Drop tanks and 100% internal

[moot]

It's a big handful for new players.. It's hard enough for them to stay in the air.. I'm not in HT's head, but it's probably as it is to best compromise between full and relaxed realism.

[ink]

......Besides, any argument that historical accuracy should drive MA play is utterly unrealistic. Show me one place where you can find historical accuracy. P-38s fighting P-51s. 109s brawling with Ki-84s. Tanks that can leapfrog miles of water to spawn.

Fuel loads are part of game play because adjusting fuel loads allows for best performance without sacrificing range. Limiting drop tank use only adds to the advantage of the short range rockets like the La-7, Spit16, Yak-9U and the like.

This is another instance where some player or players want others to fly the game the way they desire. The argument that it's historical is not only incorrect, it's a red herring anyway as there is zero historical accuracy in the MA and there never was or will be. If you want the restrictions associated with historical accuracy, lets look at just one example.

You must perform your prestart checklist. Start the engine. Allow temps and pressures to stabilize in the green. Do a run-up and mag check. Get permission to taxi to the duty runway. Get cleared to take off... All of that will take 15 to 20 minutes. But wait, you only have an hour to play? Tough luck, eh?

There's no penalty for dying... No downside to failure. No risk.... It's a game gentlemen, it isn't supposed to be historically accurate. Accuracy is the sole domain of the aircraft modeling. Yet, aircraft workload is simplified to where any 6 year-old can get airborne and fly.

Please stop trying to tell others how to play.


My regards,

Widewing

very well spoken, the MA is very far from "reality",

but it seems to me that some want more of it, (me personally i think the game is pretty much spot on,)
 it seems though it would benefit HTC to implement a  more realistic arena using the AVA, or a new one, that is as close to reality as possable, although i think it would not be very busy.

[Paladin3]

I am against this one. The distances flown in WWII were quite different from what we see here in the MA. I think this one would be a bad idea.

[moot]

It would be interesting in other arenas, though.

[Guppy35]

This is incorrect. P-51s flying combat air patrols over Normandy did not take off with full internal fuel. They cycled two hour shifts over the beachhead. Their typical fuel load was 1,080 pounds (180 gallons), or 510 lb less than full internal capacity. Moreover, standing patrols beyond the front lines were often fitted with two 75 gallon tanks and the 1,080 lb load of fuel. John Thornell of the 353rd FG has mentioned that they sometimes flew with reduced internal fuel and the two 75 gallon drops. The reason? They could loiter for a long period and then "go light" as soon as enemy fighters or bombers were detected approaching from the east.



My regards,

Widewing

Widewing, did you hear that from Thornell?  What made me ask the 38 driver was thinking about the 352nd on Bodenplatte day entering that fight off the runway with full fuel including fuselage tanks.  That and the cessna days where it was always practice to fill the tanks after a flight to keep the condensation down.  I imagine the issue was the same.

I've just never seen it anywhere mentioned, and to be honest really hadn't thought about it until now.  I'm not saying I don't believe you btw, just wondering if you've seen it on 8th Ops orders or elsewhere?  I just don't ever recall seeing it in print anywhere.

[Widewing]

Widewing, did you hear that from Thornell?  What made me ask the 38 driver was thinking about the 352nd on Bodenplatte day entering that fight off the runway with full fuel including fuselage tanks.  That and the cessna days where it was always practice to fill the tanks after a flight to keep the condensation down.  I imagine the issue was the same.

I've just never seen it anywhere mentioned, and to be honest really hadn't thought about it until now.  I'm not saying I don't believe you btw, just wondering if you've seen it on 8th Ops orders or elsewhere?  I just don't ever recall seeing it in print anywhere.

I have a photocopy of transcribed interview notes recorded in an interview of Col. Thornell in 1974. One of the things discussed was flying tactical missions with fuel in the fuselage tank. Thornell discussed the handling problems, including stick reversal. He also mentioned that there was a great deal of complaining in fighter units about operating with full fuselage tanks flying from fields in mainland Europe. Thornell returned to CONUS in July of 1944.

Thornell stated, "Over the years since the war, I've had many discussions with P-51 pilots who served through to the end in Europe. As units deployed to fields in France and Belgium, some pilots were extremely concerned about the possibility of finding themselves mixing it up with Luftwaffe fighters while still having fuel in their fuselage tank. This was a real possibility operating from bases on the continent.

There was considerable rancor, bordering on outright insubordination within several of the Group HQs. Fighter Command finally passed the word to the Groups that the Group COs could select the fuel load they preferred so long as there was adequate reserve. Standing orders for all ramrod missions would continue to include fueling fuselage tanks.

Some Groups, including the 352nd on several occasions, left the fuselage tanks dry but flew with 75 gallons under each wing. The knowledge that a pilot could pickle off the tanks and go light in mere seconds appealed to just about everyone."

If interested, I can scan the notes and e-mail you a copy. Three pages, hand written in pencil on a spiral notebook. I believe I got my copy from Bodie, or perhaps Tillman (likely Bodie).


My regards,

Widewing

 

[Delirium]

I'd be interested in reading it too, if you don't mind sending it to me.

This is the first time I've ever heard/read of this being done.

edit: maybe you could post it like you did with the 150 octane thread?

