Iwo Mustangs

[Karnak]

+1 for including the droptanks for BOTH P-51 and P-38. The tanks were used and should be available for both planes. Why anyone would use them is their own business.   

Why?  It would take developer time and have zero effect on the game.  It is such a low priority compared to the stuff that could be done that I can't imagine it would ever be worth the time to do it.

[Ack-Ack]

Why?  It would take developer time and have zero effect on the game.  It is such a low priority compared to the stuff that could be done that I can't imagine it would ever be worth the time to do it.

Exactly, the current drop tanks we have in the game for the P-51 and the P-38 are more than enough in the MA.  Even with fuel burn rate at 1x, the current drop tanks are more than enough.

ack-ack

[Chalenge]

See Rule #4

[Chalenge]

I've posted numerous photos of the Iwo Rocket carrying birds, and we've had the discussion about 10 rockets and how they were not carried on the Iwo birds or on the later Korean war 51s.  Understand the Iwo 51s carried the 165 gallon tanks rarely and it was because of the rocket load causing the 51 to burn more fuel on the way to Japan.  They did not carry rockets very often and the normal load out was 2 110 gallon metal DTs.

I dont believe 'rarely' is accurate but it doesnt matter either way... they were used and should be added (they are added for the 47s already).

[Guppy35]

I dont believe 'rarely' is accurate but it doesnt matter either way... they were used and should be added (they are added for the 47s already).

You are talking a short time frame between June and early August 45.  In the overall scheme of things in terms of Merlin Mustang sorties flown in WW2, it's rarely.

The impact on gameplay would be minimal.  It would be purely for more loiter time.  Considering the DTs the 51 has already, that seems to hardly be worth the time to add, when development time could go to more worthy additions.

As to whether anything 'should' be added.  That call is HTC's not ours.

[Masherbrum]

You are talking a short time frame between June and early August 45.  In the overall scheme of things in terms of Merlin Mustang sorties flown in WW2, it's rarely.

The impact on gameplay would be minimal.  It would be purely for more loiter time.  Considering the DTs the 51 has already, that seems to hardly be worth the time to add, when development time could go to more worthy additions.

As to whether anything 'should' be added.  That call is HTC's not ours.

Yep

[Chalenge]

You are talking a short time frame between June and early August 45.  In the overall scheme of things in terms of Merlin Mustang sorties flown in WW2, it's rarely.

The impact on gameplay would be minimal.  It would be purely for more loiter time.  Considering the DTs the 51 has already, that seems to hardly be worth the time to add, when development time could go to more worthy additions.

As to whether anything 'should' be added.  That call is HTC's not ours.

Exactly... but to make my point: THIS IS NOT about loiter time (time on target). This is about realistically being able to escort bombers along the paths required in the game on the larger maps from the opening field positions to the strats and home while protecting the bombers the entire way. Even if a pilot is very vigilant about power management he will not be able to fly the distances required on the larger maps while providing protection for the bombers along the way including landing AND even with the larger tanks depending on when the bombers are engaged the escorts will have to drop tanks and may have to rtb early. So at best the bombers MIGHT have escorts along the entire way but probably not even with larger drop tanks.

By the way Baumer the combat power settings for 20k are 2150 rpm and full throttle. The Iwo Mustangs with 110 and 165 gallon tanks used 1800 rpm and 31" manifold pressure when they were NOT in the hot areas. Over Japan they could not use the max cruise settings and the orders were to rtb once the fuselage tank was dry (and remember the fuselage tank has no more than 65% fuel at 'tanks away').

[Karnak]

Exactly... but to make my point: THIS IS NOT about loiter time (time on target). This is about realistically being able to escort bombers along the paths required in the game on the larger maps from the opening field positions to the strats and home while protecting the bombers the entire way. Even if a pilot is very vigilant about power management he will not be able to fly the distances required on the larger maps while providing protection for the bombers along the way including landing AND even with the larger tanks depending on when the bombers are engaged the escorts will have to drop tanks and may have to rtb early. So at best the bombers MIGHT have escorts along the entire way but probably not even with larger drop tanks.

