Correct loadout: the drop tank and internal fuel problem

[Gianlupo]

Gatt, Eilif doesn't like gamey features, he plays TW and he made me discover it and the wonderful TT that you guys of 4° Stormo shaped.

I just think that he wanted to say that the realism argument is not of great importance given the general layout of this game (yes, don't forget it, it's a game...)

And, in fact, I don't think that we have to stress the realism aspect: it's not a matter of realism, it's a matter of gameplay, like with the diving buffs. They are flaws (at least for some of the players) that can bug the gameplay, hence the fun: so they should be reported and HTC will consider if the issue is really affecting gameplay or it's just the n-th whine not to be considered.

Of course, gameplay may be designed to create differences between planes, to force players to make choices: but, then, I'd like to see every plane researched in the same manner, given the right loadout, maybe discussing it in the forum to see if it has to be made available in the game (DT in Macchi planes weren't often used).

Incidentally, that's even why I think that the fuel loadout issue may affect gameplay, as it is now: because some plane in the planeset do not force players to make any choice. They can take off with enough fuel to make a long run, and drop they're tanks and be (relatively) light for fighting.

That's my 2 cent, and, mind you, I'm a H2H player (till next December, oh big joy! ), so my last statement is made purely on a conjectural basis, not on a direct knowledge of MA situation (I've been there, but a long time ago)... what do you think?

[gatt]

Bozon, Saints speaking in your heads? Are they giving good hints and tips

Anyway, the thing is easy to explain.

I take off with a Pony with 25% fuel and drop tank. If I dont engage otw to the operational area, then I keep my tank on and have all the range I want till the moment I decide to engage. If, and only if, I engage, then I drop the tank and voilą I have a light fighter with the perfect fuel load for the dogfight.

If I take off with the 205 I have to load 75% or 100% of fuel if I want get *anywhere*. If I'm bounced or decide to engage otw I've no different choices than fighting heavy. Ppl without DT have to plan in advance and hope to have the right fuel when they engage. Ppl with DT can do whatever they want, no matter the situation.

So, I'd like to see at least a 75% internal fuel for ppl who choose the drop tank. Obviously you'd be free to burn whatever you want first.

Anything else is gamey, IMNSHO

[bj229r]

Originally posted by gatt
Bozon, Saints speaking in your heads? Are they giving good hints and tips

Anyway, the thing is easy to explain.

I take off with a Pony with 25% fuel and drop tank. If I dont engage otw to the operational area, then I keep my tank on and have all the range I want till the moment I decide to engage. If, and only if, I engage, then I drop the tank and voilą I have a light fighter with the perfect fuel load for the dogfight.

If I take off with the 205 I have to load 75% or 100% of fuel if I want get *anywhere*. If I'm bounced or decide to engage otw I've no different choices than fighting heavy. Ppl without DT have to plan in advance and hope to have the right fuel when they engage. Ppl with DT can do whatever they want, no matter the situation.

So, I'd like to see at least a 75% internal fuel for ppl who choose the drop tank. Obviously you'd be free to burn whatever you want first.

Anything else is gamey, IMNSHO

Small consolation for not being able to have cannons.  Is it OURRR fault that U.S. designers were simply smarter than Italians or Russians?

[bozon]

Originally posted by gatt
Anyway, the thing is easy to explain.

I take off with a Pony with 25% fuel and drop tank. If I dont engage otw to the operational area, then I keep my tank on and have all the range I want till the moment I decide to engage. If, and only if, I engage, then I drop the tank and voilą I have a light fighter with the perfect fuel load for the dogfight.

If I take off with the 205 I have to load 75% or 100% of fuel if I want get *anywhere*. If I'm bounced or decide to engage otw I've no different choices than fighting heavy. Ppl without DT have to plan in advance and hope to have the right fuel when they engage. Ppl with DT can do whatever they want, no matter the situation.

I completly agree with your explanation - I just don't agree wit hthe consclusion. Pony has almost exactly twice the fuel load of an La7. 100% fuel load in La7 is the same fuel load as 50% of P51, 33% fuel load of P47D40 and 21% in P47N. P47N can fuel up almost 5 La7!

On the other hand, fuel burn rate of a P47, at full throttle down low, is more than 50% higher than the La7. It means that in order to have the same flight duration as a fully loaded La7, P47 has to carry about 60 gallons more than the La7 - thats more than 400 lbs. In practice it's even more since it climbs slower and slower to reach the destination. If you compare to planes like 109/205 it's even more extreme.

