Drop tanks and 100% internal

[BaldEagl]

IIRC part of it had to do with resources.  There simply were'nt an unlimited supply of drop tanks lying around in WWII as there are in AH.  They were conserved and used when needed rather than letting every pilot waste one or two on every sortie.

Cripes, I've got steel pennies from WWII because they needed copper for the war effort.  Resources were carefully conserved.  Look at the extremes Germany went to in the concentration camps saving the clothing, boots, and even the hair and fillings of the holocaust victims for use in the war effort.

[moot]

Yeah the late 190s were full of that sort of crap.. Sabotage in the assembly process, even. I know about that.  I'm saying I cant see any real improvement from this, and that it's arguably opposite the sort of trend you'd see in combat. You do what it takes to win. I personaly disagree completely with the WGr21 modeling too. They were detachable. We ought to have that too. If the conditions of combat in the MA favor players abusing it (and here we ought to have a clear justification for it being abuse), then the players and, to a lesser degree, those conditions are what's wrong.  If a plane was historicaly unable to drain a DT before internal tanks, then Im all for it being the same in AH, although that would be against the trend we have in the game with regards to gameplay/realism, e.g. combat trim, ammo counters, availability of rare loadouts, etc.

Whatever the case, this is certainly not an improvement for playability in LW planes. The arguments about planes not being flown historicaly.. Puh-lease. What about having N1Ks winging up with F4U4s to shoot down C47s? Or any of the other gameplay compromises.. It would be a lot more interesting to do something about the ultra-gamey fuel multiplier. Yaks & co having such restricted flight time is a much worse problem IMO.

[Soulyss]

As I've been reading this I don't know how much impact it would really have, unless you were to also force the players to BURN the DT's first as well.  I could still burn down the internal fuel just like the P-51 pilots of yore did to get my plane down to fighting weight before switching to DT's. 

All in all I wouldn't mind the switch, the more I think about it though the less impact it seems it would actually have on gameplay other than potentially limiting  rate of climb when you take off somewhat. 

[Delirium]

The LW needs an additional weight handicap?

Currently, when a 109/190 wants to carry 25% and a DT they are punished by carrying the racks even after they drop the tanks. I think Scotch mentioned it was 8mph on the K4. If they remove the ability to carry 25% and carry a dt, you'd see people carrying more fuel and no dts. This would equate to a speed advantage as the Allied a/c are forced to always carry those ord/dt rails.

If anything, only the lw are paying with this change.  Most of the US birds have permanent racks. They too would lose the advantage of forward CG extra fuel, but so does the LW.

I still disagree with you on this, heck some some of the Russian planes would also benefit (like the Yak) because they can't carry DTs at all.

But you then admit thatthen turn around 180deg and sayBecause the conditions never favored it. Do you really think any of us in WWII would not take DTs instead of an AUX tank if we had a particular mission only requiring so much fuel, when we know for a plain fact that the AUX (or AFT in the 190s case) ruins handling?

Yes, there is many stories that 51 flyers/P38 drivers had to hold their tanks even if they were empty unless they ran into enemy opposition. Some of the 'paper' tanks were used so much (sortie from sortie) that gasoline began to leak out of them because they had become so saturated and lost their integrity.

I can't find any mention of any aircraft taking less than a full internal load while carrying drop tanks, unless they were testing and never in combat.

[Soulyss]

I can't think of a scenario when on combat operations in WW2 you wouldn't want as much fuel as you could carry.  With changing weather and a myriad of other variables that could affect time aloft the fuel gives you margin of error to return home, it's a safety net for the pilot.

[moot]

I can't think of a scenario when on combat operations in WW2 you wouldn't want as much fuel as you could carry.

But you cant deny that pilots wouldnt hesitate to ditch something that's as good as useless ballast.. again.. The argument that it never happened in WWII is irrelevent. Subtle difference, but, if you were to say, it couldn't have happened in WWII.. Then I'd agree it's pertinent. If a plane was historicaly unable to drain the DT before the inners, then I'd agree; although you then have to break with the even instrumentation standards we have - every plane with identical units and instruments, ability to fill up tanks in "unhistorical" orders, etc.  Would crew chiefs laugh at pilots for asking that the AUX be filled last, or for the pilot draining the AUX first?  Sorry but this last specific argument is totaly bogus in my eyes. The crew chief and pilot's purpose is to be as efficient killing machines (or whatever the mission requires) as possible, not to deny themselves a certain advantage because it seems funny when you look at it a certain way.

