Fuel load outs`

[Krusty]

I always heard there was no drag for the tracks in planes that already have them installed to the frame, i.g., the american rides, but there is a slight penalty for DT pins on german.  I have never tested this though so it's all speculative.

I believe this is correct, planes like the P-38 have the pylons regardless of whether you load bombs or a drop tank, there isn't a penalty to speed to load a DT then drop it.  Other planes like the P-39, which are clean if no ordnance or DT is loaded do lose a few mph if something is loaded and then dropped due to the shackles.

The thing with the Ta152 was it doesn't have a pylon. It was a new system where it had these tiny aerodynamic "pins" built into the belly of the plane. They would brace the DT like sway braces but with no drag (or maybe 1mph or so).

Going from memory there was a time when the DT on the 152 added drag after relased as if there was a pylon, but I seem to recall this was brought up years back and corrected so that no drag was included anymore.

Search doesn't work, so you might have to test it in-game or ask HTC about it.

[grizz441]

I'll test it tonight.

[RTHolmes]

Is there anywhere where the amounts of fuel (in gallons) is listed for the various tanks in Aces High planes as modeled.

I can't even find total fuel amounts.

It would be nice to have this information handy.

iirc Precision squad's website has a PDF with all the fuel amounts and durations.

[icepac]

Thank you rtholmes

[Ack-Ack]

Bombers in WWII did not take off w/o %100 fuel in WWII.  There were too many things that could go wrong while navigating so going 2-3 hours off course was not uncommon.

Bombers didn't always take off with 100% fuel.  Fuel load was based on the mission requirements.  For example, for long range missions bombers would obviously load more fuel to make it to the target and back at the cost of taking less ordnance.  On the flip side, for short range missions bombers would take less fuel and be able to carry more ordnance.

ack-ack

[Krusty]

But they always packed every last available pound with gas. And the "reduced" load was usually still more than what we in AH might consider 75%.

If the overload was some 2000, or even let's say 4000 lbs more, that's not much fuel removed.

The B-17 with Tokyo tanks has nearly 22,000 lbs of gas onboard. Trading 2000 lbs or 4000 lbs, even 4000 lbs overload in bombs is 18% reduction in fuel.


So I think it's safe to say that even with fuel reduced for "overload" conditions (not all that common given the abundance of short range medium bombers, but still worthy of note) the amount of fuel reduced is nearly full.

Whereas in AH 25% is the norm.

[B-17]

Wouldn't 25% be the norm because you don't need to actually fly for 6 hours to come across an enemy base?

[Raptor05121]

Wouldn't 25% be the norm because you don't need to actually fly for 6 hours to come across an enemy base?

here here.

In RL, bases were hours apart, unlike aces high which is about 7-10 mins apart.

Krusty, if you want real fuel loadouts for the bombers, then you better make some realistic scale maps. thus causing the fighters to bring 100% and fly for 45 minutes to get to a furball

[Beefcake]

I think most buff pilots use 50% unless they're flying a very short hop, 25% won't get you far even if it's an attack on a single airbase. One thing you need to remember with bombers is each selection of fuel will (in some cases) drastically change the climb rate of a bomber thus increasing the time needed to get to altitude. Forcing bomber pilots to take 100% fuel would mean instead of flying a 45 minute sortie at 15k I would end up flying a 1hr 30min sortie because of the extra time needed to climb. Heck going from 50% -> 75% in a B29 forces me to take off 2-3 sectors further back than had I taken 50% fuel.

[LLogann]

Wait a sec, what does this have to do with gummy bears?   

But they always packed every last available pound with gas. And the "reduced" load was usually still more than what we in AH might consider 75%.

If the overload was some 2000, or even let's say 4000 lbs more, that's not much fuel removed.

The B-17 with Tokyo tanks has nearly 22,000 lbs of gas onboard. Trading 2000 lbs or 4000 lbs, even 4000 lbs overload in bombs is 18% reduction in fuel.


