Drop tanks: unfair advantage?

[Lephturn]

I still don't see any great advantage.  Added flexibility in case you get bounced early is the only real benefit I see there.  In other cases you can normally do the same thing and get better results with internal fuel only.  I suppose another benefit would be if you want something between say 50% and 75% and drop tanks may allow you to do that.

All said it's still pretty minor.  I don't see any need to limit them.  Drop tanks ad range and flexibility.  Planes that had them should be able to use those advantages however they see fit IMHO.

------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer

A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com

Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome for AH articles and training info!

[gatt]

Back from holidays ... i see we still have our cheerleaders around, they are getting older but are still nice in their pantyhoses  

[hazed-]

what a complete load of BS

if you want fuel DT then find some info about that aircraft having them...even a field conversion and then ask for them.dont try to stop their use because you havent got one.

russian planes and italian planes were DESIGNED the way they are in here.Its part of their character.P51 with DTs can span the map as can jap planes just like they would have in the war.spit5 and spit9 are great for the game because they really help you understand the changes made in range and speed etc.When they introduce a russian plane with dts you will have a new option and greater choice,same for italians.
if you dont like short range intercepters why the hell ya flying russian ans italian planes?    
 

gaming the fuel? gimme a break.Using your brains more like.

------------------
Hazed
3./JG2

[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 05-01-2001).]

[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 05-01-2001).]

[gatt]

Cool down hazed,
I see you dont understand what I posted. I never ever asked for 205/Yak/La DT's. I never ever asked to stop using DT for others a/c.

What I'm talking about is the use of DT and *very* low internal fuel loads, like 25% or 50%. This is unhistorical and, imho, still looks like gaming the game. There should be a way to stop this thing.

But hey, what do I know and above all, this IS a game   BTW, thanks real men for good replies  

 

[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 05-02-2001).]

[Jekyll]

My $0.02

I actually like Whels1 and funked's idea of limiting DT's to aircraft with 100% internal fuel.

After all, why would you take a DT with an aircraft with less than full internal fuel?  The only possible reason would be so that you could drop the DT if required and fight in a reduced fuel (and weight) state.

[Lephturn]

If I'm a cheerleader, then your a whiner gatt.  If disagreeing with this silly whine about drop tanks is considered cheerleading, then fine.  Rah rah.  

The perceived advantage to drop tanks and low fuel is mostly just perception.  The only real benefit to low fuel loads and a drop tank is a bit of flexibility if bounced before you get to the fight.  With that small advantage comes the disadvantage of increased drag and thus a longer time to altitude.  They balance out pretty well, and there is no big "advantage" here.  If you get beat because a guy has a low fuel load, it doesn't matter if he got it from a drop tank or not.

Drop tanks simply provide added flexibility, there is zero performance advantage conveyed by their use.  If you are fighting close to an enemy field, they will have light fuel loads one way or the other, drop tanks or not, and it doesn't make a damned bit of difference if it was with an internal or an external tank.

Again... the only advantage I see is if you get bounced and can punch tanks and change your plan.  Drop tanks are meant for exactly that kind of flexibility.  Limiting them because we fight at closer ranges and, more importantly, lower altitudes is just silly.  You can say "nobody in WWII would take off with 25% and a drop tank", but the obvious flaw in that logic is that nobody would take off with 50% internal either!  Sometimes the arena situation means we take much lighter fuel loads than is historically accurate.  What IS historically accurate is that drop tanks add flexibility, so that a fighter that gets bounced can drop his extra gas for the fight.  Just because the amount of gas he needs for a certain engagement is smaller than was normal in WWII, doesn't mean you should take away that flexibility.


------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer

A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com

Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome for AH articles and training info!

[gatt]

Sean, you *should* know that yours have been good and polite replies. Look, not every question and opinion about the game is a "silly" whine. And a good reply is almost always enuff, even for an old dweeb like me.

 


[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 05-02-2001).]

[Karnak]

According to my sources, the C.202 and C.205 both carried drop tanks and light bomb loads.

Gice the C.202 and C.205 their external stores.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Mosquito FB.MkVI Series 2 to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak

[mx22]

Ahh just to add some fuel to the fire... Russian long range Yak-9D and DD were not normally flown with all of their fuel tanks full. 9d was capable of being loaded with 650 liters, but acctual studies showed that planes from most combat units used only around 270 liters/mission, only 40% of total capacity. So most of the planes flew with outer wing fuel tanks empty all the time.

mx22

[Lephturn]

Sorry gatt, but I thought you meant me as being a "cheerleader".  

But you are right, not all issues are "silly whines".  This one is though, IMNSHO.  

------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer

A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com

Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome for AH articles and training info!

[gatt]

After the end of 1943 some C.205 (mainly co-belligerant) were fitted with drop tanks, as you see in the pic above. Those variants, mainly recce a/c, had often the 2x12,7mm removed from the nose. But those were field modifications, so I dont ask for DT.

Honestly, sometimes I drive the 109 and the 190. I for one would have no problem to take off with DT and a minimum of (say) 75% fuel, without the possibility to burn internal fuel prior to dropping ext tanks. Is someone here scared to do that? Cant believe it.

Is this a "silly" whine my wise chief instructor? If it is so, IMNSHO you should be a cheerleader  

[hazed-]

 

Originally posted by gatt:
We all know how most people use drop tanks in combat. They fly with 25% and drop their tanks before engaging.

sorry gatt i just took it as another meaningless attack.I realise what you mean and yes the planes with no DT are at a disadvantage but thats the point isnt it?
it was a good idea to fit DTs and if your favourite ride didnt have them i think its too bad thats the way they were.
If they(202,205,etc) had DTs though i agree you should get them.
good luck getting it done

------------------
Hazed
3./JG2