Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Delirium on December 04, 2008, 01:06:13 PM
-
Why does HTC allow us to carry DTs when we don't have a full internal fuel load? It is pretty silly for everyone to fly around with 25% internal and carry a DT...
I can't recall this ever happening historically, does anyone have a reference of this occurring in the field?
edit: I did do a forum search but I can't find any incidents of this being discussed in the past; apologies if this is in error.
-
I support drop tanks allowed only when carrying full internal fuel first. :aok
-
I support drop tanks allowed only when carrying full internal fuel first. :aok
Seconded.
-
Makes sense. I personally fly the p38 with 100% or 75% with 2 dts but I wouldn't have a problem with this being implemented.
-
Never really thought about it but is along the gaming the game lines. I support this idea!
-
good idea and I don't recall this being mentioned :aok
-
I usually take 50% or 75% and a drop in a 38, but I wouldn't mind this.
-
i'm all for historical accuracy, but yet a little torn on this one, its just the convience factor of the drop tanks, but i guess if it was implemented i wouldn't be mad since it would be more acurate.
-
If I was a WWII pilot and found such a great cheating bastard trick, I'd use and abuse it anytime the situation allowed it.
-
If a pilot in WWII tried to take a full DT with only %25 or %50 of his planes internal tanks used... the ground crew chief would just laugh at him.
Planes in WWII didnt go up without %100 fuel for combat operations.
-
Because the situation didnt present itself. I cant imagine that pilots weren't allowed to do whatever they could to have any kind of advantage on the enemy. I very much doubt that a plane like the P51D or Ta152 with their tail heaviness under full fuel load (aux tank in the 51, aft in the 152) wouldnt have been prefered in a DT+ minimum aux/aft tank weight if the situation would have allowed it, as is the case in AH. The P51's aux tank IIRC was explicitly refered to as a liability in aerobatics, if not an outright disqualification for it.
I cant see why any pilot in his right mind would opt for something detrimental to his plane's maneuverability that he couldn't ditch, as opposed to the same thing but detachable a few buttons/switches away.
Conversly, there's no reason to have B25s with fake defensive guns take off anywhere in the game, because the situation doesnt warrant it.. And it's laughable to replace those guns with extra fuel in the situations in AH.
-
The only passage that comes to my mind is in "To Fly and To Fight", going from memory Col. Anderson is discussing entering a dogfight with a full internal fuel load and the effect it's having on the handling of his P-51.
He mentions something to the effect of if the target of the bombers that day was close enough they would take off and burn off some of the AUX tank to help the handling should they need to punch the DT's and engage, but on longer missions they didn't dare waste a drop. They still took off with full fuel and drop tanks though.
-
Isn't this also an economics issue? I would imagine that taking 50% gas an drop tanks would be more expensive than just 100% fuel.
I support the idea.
-
I know that taking 50% and a drop tank would be impossible in some aircraft- like the Bf.109. In the 109 the drop tank merely kept the internal tank full while it fed the engine, instead of bypassing that and directly feeding the engine.
-
If the plane was unable to do it, I'd agree. Otherwise it's bogus realism IMO.
And Im pretty sure the AUX disqualification from aerobatics was really specific.. It might have been in a pilot's manual. I recall specificaly that the AUX tank disallowed maneuvers more intensive than e.g. formation flying. I dont remember if it was for as long as the AUX had fuel, or what, though.
And I don't see what this will do for the game, other than realism for realism's sake.
-
In WW2 missions you had set targets, rally points and flight paths. The distances were relatively known before hand and flight profiles established. In WW2 you could be reasonably sure you wouldnt have contacts before a setpoint. This gave you ample time to burn fuel off and get your balance better. In Aces High no two flights are the same on any given day. One flight you might have been bounced on climbout and another having to divert to another field. If you takeoff with full internal in a P-51 and jumped by a high 109 5 miles from the field your in for a rough day. Its a trival process to compare this game to the common WW2 practices. Here flights last around 30 minutes (or less) and WW2 was probly closer to two or three hours for a typical fighter. You didnt have Spitfires engaging P-47s or La-7s engaging P-51s and so on. When you narrow down the flight profiles and match ups I would support realstic fuel options. Dont forget the full throttle restrictions on planes crossing the channel with severe range issues.