So I think it's safe to say that even with fuel reduced for "overload" conditions (not all that common given the abundance of short range medium bombers, but still worthy of note) the amount of fuel reduced is nearly full.

Whereas in AH 25% is the norm.

[Krusty]

here here.

In RL, bases were hours apart, unlike aces high which is about 7-10 mins apart.

Krusty, if you want real fuel loadouts for the bombers, then you better make some realistic scale maps. thus causing the fighters to bring 100% and fly for 45 minutes to get to a furball

No need for real scale maps. Instead we need to present the weapons as they could function in the war.

In the war, the bombers functioned along a very set specific envelope. In this game you see them flying acrobatics. In real life they were slow lumbering TARGETS incapable of defending themselves without mutual cover (formations). In this game they fly faster, climb faster, and float on rails at stall speeds as compared to the realities of WW2, while shooting down countless enemies that chase them to no avail. We have had FSOs where the bomber streams racked up the most enemy fighter kills on the allied team. We have had several where bomber gunners alone racked up more kills than the Luftwaffe fighters attacking them (no escorts, just bomber and LW fighters). That's messed up and if you don't think so you are blind or biased towards bombers in this game.

I don't have to present realistic maps. As I've said, full fuel will simply bring them back INTO their normal envelope. Right now they're are WAY outside the envelope (in-game). The point isn't to simulate the actual mission length. The point is to bring it back down to slightly realistic mission performance.

[Krusty]

I think most buff pilots use 50% unless they're flying a very short hop, 25% won't get you far even if it's an attack on a single airbase.

It will get you to 15k several sectors out to bomb an airfield and back. That's all you need. You only take more if you're climbing past 20K and going across the map.

One thing you need to remember with bombers is each selection of fuel will (in some cases) drastically change the climb rate of a bomber thus increasing the time needed to get to altitude. Forcing bomber pilots to take 100% fuel would mean instead of flying a 45 minute sortie at 15k I would end up flying a 1hr 30min sortie because of the extra time needed to climb. Heck going from 50% -> 75% in a B29 forces me to take off 2-3 sectors further back than had I taken 50% fuel.

That's the very POINT!

That's WHY you make them take 100%. They could never climb to 20k inside 20-30 minutes in real life. Why not strap RATOs to them? Simple: Because that's not how they worked. Taking less fuel is like a constant RATO in climb rate.

Forcing them to take 100% means they will either spend more time climbing (leaving them more vulnerable at auto speed before they level out) or they will level out SOONER to drop on their target in time. The end results are: It slows down the climb rate, and encourages bombers to level off sooner.

No more 35K Lancasters. No more 32K B17s floating so high you can't aim up at them let alone get up there to kill them (and if you do you get shot down 2.0K out because the air is so thin up there). No more climbing 1500fpm with a full bomb load in record time that would have made WW2 pilots drop their jaws. These are not Komets. These are not Ta152s. They are B-17s. They are B-24s. They are B-29s. They are Lancasters. They should at least superficially perform like their real-world counterparts.


Full fuel doesn't get us there, but it's a very large step in the right direction.

[Beefcake]

Krusty you're my squadmate and a good friend, however, one day I will find you and I will slap you in the head with a giant tuna fish.   


The problem with that idea is time. I rarely log in for periods longer than an hour and I certainly DO NOT want to be forced to fly hour long bomber missions just because of the fuel load. If this was WW2 or a complete simulator where death mattered then sure, give me 100% every time. However, this is not a simulator, it's a game with accurately modeled WW2 aircraft. I want to have fun with WW2 aircraft and that means not having to dedicate 30-40 minutes a flight climbing to altitude to bomb an airbase 20 miles away.

[Zeagle]

Find myself agreeing with Krusty again.  

But, it might be fun watching Beefcake slap a squaddie with a tuna fish   

[B-17]

Krusty you're my squadmate and a good friend, however, one day I will find you and I will slap you in the head with a giant tuna fish.   

+1