Then HT should have a per aircraft burn ratio since faster climbing aircraft are artificially favored by any modifier above 1.
How do you figure that?
The point of a drop tank was to have enough fuel to get to the fight, and home again. If I take 50 and drop tank, guess what? I've planned my flight so that I have enough fuel to get the fight, fight, and get home again.
You "gamed the game".
If one needs the flight range/time of a "50% internal + DT" configuration would provide, one would up a plane at 100% internal fuel in the first place. Only when the mission requires the pilot to fly longer than possible with internal fuel loads, would he rack up the DTs as a requirement for the mission.
Ofcourse, that's the real life. Since this game doesn't have economy, nor quartermasters who frown upon people who waste valuable resources without absolute need, people are free to use unlikely fuel configurations to their individual advantage. Heck, HT or Pyro themselves probably would have used those kinds of fuel configurations when they were playing AW or WB or something, so they probably didn't think much of the implications such configurations hold.
The problem is, allowing such configurations such as "50% internal + DTs" penalizes planes with smaller fuel load especially when the fuel burn rate is high. As of the relatively recent changes of the MA which increased the fuel burn rate to 2.0, the differences in flight time became a significant and important factor for determining each planes' strengths and weaknesses in the game. A Spitfire or a La-7 is an excellent dogfighting plane, but its light stature allows it only limited flying time, whereas the 'heavier' US planes such as P-38s or P-47s or P-51s boast significantly longer flight time.
Range of flight is a distinct and significant advantage. However, it comes at a price of increased weight due to larger quantities of fuel the plane must carry. On the contrary, light weight is a factor that directly contributes to the performance of the plane in combat, but it comes at a price of smaller fuel loads and lesser flight time/range.
Thus, a pilot who favors a more nimble dogfighting plane must accept the consequences of its lighter fuel load. He must almost always take off at 100% fuel, and has to endure the effect of the plane weighing much heavier than its optimum levels. On the contrary, a pilot who favors a plane with heavy internal fuel loads, can just take 50% fuel and DTs. Not only is he able to fly as long as when he is at 100% internal fuel, but he is also able to instantly get rid of the extra weight that may hinder combat at the touch of a button. He benefits from the long range, and yet does not suffer the penalty of heavier fuel loads during combat. How fair is that?
To me it's just one of those bullshi* things which people really don't realize until they start thinking about it seriously. The fuel should be loaded in sequence; starting from 25% to 50, 75, 100.. and then the DTs. If the pilot figures he will not fly long enough to require DTs, then he should be getting up with 75 or 100% fuel. The weight of the internal fuel should stay there until the pilot flies long enough to burn all of it, and until that happens, the heavier planes should suffer from the penalties of its weight during combat.
As it is, none of the more lighter planes in the game ever really engage combat in their optimum weight condition. By the time a La-7 or a Yak is lightened enough to show their true potential the pilot must start think of turning back and returning home. This is how it is in the game, and I see no problems here.
However, a pilot using a P-51 or P-47 takes off with only 50% fuel load, climbs to alt on the DTs, drops them at the combat zone, and then flies for 20 minutes worth of combat at a fuel load of 50% and under, in which case the aircraft is considerably lighter than its normal weight. He is able to grab all the alt he wants and travel all the distance he needs to the combat zone, and then when the combat ensues the extra weight of the fuel is suddenly gone and the plane reaches optimum combat conditions.
An La-7 pilot flying at 20k at a combat zone 20 miles away from his home base suffers the disadvantage of draining great amounts of fuel and flying around mostly at cruise settings. A P-51 pilot flying at 20k at a combat zone 20 miles away from his home base suffers nothing, as he arrives at the scene on his DTs, and then instantly reverts to "combat mode" with only 50% fuel weight by dumping the DTs... flies on for another 20 minutes of combat, and then merrily scoots off - this, I have problems with.
The P-51 should have taken off with 100% fuel, and by the time he reaches 20k alt at 20 miles from home he should have burned about 20% and should be flying at 80% fuel, and should start combat at that weight. If he didn't think he needed that much fuel then he should have taken off at 75% and arrive at the target zone at 55% fuel and then start fighting. If he was attacked by an enemy airplane shortly after take off, then he should be fighting with that 75% fuel which he never had a chance to burn off, not instantly go over to 50% fuel and start dogfighting immediately.