Race
-
Planes in WWII didnt go up without %100 fuel for combat operations.
It depended on the mission.
ack-ack
-
I think this is what I'm remembering.
The Pilot Training Manual for the Mustang states, “When you are carrying more than
40 gallons of fuel in your fuselage tank, do not attempt any acrobatics. The weight of the
fuel shifts the center of gravity back so the airplane is unstable for anything other than
straight and level flight.”
I recall seeing it on a scan, either from text or from a captioned illustration.
from here. (https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/display.aspx?rs=enginespage&ModuleID=be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153&Action=downloadpaper&ObjectID=d1d0fb6b-72fa-4abe-8ec1-1a8b43d032ab)
-
And I don't see what this will do for the game, other than realism for realism's sake.
Easy, it will make the weight factor an issue in a fight where it has never been an issue before. Currently, if you see someone drop their tank you know they are carrying 50% or (more laughable yet) 25% internally. You know that the enemy a/c is at peak performance for weight and you act accordingly.
If this is implemented, it will likely help level the playing field a little for the Luftwaffe since their rails add weight to their airframes. Besides, if we aren't doing this for any semblance of realism, why not give my P38 folding wings for CV operations and Merlin engines?
It doesn't make sense to me, Hitech wasn't willing to add the explosive bolts for the WGr 21 rocket tubes to allow them to be jettisoned (which really did occur operationally) but allows people to take off with 25% internal and DTs. It would be an easy fix as well, just add 5 options for fuel, instead of 4; 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, 100% with DT option.
-
I cant imagine that pilots weren't allowed to do whatever they could to have any kind of advantage on the enemy. I very much doubt that a plane like the P51D or Ta152 with their tail heaviness under full fuel load (aux tank in the 51, aft in the 152) wouldnt have been prefered in a DT+ minimum aux/aft tank weight if the situation would have allowed it, as is the case in AH.
P51 pilots routinely drained their aux tank first, before draining the DTs if it was a long mission. The aux tank was behind the CoG and by draining it first they could not only climb better but also manuver better as well in case they got jumped.
Like I said before I cannot find any mention of anyone taking off with DTs and 25-50% internal fuel.
-
I cant find any mention of taking off within 20 miles of a enemy base either....
Race
-
I dont think it depended on the mission. I asked 'Bud' Anderson about this not too long ago and his answer was very pointed.
'The 109 could fly for an hour and a half on a full tank and we could fly for six or even more with drop tanks. We never went on a mission with less then full tanks it didnt make sense to. If a 109 went off with less fuel then full tanks it was because they didnt have fuel and more then likely in that case they would just fly fewer planes.'
With the P51 no matter what your fuel load you burn the fuselage tank first. Once it was down to 60% or less you could switch to drop tanks (for instance) otherwise the plane was a hand full and the pilot would wear himself out too quickly.
-
I agree that this concept should be implemented. It makes perfect sense really. It would also add a new importance to fuel management. Manually burning off tanks would become even more important.
I like it. Make it so. :aok
-
The scenic route to max alt would happen burning the internals, then when the internal in down enough, switch back to external. When the fighting finally starts, drop the tanks and back to square one but at 35k :)
-
The scenic route to max alt would happen burning the internals, then when the internal in down enough, switch back to external. When the fighting finally starts, drop the tanks and back to square one but at 35k :)
You know, you're probably right about that. I don't enjoy high altitude engagements. I hereby change my position! :lol
-
The scenic route to max alt would happen burning the internals, then when the internal in down enough, switch back to external. When the fighting finally starts, drop the tanks and back to square one but at 35k :)
Changing the way drop tanks are in the game would not affect alt of anyone within AH.
Frankly, if someone wants to go to 35k, burn their aux tanks, burn 50% of both of their wing tanks, and THEN come down I will welcome it. Each flight will take more than an hour and they will be going so fast in the dive they'll have the turn circle the size of Rosie O'Donald's thighs, not to mention they'll maintain that pasty white complexion year round. I won't even bring up their sex life, or lack thereof...
-
...and they will be going so fast in the dive they'll have the turn circle the size of Rosie O'Donald's thighs...
That's the beauty of the Corsair's landing gear/dive brakes. ;)
-
they will be going so fast in the dive they'll have the turn circle the size of Rosie O'Donald's thighs, not to mention they'll maintain that pasty white complexion year round. I won't even bring up their sex life, or lack thereof...
