Fuel load outs`

[SmokinLoon]

I get a kick out of the players who milk each and every gamey setting they can to get their little name in lights.  If they *MUST* have that wee bit less fuel to win their duel then pity for them, they shouldn't have been in the situation to begin with if that wee bit of extra fuel weight got their arse shot down.  Boo hoo.  Lots of panty waste in this thread.  LOL!      

As far as a "slider" setting goes, if HTC is going to keep the option for taking less than %100 fuel then by all means give the players the ability to pick fuel loadings in %10 increments. 

Ack-Ack... I just spent 45 mins going over flight records of my late grandfather and I found two flights in which his aircraft didnt have %100 fuel.  In March of 1945 he flew from Tuscon to Sacramento in a B24D and from Sacramento to San Fran in a B17E, both had "ferry" fuel loads (whatever that means???).  But otherwise, each and every aircraft he flew in the PTO had %100 fuel.  It was SOP, I have him saying exactly that on audio tape (perhaps only for his Sqdn, but I doubt it).  From his B24D to the numerous other aircraft he flew (C45, C47, AT-5C, C3, C87, C87H, UC78, UC61, UC78, B17E, etc etc), they all have a "%100" in the fuel column.  I can even give you dates, altitudes, ordnance, and targets of their bombing missions.  In the PTO aircraft just didnt "take what was needed", they took all the fuel they could carry because there was too much unknown.

In AH, I believe that %100 should not be required, but %25 is too little and this %25 w/ DT is for the arcade score potatos (did that sting a bit?).  I vote to eliminate the %25 option and make it so DT can only be used with %100 fuel.  If the aircraft was "handicapped" in WWII because it had large fuel tanks (see range), then why give it an advantage it didnt have (lighter weight up front) in the read deal???           

[B-17]

"Ferry" fuel loads likely meant he just had to get there, and drop fuel off. So, filled up with fuel, and replaced bombs with fuel, essentially.

But I'm only 15... what do I know, right?

[Tank-Ace]

Krusty, every single facet of this game is compressed. Each of us must do the work of tens, sometimes hundreds, of people. Distance to target is shortened, sortie time is shortened, INTERCEPT time is shortened, the list goes on.

Fighters can also take 25% fuel to climb faster and intercept the bombers faster. My favorite intercept loadout is a 109K4 with 25% and a DT. I use the DT to climb and accelerate then ditch it, kill the bombers, and then cruise/coast/glide back to base and land my 3 kills.




Also, you seem to be in a losing argument. Perhaps quit while you still have some digni... some self respec..... well the point is just admit you lost the argument. Realisms gonna take a backseat to gameplay on this one.

[SmokinLoon]

Fighters can also take 25% fuel to climb faster and intercept the bombers faster. My favorite intercept loadout is a 109K4 with 25% and a DT. I use the DT to climb and accelerate then ditch it, kill the bombers, and then cruise/coast/glide back to base and land my 3 kills.

Have you ever checked the difference in weight between %100 and not DT vs the %25 and DT?  Have you checked the difference in climb rate between the 2 options?  What is the difference in "time in the air" between the 2?  Instead of limiting your range and perhaps rushing your attack, try the %100 and DT and just see how little difference there is in the actual performance (climb, speed) but the benefits of range and knowing you do not have to rush your attacks.  ESPECIALLY since you are chasing bombers and not dueling a Spit16.

[SmokinLoon]

"Ferry" fuel loads likely meant he just had to get there, and drop fuel off. So, filled up with fuel, and replaced bombs with fuel, essentially.

But I'm only 15... what do I know, right?

Good guess, but not.  He was not transporting fuel, he was ferrying the aircraft from one base to another.  The "ferry load" was the amount of fuel the aircraft had for the flight, it was less than %100 guessing by the rest of his logs.

[IrishOne]

+10 for fuel loadout slider.  even if the choice was simply 10 different settings in 10% increments.    and *AHEM* i have to agree with krusty here.   the buff fuel burn mult should be increased to encourage bombers flying around at cruising speed, not firewalled the whole time.   would also keep the 40k "i dont want have to defend myself" dweebs in check  

[MK-84]

"Ferry" fuel loads likely meant he just had to get there, and drop fuel off. So, filled up with fuel, and replaced bombs with fuel, essentially.

But I'm only 15... what do I know, right?

WHAT?!

No, ferry range is a loadout to go a maximum distance one way...to "ferry" the aircraft.  The only thing they were "dropping off" so to speak is themselves and their plane.