Currently, when a 109/190 wants to carry 25% and a DT they are punished by carrying the racks even after they drop the tanks. I think Scotch mentioned it was 8mph on the K4. If they remove the ability to carry 25% and carry a dt, you'd see people carrying more fuel and no dts. This would equate to a speed advantage as the Allied a/c are forced to always carry those ord/dt rails.

It's the pilot's call to make either tradeoff. You would remove that tradeoff. More fuel and no DTs means less agility.. If paying 8mph for more agility in the K4 ruins a sortie for a player, he has other things to worry about. The LW already has that speed advantage as it is.. I dont see what the improvement here is!

DT scarcity - That's a very fair point.

"Yaks would benefit from 190s being less agile."
I don't get it. You want to give other planes concrete feet... to help with Yak's historicaly inexistent DTs, or with the whole MA's crazy fuel mod? Why not go for the real problem instead - the fuel mod?  That's way more unrealistic than planes being field modified for a special type of mission..
If I knew I was going to fly into a mission where I wouldnt need so much fuel and that said extra fuel would only get in the way of doing as well as I could... And the crew chief or anyone else asked that I take that fuel anyway.. I'd strangle the mf-ers   I dont see how this is so hard to understand. It's the same plain basic logic that makes you drop your DTs rather than keep em when you get jumped earlier than expected. The same logic that says you want a safety net if you don't know how long you'll have to fly.  This arbitrary kind of choice should be in the pilot's hands.

Another analog - flaps.. No one in WWII used and abused flaps like we do. Dont you think we should do something about this aberration?

Whatever happens, this is certainly not good news for 190s. It's going to make em handle worse. I dont know how that's not obvious.. Aft tanks suck, they push the CG back and totaly handicap their agility. Everyone knows that. Whatever your good intention with this, it's going to make dogfighting that much more difficult for planes already at the worse end of the maneuverability spectrum. Being limited to 25% increments in the planes with larger tankage is already a PITA.

[Masherbrum]

Delirium, I agree with your post.

HTC implement it.   

[moot]

ugh 

[BaldEagl]

Frankly it doesn't matter to me one way or another.  I always fly every fighter and attack plane with 100% fuel with rare exceptions (F4U-1A being one and Pony D being another).  If I load a drop tank, which I rarely do except in Spits, I burn that first.  I never take a drop tank with less than 100% internal fuel no matter what.

I want to fly around as long as I can or at least until I'm out of ammo and thus target for 40 minutes of fuel.  I hate having to RTB for fuel and I've never noticed that the extra weight was that big a penalty.  Certainly less than lugging externals.

[Guppy35]

I'm one of those that often flies with 50 internal and 2 DTs as I like the agility of the 38G with 50 fuel or less.  When I carry DTs I take off on DT fuel.  That being said, I figured I'd asked a P38 pilot.

Lloyd Wenzel was with the 474th FG, 9th AF in the ETO 44-45.  His reply.  I had mentioned that when I flew Cessnas we always topped off the tanks at the end of a flight to keep condensation out of the fuel tanks. That is what he refers to in the first sentence.

"Dan, We always carried full internal fuel on missions and kept tanks full for the reason
you mentioned. With weather in Europe you would never risk running short of fuel.  There
was no payload we carried that needed reduced internal fuel-even carried two 2000 lb
bombs a few times.  Had to use wooden sway bars that banged up the bird on bomb release
so we didn't do it often and 1k bombs were probably just as effective.  Both 2k bombs had
to be dropped together-on pull out, the bomb shackle would come off from g force. We took
off on reserve tank and used enough fuel to make room for the feed -back from the
carburater then switched to drop tanks, then leading edge, main and reserve.  The leading
edge tanks had their own boost pumps and a solenoid operated valve--you had to turn off
the main selector to confirm fuel flow.  Less time to look for the Hun!! Best Wishes for
Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas, Lloyd"

[moot]

Well, that's nice and historical. I suppose you noticed I adressed that argument already. Did mister Wenzel not mention what solutions they improvised to deal with the 2.0 fuel mod in WWII?  Oh you mean they didnt have a fuel mod in WWII?? Well then.. I guess the question definitely wasn't loaded was it?