I just threw up, just a little bit, in my mouth... :eek:
-
Because the situation didnt present itself. I cant imagine that pilots weren't allowed to do whatever they could to have any kind of advantage on the enemy. I very much doubt that a plane like the P51D or Ta152 with their tail heaviness under full fuel load (aux tank in the 51, aft in the 152) wouldnt have been prefered in a DT+ minimum aux/aft tank weight if the situation would have allowed it, as is the case in AH. The P51's aux tank IIRC was explicitly refered to as a liability in aerobatics, if not an outright disqualification for it.
I cant see why any pilot in his right mind would opt for something detrimental to his plane's maneuverability that he couldn't ditch, as opposed to the same thing but detachable a few buttons/switches away.
Conversly, there's no reason to have B25s with fake defensive guns take off anywhere in the game, because the situation doesnt warrant it.. And it's laughable to replace those guns with extra fuel in the situations in AH.
How many p51d's upped from their airbase to engage the enemy within 50 miles of their home field? I'm under the impression that most would have hours of flight time before closing in on enemy airspace.
-
Easy, it will make the weight factor an issue in a fight where it has never been an issue before. Currently, if you see someone drop their tank you know they are carrying 50% or (more laughable yet) 25% internally. You know that the enemy a/c is at peak performance for weight and you act accordingly.
It's not like they can just game it like that without any penalty. The current fuel mod means such a tactic's price is reduced range, and it's flat across the board, keeping endurance proportions historical. Really.. The LW needs an additional weight handicap? That's news to me.
If this is implemented, it will likely help level the playing field a little for the Luftwaffe since their rails add weight to their airframes. Besides, if we aren't doing this for any semblance of realism, why not give my P38 folding wings for CV operations and Merlin engines?
Or no combat trim, or no ammo counters, etc, etc. This isnt going to help the luftwaffe at all. You're saying the 190s would benefit from being forced to have their AFT full?
If anything, only the lw are paying with this change. Most of the US birds have permanent racks. They too would lose the advantage of forward CG extra fuel, but so does the LW.
It doesn't make sense to me, Hitech wasn't willing to add the explosive bolts for the WGr 21 rocket tubes to allow them to be jettisoned (which really did occur operationally) but allows people to take off with 25% internal and DTs. It would be an easy fix as well, just add 5 options for fuel, instead of 4; 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, 100% with DT option.
But you then admit thatP51 pilots routinely drained their aux tank first, before draining the DTs if it was a long mission. The aux tank was behind the CoG and by draining it first they could not only climb better but also manuver better as well in case they got jumped.
then turn around 180deg and say
Like I said before I cannot find any mention of anyone taking off with DTs and 25-50% internal fuel.
Because the conditions never favored it. Do you really think any of us in WWII would not take DTs instead of an AUX tank if we had a particular mission only requiring so much fuel, when we know for a plain fact that the AUX (or AFT in the 190s case) ruins handling?
The argument that there were no bases within 20mi of combat are irrelevant. It ignores the fuel multiplier that you need to account for for an objective comparison between RL & AH. It ignores the fact that the pilot could do whatever sensible mod he needed to help kill the other bastard more efficiently. Put yourself in a very late war LW cockpit, knowing that the damn rear tank(s) are a handicap that you could negate by taking a DT instead.. Then say again that it's an invalid tactic because it wasnt interesting for the preceding duration of the war.
-
IIRC part of it had to do with resources. There simply were'nt an unlimited supply of drop tanks lying around in WWII as there are in AH. They were conserved and used when needed rather than letting every pilot waste one or two on every sortie.
Cripes, I've got steel pennies from WWII because they needed copper for the war effort. Resources were carefully conserved. Look at the extremes Germany went to in the concentration camps saving the clothing, boots, and even the hair and fillings of the holocaust victims for use in the war effort.
-
Yeah the late 190s were full of that sort of crap.. Sabotage in the assembly process, even. I know about that. I'm saying I cant see any real improvement from this, and that it's arguably opposite the sort of trend you'd see in combat. You do what it takes to win. I personaly disagree completely with the WGr21 modeling too. They were detachable. We ought to have that too. If the conditions of combat in the MA favor players abusing it (and here we ought to have a clear justification for it being abuse), then the players and, to a lesser degree, those conditions are what's wrong. If a plane was historicaly unable to drain a DT before internal tanks, then Im all for it being the same in AH, although that would be against the trend we have in the game with regards to gameplay/realism, e.g. combat trim, ammo counters, availability of rare loadouts, etc.