If you calculate for absolut flight time then the fuel load difference is multiplied by the fuel-burn-multiplier of the areana. So this actually screws the P47 in terms of weight, not help it. But I do not complain becuase I like the fuel management and almost never transit at full throttle. I load the minimum fuel I need assuming I'll save it by flying economically - so there is a decision making even if I decide to take DT (the 75 gallons usualy barely get you to the target). So in practice, a "gamey" feature like fuel-burn-multi actually makes the flight more realistic for me, through forcing some fuel management.

The ability to load DT for short range flight help a little. When I load up 50% fuel, I'm already heavier on fuel than the La7 can ever be AND I'm going to have a shorter flight duration. If you bounce a P47 with his DT still on you can rest assure he's heavier on fuel than your La7. If you got to the fight with 75% fuel in the La7 you have just about the 25% fuel load of a P47 and you will out last it.

Now you can say that it's the P47's problem that it is so fuel hungry - true and accurate. I say use DT on the La7 as well... oh wait, it doesn't have the option - that's the La7's problem and historically accurate

Bozon

[bozon]

Originally posted by straffo
1 yes it's possible as far as I know nothing prevent such loadout.

ok we agree here.

2 cost and availlability.

A DT is IRL not free like in AH plus it add drag I know for sure that the german DT had were to be salvaged by dedicaced team and even have a marking saying :
it's not a bomb if you find it send it back to the nearest LW base
(or something like that)

Every flight into Germany used up 2 DT per mustang and 3 DT per jug. I don't think the germans were sending them back. If it would give any advantage, planes would be loaded with less fuel and a DT - it is still cheaper to get a few new DT, than to get a new plane and train a new pilot instead of ones lost. I'm sure that if a long range escort fighter would be used to CAP its own base (not very likely IRL but a regular business in AH) it will not be loaded with internal fuel to make the trip back from Berlin and use DT to extend duration instead. If there was no engagement, you get to keep the DT and save a few bucks.

3 where is point 3 ?
we are missing point 3

I miss it too. If you see it, please tell it to come home, 2 and 4 are lonely.

4 as gamey as the fuel multiplier.

Leave the fuel multiplier out of this If you argue historical loadout. Fuel burn multi is a gamey feature that promote a realistic fuel management feature. For the purpose of game experience, I find the latter superior. Lower the multiplier by much and replace my throttle by an on/off switch. Was flying at full throttle from takeoff to landing a common practice? no, but still you like to disallow 50%+DT due to being uncommon.

Bozon

[stegor]

[

[gatt]

Originally posted by bozon
If you bounce a P47 with his DT still on you can rest assure he's heavier on fuel than your .....
Bozon

I dont agree at all. Many players take off with a very light Jug or Pony (I mean 25%) and the drop tank. Both the Pony and the P-47N with 25% fuel are a joy to fly and dogfight in.

[bozon]

Originally posted by gatt
I dont agree at all. Many players take off with a very light Jug or Pony (I mean 25%) and the drop tank. Both the Pony and the P-47N with 25% fuel are a joy to fly and dogfight in.

Have you tried P47D40 with 25%? it's enough for about 10 min including RTB. For D11 even less. And you'd better save some because you are not really going to outrun anyone on the deck trying to make it back. And for the record, it's equivalent to 75% fuel load in the La7, or 87% for a 109, only lasts less, so It is not "lighter on fuel" then you are - equivalent at best.

The N is the very extreme case and has quantization problem. P47N on 25% is the same fuel load as  La7 on 117%. The next fuel loadout 50% will pour in 285 gallons which is 233% of an La7 max fuel load. That is about 160 gallons extra which is about 1200 lbs of fuel more than 100% La7. It will also last for about 30 min on full throttle - meaning too much. How would you like to have over 1000 lbs of weight you don't really need? The sensible fuel load for a P47N is 25%+DT if you plan a short 20-25 min. mission. Loading 35% is not a current option.


Bozon

[Ghosth]

I don't think anyyons saying that the US planes have to leave the ground with full tanks.

I do think that its only fair to make them carry at least 75% internal before DT's would be available.

Like it or not those drop tanks were not free, they had to be paid for, & hung by crew chiefs. If crew chief knows your only going 25 miles & back you really think he'd put DT's on that bird?

No, he'd fill er to 75% and leave the DTs off.