You guys want to force this one historical detail for very arguable general improvement and no gameplay improvement that I can see, and on top of that it's going to be mostly an extra handicap for 190s and any other plane with similar characteristics, as well as for anyone who just wants to make the furballing last as long as possible by bypassing the unadapted fuel volume options... while maybe a dozen or more at least as gamey details would prevail... Ok then. You can have your incredibly immersive and game-changing realistic hair-split, and spill the 190s' bowl of flakes while you're at it. Not like one freakin luftwhiner matters.  5-8mph top speed penaly   Like that makes any difference.

[Guppy35]

LOL I don't want to force anything at all.  I prefer my 50 and 2 DT.  I just figured I'd ask a 38 driver because it occurred me I didn't know either way

[Delirium]

You can have your incredibly immersive and game-changing realistic hair-split, and spill the 190s' bowl of flakes while you're at it.

Moot, you drive one of the longest legged Luftwaffe a/c out there and the rest of the 190s out there don't turn anyway.

If HTC wants to keep everyone at 25% internal, so be it. Lets find out, it will take a few months, err 2 weeks to implement anyway even if they like the idea.

[moot]

LOL I don't want to force anything at all.  I prefer my 50 and 2 DT.  I just figured I'd ask a 38 driver because it occurred me I didn't know either way

I'm fine with the idea.. Just not in the MA. Don't get me wrong, Im not offended or anything, it just seems absurd. It deminishes the amount of time you get with an optimal fuel load (pretty short thanks to the crazy fuel mod!) and unevenly handicaps the planeset's agility (some planes will pay, others'll barely see a difference).  I mean, even if it's that many players flying with 25+DT like Del says, what's the problem? The rest of the game is full of at least as gamey unhistorical stuff, like instrumentations etc that I already pointed out. A player wants to stack the odds on his side by configuring his tool like he wants to, incl. dropping his DTs to go light as soon as he sees me commiting? I don't see what's so wrong with that, we should be thankful of having players with that much tactical flair.  Unhistorical DT useage or not, the fight will still be steeped in gamey crutches like combat trim, ammo counters, perfectly still air, DMYCSR, stall horns, unrestricted pilot head movements, etc etc.  And you guys want to remove a feature that WWII pilots definitely would have used had the opportunity presented itself..

I would agree if it were in a scenario.. But not in the MA.  The MA is about maximizing air combat.

Del, got sidetracked with homework and missed your reply - The 152 will last.. off the top of my head.. 20min with internal fuel excluding AFT. Of that time, you have maybe 5min tops to guarantee rtb.  Unless Im remembering wrong and that's actualy more like 12min minus the 5 to rtb (Im fairly sure it is, could be wrong!).  IOW 10min tops, of unrestricted furballing. That's not 'long legged'. This thanks to the fuel mod. The 152 is totaly inept with fuel in the aft, which this would force. And it's more or less tied with the A5 for all-out furballing, so the other 190s would be even worse off.
It's not like I want to keep the game gamey because Im clinging to furballing at any cost.. I'd be completely for something like DTs and anything external ripping off from excess maneuvering or reduced camera freedom under Gs. I just think this improvement is tiny compared to the negatives it brings with it. And it's not that genuinely historical - it's a plausible possibility, only the conditions never warranted it. Or at least there's no report of it that we know of.

[moot]

Moot, you drive one of the longest legged Luftwaffe a/c out there and the rest of the 190s out there don't turn anyway.

If HTC wants to keep everyone at 25% internal, so be it. Lets find out, it will take a few months, err 2 weeks to implement anyway even if they like the idea.

Ya know what.. I'm gonna do it. I'll take (one at a time) any would-be furballer 190 stick under my wing.  If that's the sort of thing it takes to make this thing worth saving.  Just give me a week more to finish exams, get laid a few times and fix the stupid computer.