Whatever the case, this is certainly not an improvement for playability in LW planes. The arguments about planes not being flown historicaly.. Puh-lease. What about having N1Ks winging up with F4U4s to shoot down C47s? Or any of the other gameplay compromises.. It would be a lot more interesting to do something about the ultra-gamey fuel multiplier. Yaks & co having such restricted flight time is a much worse problem IMO.
-
As I've been reading this I don't know how much impact it would really have, unless you were to also force the players to BURN the DT's first as well. I could still burn down the internal fuel just like the P-51 pilots of yore did to get my plane down to fighting weight before switching to DT's.
All in all I wouldn't mind the switch, the more I think about it though the less impact it seems it would actually have on gameplay other than potentially limiting rate of climb when you take off somewhat.
-
The LW needs an additional weight handicap?
Currently, when a 109/190 wants to carry 25% and a DT they are punished by carrying the racks even after they drop the tanks. I think Scotch mentioned it was 8mph on the K4. If they remove the ability to carry 25% and carry a dt, you'd see people carrying more fuel and no dts. This would equate to a speed advantage as the Allied a/c are forced to always carry those ord/dt rails.
If anything, only the lw are paying with this change. Most of the US birds have permanent racks. They too would lose the advantage of forward CG extra fuel, but so does the LW.
I still disagree with you on this, heck some some of the Russian planes would also benefit (like the Yak) because they can't carry DTs at all.
But you then admit thatthen turn around 180deg and sayBecause the conditions never favored it. Do you really think any of us in WWII would not take DTs instead of an AUX tank if we had a particular mission only requiring so much fuel, when we know for a plain fact that the AUX (or AFT in the 190s case) ruins handling?
Yes, there is many stories that 51 flyers/P38 drivers had to hold their tanks even if they were empty unless they ran into enemy opposition. Some of the 'paper' tanks were used so much (sortie from sortie) that gasoline began to leak out of them because they had become so saturated and lost their integrity.
I can't find any mention of any aircraft taking less than a full internal load while carrying drop tanks, unless they were testing and never in combat.
-
I can't think of a scenario when on combat operations in WW2 you wouldn't want as much fuel as you could carry. With changing weather and a myriad of other variables that could affect time aloft the fuel gives you margin of error to return home, it's a safety net for the pilot.
-
I can't think of a scenario when on combat operations in WW2 you wouldn't want as much fuel as you could carry.
But you cant deny that pilots wouldnt hesitate to ditch something that's as good as useless ballast.. again.. The argument that it never happened in WWII is irrelevent. Subtle difference, but, if you were to say, it couldn't have happened in WWII.. Then I'd agree it's pertinent. If a plane was historicaly unable to drain the DT before the inners, then I'd agree; although you then have to break with the even instrumentation standards we have - every plane with identical units and instruments, ability to fill up tanks in "unhistorical" orders, etc. Would crew chiefs laugh at pilots for asking that the AUX be filled last, or for the pilot draining the AUX first? Sorry but this last specific argument is totaly bogus in my eyes. The crew chief and pilot's purpose is to be as efficient killing machines (or whatever the mission requires) as possible, not to deny themselves a certain advantage because it seems funny when you look at it a certain way.
Currently, when a 109/190 wants to carry 25% and a DT they are punished by carrying the racks even after they drop the tanks. I think Scotch mentioned it was 8mph on the K4. If they remove the ability to carry 25% and carry a dt, you'd see people carrying more fuel and no dts. This would equate to a speed advantage as the Allied a/c are forced to always carry those ord/dt rails.
It's the pilot's call to make either tradeoff. You would remove that tradeoff. More fuel and no DTs means less agility.. If paying 8mph for more agility in the K4 ruins a sortie for a player, he has other things to worry about. The LW already has that speed advantage as it is.. I dont see what the improvement here is!
DT scarcity - That's a very fair point.
"Yaks would benefit from 190s being less agile."