By the way Baumer the combat power settings for 20k are 2150 rpm and full throttle. The Iwo Mustangs with 110 and 165 gallon tanks used 1800 rpm and 31" manifold pressure when they were NOT in the hot areas. Over Japan they could not use the max cruise settings and the orders were to rtb once the fuselage tank was dry (and remember the fuselage tank has no more than 65% fuel at 'tanks away').

P-51s never used these tanks to escort B-17s, B-24s or Lancasters.  If the range is so great that the existing drop tanks plus full internal is not enough, you can just fall back on WWII tactics such as handing off the bombers or having Spitfires escort them at the start, your P-51s pick them up a sector or two into enemy territory when the Spits have to turn for home and then the Spits pick them up a sector or two into enemy territory on the way home and take them in.  The initial Spit pilots get a short mission and then can go back to their MA play, the second Spit group can be made up of the P-51 and bomber pilots that got shot down.

[Templar]

Why?  It would take developer time and have zero effect on the game.  It is such a low priority compared to the stuff that could be done that I can't imagine it would ever be worth the time to do it.

1.  "Zero effect" - Arbitrary and inaccurate. Any new addition to the environment has some effect by definition. I believe you meant to say "minimal effect".
2.  "Low priority" - I never claimed that this should be a high priority project. Using priority as an arguement for or against this or any of the "equipment" requests is unproductive since neither you nor I set project priorities for HTC.
3.  "Worth the time" - You are entitled to your opinion just as I am. My opinion is that this is a legitimate request for a minor equipment update that is proven to be historically accurate. It is therefore "worth the time" of the developer in response to the legitimate request from its valued customers.

Thank you for your time. All legitimate debate is appreciated.     

[Chalenge]

P-51s never used these tanks to escort B-17s, B-24s or Lancasters.  If the range is so great that the existing drop tanks plus full internal is not enough, you can just fall back on WWII tactics such as handing off the bombers or having Spitfires escort them at the start, your P-51s pick them up a sector or two into enemy territory when the Spits have to turn for home and then the Spits pick them up a sector or two into enemy territory on the way home and take them in.  The initial Spit pilots get a short mission and then can go back to their MA play, the second Spit group can be made up of the P-51 and bomber pilots that got shot down.

You have never had the experience of escorting on the Trinity map from the beginning field locations have you?

Whats worse is ignoring the contribution of the P-51s that escorted the B-29s over Japan. From November of 1944 to August of 1945 aircraft flew into Japan and you feel justified in saying that this was a relatively unimportant part of the war (the implication from your assertion)? I dont believe the development time would be all that significant but certainly providing for more accurate and precise elements that actually did see use in the war for the aircraft we already have is a valid expense of time.

[Karnak]

You have never had the experience of escorting on the Trinity map from the beginning field locations have you?

Whats worse is ignoring the contribution of the P-51s that escorted the B-29s over Japan. From November of 1944 to August of 1945 aircraft flew into Japan and you feel justified in saying that this was a relatively unimportant part of the war (the implication from your assertion)? I dont believe the development time would be all that significant but certainly providing for more accurate and precise elements that actually did see use in the war for the aircraft we already have is a valid expense of time.

From what Dan said, P-51s didn't use those drop tanks to escort B-29s, they only used them when carrying rockets because the rockets increased drag and thus fuel consumption.

You are asking for them for a reason they were never used for in reality.  You are also totally blowing the situation out of proportion.


Try using WWII escort tactics.  P-51s did not escort bombers, of any type, from wheels up to wheels down on deep raids.  They traded off, first with the Spits or 47s, then later in the flight with other 51s that had cruised in with full tanks and lastly with the Spits or 47s again.

[Chalenge]

No I am asking for tanks for escort duty plain and simple but if I have to carry rockets in order to get the tanks I will! Thank you very much for the suggestion! 

[Ack-Ack]

No I am asking for tanks for escort duty plain and simple but if I have to carry rockets in order to get the tanks I will! Thank you very much for the suggestion! 

You could always add them in TAS whenever you get around to finishing that game.  Just sayin'.


ack-ack

[Baumer]

They also called for low blower and lean mixture but that doesn't really apply now does it.

Regardless, with the maximum of a 512 by 512 map in AH, the current P-51D is capable of crossing the map and returning on an escort mission with a 2.0 fuel burn.

[Masherbrum]

LMFAO Ack-Ack.