as it is, and get rid of the ability to use unlikely settings. In regards to adjusting plane behavior and fuel selection tendencies to more likely levels, it's a solution that makes much more sense than the foul instinct to somehow defend every bit of advantage a plane may hold be it "gamey" or not.
And please, show me one airplane that carried 50% of its weight in external fuel. Even the ultra-long range P-47N would require 7,000 pounds of external fuel to meet your figure. However, the most it can carry externally is 2,250 pounds. Seriously, get a grip on reality. A P-47N pilot might take 50% and 75 gallons external, or 450 pounds. If he dropped the tank on takeoff while almost full, total reduction is 3% (based upon 15,000 lb takeoff weight with fuel, ammo and ordnance). So, where does your 50% fantasy come from?
It's interesting that among all planes you must go choose a plane which holds the largest amount of internal fuel in the game - but fair enough. Since you insist, I'll admit the "50%" was a gross figurative exaggeration.
However, the point which you are deliberately ignoring to address, is by using an unlikely configuration of 50%+DT, a plane which already holds a distinct advantage of long range, also holds the ability to reduce the fuel amount to combat levels he sees fit. No matter what kind of oddball incident you dig up, the point stands that DTs aren't anything like that.
They are devices used to increase flight range when internal fuel load isn't sufficient - not a combat crutch which you can attach/detach at whim, despite your plane has the ability to cover the distance suited for your flight purpose. People who are flying at 50%+DT or 75%+DT currently, as a matter of fact, should be flying at 75% or 100% internal. Only when they want to fly something like a really long mission deep into enemy territory, fly escort for hour or more, should they use DTs, because, that's what DTs are supposed to be.
Some planes have DTs, others don't, and nobody is arguing about that fact. What we are arguing about, however, is to limit the manner of DT usage to something that reflects reality at least remotely.
Increased range must come with a penalty, and that penalty should not be avoided by a game exploit. Because, the other fighters with decreased range already comes with a penalty which they have no way of cleverly avoiding by exploiting the freedoms of the game. I mean, what does this 'penalize' for anybody? Nobody said you'd always have to fly at 100%. If you want a lighter plane, then choose a lighter load like everyone else. Or, if you want something like a 50%+ DT configuration, you can always choose 75% and burn off the 25% before engaging. If some other plane engages you before you burn the desired amount - well then tough, it's no DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE REST OF THE PEOPLE USING OTHER PLANES ARE ALREADY DOING. Being able to use a longer range is a gift by itself. The second gift, of using the DTs to make the planes fly long distances and still be able to revert to a combat advantageous weight, is something which should never have been given in the first place.
It's a classic case of techincal feasibility vs. reality. The 109K-4 had the ability to use gondolas, but that option was removed since it was not represantative of real life. In that case, why should it be any different with ordnances for other planes, including DTs?
HTC might not have a double standard on this issue, but the players sure do.