I don't get it. You want to give other planes concrete feet... to help with Yak's historicaly inexistent DTs, or with the whole MA's crazy fuel mod? Why not go for the real problem instead - the fuel mod? That's way more unrealistic than planes being field modified for a special type of mission..
If I knew I was going to fly into a mission where I wouldnt need so much fuel and that said extra fuel would only get in the way of doing as well as I could... And the crew chief or anyone else asked that I take that fuel anyway.. I'd strangle the mf-ers :) I dont see how this is so hard to understand. It's the same plain basic logic that makes you drop your DTs rather than keep em when you get jumped earlier than expected. The same logic that says you want a safety net if you don't know how long you'll have to fly. This arbitrary kind of choice should be in the pilot's hands.
Another analog - flaps.. No one in WWII used and abused flaps like we do. Dont you think we should do something about this aberration?
Whatever happens, this is certainly not good news for 190s. It's going to make em handle worse. I dont know how that's not obvious.. Aft tanks suck, they push the CG back and totaly handicap their agility. Everyone knows that. Whatever your good intention with this, it's going to make dogfighting that much more difficult for planes already at the worse end of the maneuverability spectrum. Being limited to 25% increments in the planes with larger tankage is already a PITA.
-
Delirium, I agree with your post.
HTC implement it.
-
ugh :lol
-
Frankly it doesn't matter to me one way or another. I always fly every fighter and attack plane with 100% fuel with rare exceptions (F4U-1A being one and Pony D being another). If I load a drop tank, which I rarely do except in Spits, I burn that first. I never take a drop tank with less than 100% internal fuel no matter what.
I want to fly around as long as I can or at least until I'm out of ammo and thus target for 40 minutes of fuel. I hate having to RTB for fuel and I've never noticed that the extra weight was that big a penalty. Certainly less than lugging externals.
-
I'm one of those that often flies with 50 internal and 2 DTs as I like the agility of the 38G with 50 fuel or less. When I carry DTs I take off on DT fuel. That being said, I figured I'd asked a P38 pilot.
Lloyd Wenzel was with the 474th FG, 9th AF in the ETO 44-45. His reply. I had mentioned that when I flew Cessnas we always topped off the tanks at the end of a flight to keep condensation out of the fuel tanks. That is what he refers to in the first sentence.
"Dan, We always carried full internal fuel on missions and kept tanks full for the reason
you mentioned. With weather in Europe you would never risk running short of fuel. There
was no payload we carried that needed reduced internal fuel-even carried two 2000 lb
bombs a few times. Had to use wooden sway bars that banged up the bird on bomb release
so we didn't do it often and 1k bombs were probably just as effective. Both 2k bombs had
to be dropped together-on pull out, the bomb shackle would come off from g force. We took
off on reserve tank and used enough fuel to make room for the feed -back from the
carburater then switched to drop tanks, then leading edge, main and reserve. The leading
edge tanks had their own boost pumps and a solenoid operated valve--you had to turn off
the main selector to confirm fuel flow. Less time to look for the Hun!! Best Wishes for
Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas, Lloyd"
-
Well, that's nice and historical. I suppose you noticed I adressed that argument already. Did mister Wenzel not mention what solutions they improvised to deal with the 2.0 fuel mod in WWII? Oh you mean they didnt have a fuel mod in WWII?? :lol Well then.. I guess the question definitely wasn't loaded was it?
You guys want to force this one historical detail for very arguable general improvement and no gameplay improvement that I can see, and on top of that it's going to be mostly an extra handicap for 190s and any other plane with similar characteristics, as well as for anyone who just wants to make the furballing last as long as possible by bypassing the unadapted fuel volume options... while maybe a dozen or more at least as gamey details would prevail... Ok then. You can have your incredibly immersive and game-changing realistic hair-split, and spill the 190s' bowl of flakes while you're at it. Not like one freakin luftwhiner matters. 5-8mph top speed penaly :rofl Like that makes any difference.
-
LOL I don't want to force anything at all. I prefer my 50 and 2 DT. I just figured I'd ask a 38 driver because it occurred me I didn't know either way :)
-
You can have your incredibly immersive and game-changing realistic hair-split, and spill the 190s' bowl of flakes while you're at it.
Moot, you drive one of the longest legged Luftwaffe a/c out there and the rest of the 190s out there don't turn anyway.
