Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Slade on August 28, 2020, 07:45:13 AM
-
Hello,
If WWII aircraft had the ability to dump fuel while in flight - I think it would be a good feature to add.
EDIT: Perhaps via a percentage. Example: Dump Fuel <Dropdown Listbox> List options: 75%, 50%, 25%, 10%.
If that is too hard, maybe just a HotKey combo.
EDIT 2: Even easier, a HotKey that dumps 10% every time you key it.
Thank you, :salute
Slade
-
Best of my knowledge, WWII fighters, by and large, did not have a fuel dump capability short of releasing a drop tank. However, if any community possesses members that know otherwise, this one does (and they will make a point of suggesting the fact was easily obtained). :old: :D
-
Why do you want to dump fuel?
-
Why do you want to dump fuel?
Only thing I can think of is so they can have more fuel for longer loiter time, then dump to "fighting weight" to gain advantage when they find an enemy.
Not a fan of it myself.
Wiley.
-
Well, one could up with half or quarter fuel load and a drop tank (or two). Seems pretty much the same thing. :old:
-
I've always wanted to have the option to fuel dump (much like I do with ammo) more in times of emergency than a fighting advantage.
-
Only thing I can think of is so they can have more fuel for longer loiter time, then dump to "fighting weight" to gain advantage when they find an enemy.
Not a fan of it myself.
Wiley.
Should have quoted. Interested in why Slade wants to dump fuel.
-
Well, one could up with half or quarter fuel load and a drop tank (or two). Seems pretty much the same thing. :old:
You lose a few mph top speed on a lot of aircraft if you do that, plus you've got the additional drag on climbout. But yeah, it's pretty similar.
I've always wanted to have the option to fuel dump (much like I do with ammo) more in times of emergency than a fighting advantage.
What constitutes an "emergency"? Dead stick? How much glide do you gain dumping ammo? :joystick:
Regardless, dumping so they could fight better is how a ton of people would use it.
Wiley.
-
What constitutes an "emergency"? Dead stick? How much glide do you gain dumping ammo? :joystick:
Regardless, dumping so they could fight better is how a ton of people would use it.
Wiley.
An Emergency that means staying inflight is difficult/unassured; fuel tank leak, oil leak, radiator leak, engine outage, large surfaces such as a blown off wing tips.
Depending on altitude it could be hundreds of yards, losing weight for a longer glide can potentially help a combat ineffective aircraft make a runway.
People already do similar by the use of Drop tanks, though the option of DTs are not available to all aircraft..
The ability to fuel dump would even that playing field, if you insist to go down that avenue of debate.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Why do you want to dump fuel?
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, :salute
Slade
-
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.
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).
-
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.
There may be one or some where they're leaking fuel but fuel dumping seems very much a modern airliner/jet cargo thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping
-
Regardless, dumping so they could fight better is how a ton of people would use it.
I wonder if some would even try it to produce a vapor trail when they get saddled up. :O
-
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
-
What would be the point? :headscratch:
-
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.
-
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. :D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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, :salute
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. :salute
-
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”.
-
A nice option, but very “gamey”.
True. But the MA is designed to be gamey. :cheesy:
-
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.
-
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.
-
A nice option, but very “gamey”.
Thanks for your post. :salute
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. :old:
-
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.
-
More fuel makes a difference in climb. Weight is modeled in game.
-
Thanks for your post. :salute
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. :old:
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.
-
That "Combat trim"... so gamey gamey it's gamey.
And around and around we go. :D
-
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. :old:
Not even close the the most gamy.
That title goes to the ability to take off again after you died. I can not think of a single instance in WWII where they allowed a dead pilot to fly.
HiTech
-
Not even close the the most gamy.
That title goes to the ability to take off again after you died. I can not think of a single instance in WWII where they allowed a dead pilot to fly.
HiTech
Pretty sure that was frowned upon.
Coogan
-
I can not think of a single instance in WWII where they allowed a dead pilot to fly.
Would have been cool, though.
Get Shifty working on it for his next novel.
- oldman
-
Not even close the the most gamy.
That title goes to the ability to take off again after you died. I can not think of a single instance in WWII where they allowed a dead pilot to fly.
HiTech
naw the gamiest was the b17 that landed with no crew onboard.
semp
-
It is a game in the end.... :D
Had to change post as I saw HiTech had already posted the most gamey that I was posting. LOL
-
The pilot isnt dead, he is just sleeping at the stick
-
Zombie Pilots would be good for Halloween :D
-
A good one for Haloween would be bombs that look like pumpkins.
-
Yeah over time you don't get WEP back and the accumulated damage makes rearming a non player
-
EDIT 2: Even easier, a HotKey that dumps 10% every time you key it.
No. No hotkey. I would end up emptying my tanks on accident. :bhead
-
Not even close the the most gamy.
That title goes to the ability to take off again after you died. I can not think of a single instance in WWII where they allowed a dead pilot to fly.
HiTech
Touche
-
That title goes to the ability to take off again after you died. I can not think of a single instance in WWII where they allowed a dead pilot to fly.
All things are relative of course. Thanks for your response. :salute
-
No. No hotkey. I would end up emptying my tanks on accident.
Did you know in AH you can set the keys for almost anything? If you think the default Hot-Key for a new feature is one you might hit...change it. :old:
-
Why do you want to dump fuel?
So I can get away from you.
-
So I can get away from you.
:rofl
-
No. This is idiotic. You are forgetting that AH planes are already gifting you burn time (fuel burn is fast!). If you need that extra wee bit of weight gone in order for you to think you have an advantage... you're doing it wrong. This ranks right up there with emptying the rear gun on a 110 to "make it turn better". **facepalm**
Aircraft in WW2 didn't go up with less than 100%. Period. I can show you my g'pa flight logs, fuel was always 100% in the south PTO. B24D, C87, C61, C78, B17E, C47, C45, etc.
Fuel dump is as gamey as they come. I actually think HT is being generous in letting the Lgay7 and Spit16 fanbois take up 25%. Be thankful.
Thankfully this won't go anywhere. :)
-
Excellent points! :salute
-
Excellent points! :salute
Why i was just telling my wife that last night.