[Widewing]

I'd be interested in reading it too, if you don't mind sending it to me.

This is the first time I've ever heard/read of this being done.

edit: maybe you could post it like you did with the 150 octane thread?

I'll scan the pages in this weekend and post it here... The handwritten script is legible, but the side notes add clutter.


My regards,

Widewing

[moot]

some pilots were extremely concerned about the possibility of finding themselves mixing it up with Luftwaffe fighters while still having fuel in their fuselage tank. This was a real possibility operating from bases on the continent.

There was considerable rancor, bordering on outright insubordination within several of the Group HQs. Fighter Command finally passed the word to the Groups that the Group COs could select the fuel load they preferred so long as there was adequate reserve. Standing orders for all ramrod missions would continue to include fueling fuselage tanks.

hallelujah

[100goon]

for historical acuracy most piltos had 755 and a drop or full so yea no like 25% and a dt

[Guppy35]

I have a photocopy of transcribed interview notes recorded in an interview of Col. Thornell in 1974. One of the things discussed was flying tactical missions with fuel in the fuselage tank. Thornell discussed the handling problems, including stick reversal. He also mentioned that there was a great deal of complaining in fighter units about operating with full fuselage tanks flying from fields in mainland Europe. Thornell returned to CONUS in July of 1944.

Thornell stated, "Over the years since the war, I've had many discussions with P-51 pilots who served through to the end in Europe. As units deployed to fields in France and Belgium, some pilots were extremely concerned about the possibility of finding themselves mixing it up with Luftwaffe fighters while still having fuel in their fuselage tank. This was a real possibility operating from bases on the continent.

There was considerable rancor, bordering on outright insubordination within several of the Group HQs. Fighter Command finally passed the word to the Groups that the Group COs could select the fuel load they preferred so long as there was adequate reserve. Standing orders for all ramrod missions would continue to include fueling fuselage tanks.

Some Groups, including the 352nd on several occasions, left the fuselage tanks dry but flew with 75 gallons under each wing. The knowledge that a pilot could pickle off the tanks and go light in mere seconds appealed to just about everyone."

If interested, I can scan the notes and e-mail you a copy. Three pages, hand written in pencil on a spiral notebook. I believe I got my copy from Bodie, or perhaps Tillman (likely Bodie).


My regards,

Widewing

 

I'd enjoy seeing that Widewing.  My question would be if this applied to any birds beyond the 51?  Obviously the 51s had issues with the fuselage tank and handling.  I know they capped off the fuselage tanks post war and I don't think they were used in Korea.  Did they go with less in the mains too or was it more due to the handling concerns? 

[moot]

for historical acuracy most piltos had 755 and a drop or full so yea no like 25% and a dt

Historical accuracy would be all there'd be to it if WWII happened on a 2.0 fuel mod.

[SmokinLoon]

I understand the arguements about "forgetting realism" in the MA for obvious reasons (P38 v P51, etc).  However, when planes area able to up with %25 fuel and take a DT and drop it on the first sight of an enemy... that is gaming the game and that is not anywhere near what a sim is all about.  Planes did not up in WWII with %25 and a DT, it went against all SOP's.

If you want the DT, I think there should be a %100 fuel requirement.  I support any manner in whish HTC minimizes the "gaming the game" BS we're seeing more and more of these days.  From Lanc-stukas, to the bomb-n-bail, to the %25 w/ DT fuel fighter joquies, %25 fuel in hvy buffs, to the swap teams to get the "WINZ" perk points, to shooting through hills and trees, to messin with the gamma setting to see though low light and smoke... it all takes away from the sim. 

The more I think about it, the more I think HTC should INCREASE the fuel burn rate to 2.5 or even 3 for a month or two just to gather the data about fuel loads and DT's and see how it changes everything.  Oh the horror!   

[Lusche]

I understand the arguements about "forgetting realism" in the MA for obvious reasons (P38 v P51, etc).  However, when planes area able to up with %25 fuel and take a DT and drop it on the first sight of an enemy... that is gaming the game and that is not anywhere near what a sim is all about.  Planes did not up in WWII with %25

And why didn't they do it? Right, because they were fighting in a different combat envirionment. And that is what shapes tactics.  If they had to fight under the same circumstances we do have in the MA's (distances, fighting altitudes, fuel burn 2.0). I'd be pretty surprised if they had not adapted such a"gamey" tactic to the extreme.
If you want to duplicate WWII tactics by the book to the last detail, you first have make sure the conditions are right. But we are fighting under conditions that are vastly different from any WWII theater of operations.

If there are technical reasons you can't do it, that would be fine with me, but If we would simply apply the "but they didn't do it that way", we would have to stop MA play

[moot]

that is gaming the game and that is not anywhere near what a sim is all about.

It's a game. Especialy in the MA. So in fact it is what the MA is about - taking the historical vehicles, their physics, and putting those in a fun setting. Historical immersion of the type you're arguing for is the other arenas' and events' job.

  Planes did not up in WWII with %25 and a DT, it went against all SOP's.

WWII did not have a 2.0 fuel mod or any of the other MA environment settings and gameplay goals or SOPs, such as 'fun'.