If HTC wants to keep everyone at 25% internal, so be it. Lets find out, it will take a few months, err 2 weeks to implement anyway even if they like the idea.
-
LOL I don't want to force anything at all. I prefer my 50 and 2 DT. I just figured I'd ask a 38 driver because it occurred me I didn't know either way :)
I'm fine with the idea.. Just not in the MA. Don't get me wrong, Im not offended or anything, it just seems absurd. It deminishes the amount of time you get with an optimal fuel load (pretty short thanks to the crazy fuel mod!) and unevenly handicaps the planeset's agility (some planes will pay, others'll barely see a difference). I mean, even if it's that many players flying with 25+DT like Del says, what's the problem? The rest of the game is full of at least as gamey unhistorical stuff, like instrumentations etc that I already pointed out. A player wants to stack the odds on his side by configuring his tool like he wants to, incl. dropping his DTs to go light as soon as he sees me commiting? I don't see what's so wrong with that, we should be thankful of having players with that much tactical flair. Unhistorical DT useage or not, the fight will still be steeped in gamey crutches like combat trim, ammo counters, perfectly still air, DMYCSR, stall horns, unrestricted pilot head movements, etc etc. And you guys want to remove a feature that WWII pilots definitely would have used had the opportunity presented itself..
I would agree if it were in a scenario.. But not in the MA. The MA is about maximizing air combat.
Del, got sidetracked with homework and missed your reply - The 152 will last.. off the top of my head.. 20min with internal fuel excluding AFT. Of that time, you have maybe 5min tops to guarantee rtb. Unless Im remembering wrong and that's actualy more like 12min minus the 5 to rtb (Im fairly sure it is, could be wrong!). IOW 10min tops, of unrestricted furballing. That's not 'long legged'. This thanks to the fuel mod. The 152 is totaly inept with fuel in the aft, which this would force. And it's more or less tied with the A5 for all-out furballing, so the other 190s would be even worse off.
It's not like I want to keep the game gamey because Im clinging to furballing at any cost.. I'd be completely for something like DTs and anything external ripping off from excess maneuvering or reduced camera freedom under Gs. I just think this improvement is tiny compared to the negatives it brings with it. And it's not that genuinely historical - it's a plausible possibility, only the conditions never warranted it. Or at least there's no report of it that we know of.
-
Moot, you drive one of the longest legged Luftwaffe a/c out there and the rest of the 190s out there don't turn anyway.
If HTC wants to keep everyone at 25% internal, so be it. Lets find out, it will take a few months, err 2 weeks to implement anyway even if they like the idea.
Ya know what.. I'm gonna do it. I'll take (one at a time) any would-be furballer 190 stick under my wing. If that's the sort of thing it takes to make this thing worth saving. Just give me a week more to finish exams, get laid a few times and fix the stupid computer.
-
The 152 will last.. off the top of my head.. 20min with internal fuel excluding AFT.
38 minutes, not including the drop tank. With the drop tank it has 72 minutes worth of fuel... and that range is greatly increased the higher the Ta152 goes, even a few K makes a huge difference. How often do you need to extend your range beyond 38+ minutes?
-
Meh, I like it how it is. I don't ever take drop tanks, but what would be stopping me in real life? It's not like the aircraft are physically unable to use drop tanks unless the internal fuel is full... Hell, people get in Lancs, bomb a base, then bail out all the time, and flying with drop tanks is a concern?
If I were in a battle that is anything like the MA in WWII, I would go 50% and DT's in my Pony every time. DT's to get there, 75% or so of the internal fuel, then the last 15%-25% to get home.
Man, running, picking, and alt monkeying in the MA would become an absolute epidemic...
I'm actually hoping for a more COMPLEX fuel system than we have now, which would be the complete opposite direction. I want the ability to fill whatever tanks I want. I'd love to be able to fill the wing tanks all the way and just leave the AUX tank empty... It's realistic.
-
38 minutes, not including the drop tank. With the drop tank it has 72 minutes worth of fuel... and that range is greatly increased the higher the Ta152 goes, even a few K makes a huge difference. How often do you need to extend your range beyond 38+ minutes?
Read this carefuly: The 152 (and the other 190s to a slightly lesser degree) is helpless with fuel in the AFT. It can't compete in anything but stretched out BnZ till it's dumped that weight and (to a lesser but non-negligible degree) some ammo weight.
