Dumping Fuel

[Oldman731]

No offense meant but the 'leveling the playing field for planes that don't have drop tanks' argument doesn't sell me anymore than 'level the playing field by giving all aircraft the same type and amount of ammo' argument would. Alas, WWII fighters didn't have a 'fuel dump' option.

Agreed.

- oldman

[Volron]

What would be the point?

[LCADolby]

No offense meant but the 'leveling the playing field for planes that don't have drop tanks' argument doesn't sell me anymore than 'level the playing field by giving all aircraft the same type and amount of ammo' argument would. Alas, WWII fighters didn't have a 'fuel dump' option.

Except the ammo nonsense is reductio ad absurdum.

Where historically accurate it should be present.

[Arlo]

Except the ammo nonsense is reductio ad absurdum.

Where historically accurate it should be present.

Don't get angry .... or hurt. I found both examples equally absurd. Find an example of it being 'historically accurate' for WWII fighters to dump fuel without it involving drop tanks.

P.S. You're misapplying 'reductio ad absurdum.'

Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable.

https://iep.utm.edu/reductio/#:~:text=Reductio%20ad%20absurdum%20is%20a,its%20rejection%20would%20be%20untenable.

[Wiley]

Except the ammo nonsense is reductio ad absurdum.

Where historically accurate it should be present.

I'd question the "historical accuracy" of micromanaging one's fuel right before an engagement with the enemy.  Just seems to me it would be mostly used as an avenue for dweebery.

Wiley.

[Busher]

Point being, most WWII aircraft would take max internal fuel plus drop tanks on long flights.  In reality, can’t imagine intentionally taking off with a partial fuel load in order to out fly the opposition and risk running out of fuel in the heat of battle, making the kill for the opposition.

I have to question if HT modelled aircraft weight into performance. For example I never noticed an increase in climb rate when 700+ lbs of drop tank was jettisoned.

[Puma44]

Make the plane lighter and more effective should an unplanned red object appear. 

I thought I'd seen a few WWII youtube vids that showed planes dumping fuel for various reason.  I could be wrong though.


Thank you, 

Slade

Since we’ve got the “gamey” option of taking off with partial fuel loads, why not do that?  Additionally, there is the option for a drop tank (some planes) to extend range, punch it off, and be at a light fuel weight.

Interesting.  Do you remember which planes you saw doing that?  Hopefully, you weren’t watching high altitude bombers and/or fighters conning and mistook that for fuel being dumped.   

[Puma44]

A difference between events and the MA. Taking off with half or quarter tanks while opposing planes vulch your field has very much been an element of the MA from the start (though not always the wisest).

A nice option, but very “gamey”.

[Arlo]

A nice option, but very “gamey”.

True. But the MA is designed to be gamey. 

[Chalenge]

It's possible that quite a few of the planes can dump fuel by "recovering" fuel to a full tank. Certain versions of the Mustang, but not all, can do it. The disadvantage would be that you are flying a plane that is out of balance laterally. Hardly an ideal situation.

[Arlo]

I have to question if HT modelled aircraft weight into performance. For example I never noticed an increase in climb rate when 700+ lbs of drop tank was jettisoned.

Just tested a P-47 (D25) offline with 25% fuel and 2 drops. Climb rate w/o the drop tanks on wep was a little over 3K per min. With them on wep a little over 2k per min.

[Slade]

A nice option, but very “gamey”.

Thanks for your post. 

I prefaced my wish with "if it was done in WWII".


The most gamey part of AH is the rearm pad, i.e. "sorties" not being each time a plane leaves the ground (as in WWII) but rather forever.  They can be extended almost indefinitely by a careful pilot.  I have nothing against using a rearm pad to...rearm.  Just the abuse of what a sortie is. 

[Ack-Ack]

I have to question if HT modelled aircraft weight into performance. For example I never noticed an increase in climb rate when 700+ lbs of drop tank was jettisoned.

I have in the P-38, it is quite noticeable.

[Shuffler]

More fuel makes a difference in climb. Weight is modeled in game.

[Puma44]

Thanks for your post. 

I prefaced my wish with "if it was done in WWII".


The most gamey part of AH is the rearm pad, i.e. "sorties" not being each time a plane leaves the ground (as in WWII) but rather forever.  They can be extended almost indefinitely by a careful pilot.  I have nothing against using a rearm pad to...rearm.  Just the abuse of what a sortie is. 

Good point.  The line between realism and gamey is wide and a bit fuzzy with some things in game.  There are a lot of different personalities for HT to appeal towards.