I see gatt's point and its a valid one.  OK so you convinced me, some pilots may have flown with 75% & DTs. Ok thats good enough for me. once 75% is chosen DT's should be available.

But not for 25%, ever, and if you want it for 50% pay a perk for it.

Ohhh and can we PLEASE get DT's for any plane that ever carried em.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Ghosth
I don't think anyyons saying that the US planes have to leave the ground with full tanks.

I do think that its only fair to make them carry at least 75% internal before DT's would be available.

Like it or not those drop tanks were not free, they had to be paid for, & hung by crew chiefs. If crew chief knows your only going 25 miles & back you really think he'd put DT's on that bird?

No, he'd fill er to 75% and leave the DTs off.

I see gatt's point and its a valid one.  OK so you convinced me, some pilots may have flown with 75% & DTs. Ok thats good enough for me. once 75% is chosen DT's should be available.

But not for 25%, ever, and if you want it for 50% pay a perk for it.

Ohhh and can we PLEASE get DT's for any plane that ever carried em.

Crew chiefs were sergeants, pilots were officers--the plane is set up the way they want it

[Gatr]

IRL..  "Not that,that matters at ALL!!!!"
You could load any tank any way you wanted....
IMHO the wing tanks in a TA-152 should never have any fuel in them....
But then again it's so porked anyway.... sorry to bring that up...
We should be able to have much more input on fuel load  AND
Engine managment...  COME ON..... WIDE OPEN FOR HOURS... stupid
Never never never...
Lets try and get a lttle more realism in the realism....
OH wait if it's to hard the dweebo's will whine and quit.....
RANT RANT....  
In another time in another game there was... two arena's one for kiddies and one for folks that wanted more of a challange....
Full and partial realism...  What was that game..  ????????
Also would it not be fun to bomb a factory and make those darn LALA's
go away...  Heck I would learn how to use a buff for that!!!!!!!
I know I know in another time in another game....
I'll shut up now...
happy holidays men

Gatr
81st

[straffo]

Originally posted by bj229r
Crew chiefs were sergeants, pilots were officers--the plane is set up the way they want it

Officer : Put a Drop tank on my plane
Sergeant : I don't have any
...
Officer : Put a Drop tank on my plane
Sergeant : I don't have any
...

Officer : Put a Drop tank on my plane
Sergeant : Aye aye Sir ! I don't have any but I'll put one.


PS: your post is stupid and you know it.

[Vortex]

Originally posted by gatt


...

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  

For scenarios, sure, one could make a case for that based on historical accuracy. I don't see it being a good thing for the MA though. Historical anything has nothing to do with the MA. Focus there should be on gameplay, and I don't see a change like this enhancing gameplay in the MA at all.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by straffo
Officer : Put a Drop tank on my plane
Sergeant : I don't have any
...
Officer : Put a Drop tank on my plane
Sergeant : I don't have any
...

Officer : Put a Drop tank on my plane
Sergeant : Aye aye Sir ! I don't have any but I'll put one.


PS: your post is stupid and you know it.

You are saying the U.S. Airforce didnt have enough drop tanks to go around?

[Kweassa]

The N is the very extreme case and has quantization problem. P47N on 25% is the same fuel load as La7 on 117%. The next fuel loadout 50% will pour in 285 gallons which is 233% of an La7 max fuel load. That is about 160 gallons extra which is about 1200 lbs of fuel more than 100% La7. It will also last for about 30 min on full throttle - meaning too much. How would you like to have over 1000 lbs of weight you don't really need? The sensible fuel load for a P47N is 25%+DT if you plan a short 20-25 min. mission. Loading 35% is not a current option.

 Or, you can just take off with 25% or 50% in the first place, instead of try to evade that little problem a high internal fuel load has brought home. Every plane suffers its effects of internal fuel load, be it good or bad. Why should some planes be exempt from it in the first place, through use of highly unrealistic measures? The word 'sensible' you used in this case, directly translatess to 'gamey'. Make no mistake about that.


 If you plan a short 20~25 minute sortie in a P-47N, you should take off with 50%, and carry some of the extra weight around until you burn it off. The plane has its pros that it can fly around as much as any other plane on only 50% internal, so the cons of having a lot of fuel weight around its fat belly, must come with it.

 Otherwise, going around and saying that there's nothing wrong with 25%+DT options is about as "sensible" as an La or Yak pilot wanting an aerial-refueling during his flight.