2.0 MA fuel mod means fwd+wings = 10min of furballing before you have to rtb (I usualy dont but most prolly do). Taking 50% gives you full FWD+wings and a few drops of AFT. By the time you get to the furball, you've eaten into the precious few minutes of furballing fuel already. 75% gives you something like half or 2/3 of the AFT to burn before you can do anything but BNZ. Get jumped before then and you've got a foot in the grave already. So the obvious solution is to take a DT, fly to the furball, and drop it when you get there. Much more adapted than the unsalvoable AFT fuel.
'20min with full internal excl. AFT' was what I recalled from the DA, where fuel is at 1.0. It would be a different story if that was the MA's fuel mod.
And again, were this situation encountered in WWII, pilots woulda done the same thing we do.. The MA is all about killing or being killed. That comes before having the fuel to RTB. There's no use for RTB fuel if you're dead from same RTB fuel's agility handicap.
-
half or 2/3 of the AFT to burn before you can do anything else than BNZ.
-
Dunno how I wasn't corrected on this.. The fwd+wing tanks under 2.0 fuel do give 20min (I was confusing a permanent mental note that getting down to a full fwd = only 10min left, and took it for granted when I saw the definitely incorrect 38min figure for fwd+wings). So it's a minor issue, if you consider it from that point only (A5 and D9 dont have wing tanks, so they've prolly got only 10min).
I still disagree in principle though, there shouldn't be anything forcing the pilot to not do something he could have done in reality. I personaly wouldnt mind if they implemented it, but it wouldn't be for the better, imo.
-
Read this carefuly: The 152 (and the other 190s to a slightly lesser degree) is helpless with fuel in the AFT. It can't compete in anything but stretched out BnZ till it's dumped that weight and (to a lesser but non-negligible degree) some ammo weight.
2.0 MA fuel mod means fwd+wings = 10min of furballing before you have to rtb
'20min with full internal excl. AFT' was what I recalled from the DA, where fuel is at 1.0. It would be a different story if that was the MA's fuel mod.
I also agree this would be implementing this change would be a very shaky proposition.
But, I can't recall off the top of my head, I think a D9 has about 12 minutes on the forward tank on MIL.
Um, don't you think under R/L conditions a pilot probably WOULD be rtb'ing if he was down to 20 minutes of fuel though? Basically, I see the need to RTB after you exhaust the aft and before you burn too much as realistic. The 2x fuel burn is what forces you to do this under AH MA conditions (close bases, no navigation or traffic pattern headaches.) I think engaging only after the aft tank is empty in A-5s or D-9s because they handle better would be the actual unrealistic practice here.
-
You are correct sir.
USAF general rule for aviation fuel was to use only the needed amount.... However, historically, most squads would use drop tanks, if they had them, simply to conserve internal fuel until they got to altitude.
If I was a WWII pilot and found such a great cheating bastard trick, I'd use and abuse it anytime the situation allowed it.
The game follows the "real" world just fine.
-
Um, don't you think under R/L conditions a pilot probably WOULD be rtb'ing if he was down to 20 minutes of fuel though? Basically, I see the need to RTB after you exhaust the aft and before you burn too much as realistic. The 2x fuel burn is what forces you to do this under AH MA conditions (close bases, no navigation or traffic pattern headaches.) I think engaging only after the aft tank is empty in A-5s or D-9s because they handle better would be the actual unrealistic practice here.
Not really.. 5min fuel is usualy plenty to rtb at MIL. IRL thatd be safe enough.. you can squeeze out maybe 1.5 the distance with eco settings, and at least 2 if you have 5k feet more than the target runway. It's not just a matter of playing it historicaly safe.. it's about making the most of the tool available. No fuel in the aft is prime time, as far as dogfighting is concerned.
-
Just catching up on this thread...
I agree with moot and race. The MA environment is too fluid to apply this type of restriction on the basis of realism. One can plan flight to head to a furball 2 minutes away, to have it evaporate before you get there. Or what looks like a milk run from the hanger, may actually be you getting bounced before you are 10 miles from the tarmac.