[Tank-Ace]

Yes I have, but the 25% and DT lets me ditch the extra fuel when I need to. I also do 50% clean if the bombers are relativly low (10-15k). They're bombers, not armored tanks. Doesn't take a whole lot to kill them.

[Stoney]

I don't like the slider.  I would prefer the ability to select full tanks.  For example, on the F4U-1, you have a choice of Main, Aux, and Wing tanks.  I think it would be better to be able to choose a full Main and Wing tanks, or a full Main and Aux tank, or just a full Main tank, etc. than a fuel load based on % of total capacity.

Obviously on the bombers, you'd need to simplify it a bit and consolidate multiple tanks into a few sub categories.

[DemonFox]

I like Stoney's idea. Fill certian tanks empty others. Would be a huge help to a plane like the FW-190 becasue the AFT fuel throws the plane off so bad.

[SmokinLoon]

I like Stoney's idea. Fill certian tanks empty others. Would be a huge help to a plane like the FW-190 becasue the AFT fuel throws the plane off so bad.

Nah.  Having more than 1 fuel tank was a blessing.  Aside from the F4U "needing" to burn the left wing tank first to help with that nasty stall, Im not aware of any other aircraft that draining certain tanks first/second, etc was such a hot topic.  Im sure some did, but not as prevalent as the F4U.

-1 for another gamey game game request. If it is that important do what the real pilots did and manually switch tanks.

[Stoney]

Nah.  Having more than 1 fuel tank was a blessing.  Aside from the F4U "needing" to burn the left wing tank first to help with that nasty stall, Im not aware of any other aircraft that draining certain tanks first/second, etc was such a hot topic.  Im sure some did, but not as prevalent as the F4U.

-1 for another gamey game game request. If it is that important do what the real pilots did and manually switch tanks.

Aux tank in the Pony.  Wing tanks in the P-47N.  Pretty much any aircraft with an aft-located aux tank.  And, in real life, on aircraft with multiple tanks, it wasn't odd at all for them to take off with certain tanks empty, depending on the mission.

[Karnak]

Obviously on the bombers, you'd need to simplify it a bit and consolidate multiple tanks into a few sub categories.

In reality Mosquitoes had nine fuel tanks, four in each wing and the aux tank in the fuselage.  In AH the Mosquitoes have five fuel tanks, two in each wing and the aux tank.  AH merges the out two fuel tanks into one and the inner two fuel tanks into a second tank in each wing.

[Krusty]

I think I recall a blurb about Hitech or Pyro or somebody saying AH was limited to 5 fuel tanks.



TankAce, you're the only one losing any arguments here. You don't seem to understand the massive weight and drag of a DT. Taking 25+DT will actually hurt worse than taking 100% clean internal. Not only does it weigh you down, lowering rate of climb, it SLOWS you down (when in a climb that's just as bad as extra weight) as well. The DT rack on top of that also adds weight, even after you drop the tank. A full DT with about 70 gallons in it weighs over 400lbs with fuel alone. Then there's the weight of the empty tank itself on top of that.

You might as well try climbing with a bomb strapped under you. The lighter internal load doesn't make up for it, either, and if you can only fly the 109K4 when its on fumes you really need to brush up a lot. The plane is more than capable of contesting and winning most other planes in the game even with 75%+ onboard.

Further, 25% in a 109K4 gives about 6-7 minutes of flight time. Very simple minded of you to up just to die/ditch/bail with no intent of making it back. Otherwise you'd take RTB gas.

[Krusty]

Aux tank in the Pony.  Wing tanks in the P-47N.  Pretty much any aircraft with an aft-located aux tank.  And, in real life, on aircraft with multiple tanks, it wasn't odd at all for them to take off with certain tanks empty, depending on the mission.

Stoney, often most times planes with multiple tanks had them drain into each other or automatically redistribute (the aux tanks in the 262 automatically refilled the main tanks, things like that), the DTs on Bf109s simply used pressure to "top off" the main internal tank all the time until the DT was empty. In many systems you could not simply "leave the tank dry" because filling a single access point would fill multiple tanks.

It is a sticky situation sometimes. Aux tank on P-51 is an example, but even P-51s took off with this filled on short hops many times. It would be nice in-game to have an option not to load it but if, theoretically, they were locked in always, would it be that horrible?

I suggest this only for the sake of debate, as I don't want to see that myself, but would it be so horrible to force them into their historic combat state? Surely the aux tank burns off before you can climb to 12k and fly a sector to the fight, so you would theoretically only have to worry if bounced before then -- but this also matches WW2 pilot concerns, no?