Someone also said something long ago about this being a game intended to be fun and fair. So it would rub me the wrong way if I am required to cart around a P-38 internal fuel load of 2,460 lb to have a drop tank option, while the spit16 horde would merely need 612 lbs of fuel for the same option. Likewise, I would not consider it "fun" to have the choice of being on the clock to find a fight constantly due to a light fuel load, or wasting my time refusing fights because my fuel load isn't light enough yet.
I'm all for this idea being added as an arena setting. I'm sure it might come in handy in event settings, but keep it out of the MA.
-
while we are at might as well fix it where sometimes the tanks will not release, same thing with bombs.
-
If a pilot in WWII tried to take a full DT with only %25 or %50 of his planes internal tanks used... the ground crew chief would just laugh at him.
Planes in WWII didnt go up without %100 fuel for combat operations.
This is incorrect. P-51s flying combat air patrols over Normandy did not take off with full internal fuel. They cycled two hour shifts over the beachhead. Their typical fuel load was 1,080 pounds (180 gallons), or 510 lb less than full internal capacity. Moreover, standing patrols beyond the front lines were often fitted with two 75 gallon tanks and the 1,080 lb load of fuel. John Thornell of the 353rd FG has mentioned that they sometimes flew with reduced internal fuel and the two 75 gallon drops. The reason? They could loiter for a long period and then "go light" as soon as enemy fighters or bombers were detected approaching from the east.
When much of the 8th Air Force fighter Command was involved in supporting the invasion, aircraft were not refueled to max capacity, but to that amount specified by Group orders. P-38s didn't have fuel in the leading edge tanks. P-51s didn't have fuel in the fuselage tank. Why would any commander load 8 hours of fuel for a two hour sortie? Crew Chiefs had no say in the load out of their fighters.
Besides, any argument that historical accuracy should drive MA play is utterly unrealistic. Show me one place where you can find historical accuracy. P-38s fighting P-51s. 109s brawling with Ki-84s. Tanks that can leapfrog miles of water to spawn.
Fuel loads are part of game play because adjusting fuel loads allows for best performance without sacrificing range. Limiting drop tank use only adds to the advantage of the short range rockets like the La-7, Spit16, Yak-9U and the like.
This is another instance where some player or players want others to fly the game the way they desire. The argument that it's historical is not only incorrect, it's a red herring anyway as there is zero historical accuracy in the MA and there never was or will be. If you want the restrictions associated with historical accuracy, lets look at just one example.
You must perform your prestart checklist. Start the engine. Allow temps and pressures to stabilize in the green. Do a run-up and mag check. Get permission to taxi to the duty runway. Get cleared to take off... All of that will take 15 to 20 minutes. But wait, you only have an hour to play? Tough luck, eh?
There's no penalty for dying... No downside to failure. No risk.... It's a game gentlemen, it isn't supposed to be historically accurate. Accuracy is the sole domain of the aircraft modeling. Yet, aircraft workload is simplified to where any 6 year-old can get airborne and fly.
Please stop trying to tell others how to play.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Delirium, I agree with your post.
HTC implement it.
No chance.... Call Pyro, ask him....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Thank you Widewing.
-
Yet, aircraft workload is simplified to where any 6 year-old can get airborne and fly.
Then again, maybe there ARE good reasons to introduce more complex aircraft management.
*squeak!*
;)
-
Limiting drop tank use only adds to the advantage of the short range rockets like the La-7, Spit16, Yak-9U and the like.
Ah yes, correct, the overuse of point interceptors. Sometimes I wish we would leave fuel burn as it is and get maps that make the average distance between bases 2 sectors instead of one...
You must perform your prestart checklist. Start the engine. Allow temps and pressures to stabilize in the green. Do a run-up and mag check. Get permission to taxi to the duty runway. Get cleared to take off... All of that will take 15 to 20 minutes. But wait, you only have an hour to play? Tough luck, eh?
Accuracy is the sole domain of the aircraft modeling. Yet, aircraft workload is simplified to where any 6 year-old can get airborne and fly.
I don't have to do a good pre-flight, HTC has already made sure my plane is in tip-top shape...
:D
But seriously, I don't find in sims like Il2 that the complex engine management increases workload all that much, nor, surprisingly, does manual trim. The difference between the complex engine management system and AHII is that with the former you CAN run your engine at high power settings until it would probably be a write-off, where AHII forces you to stay more or less within specified limits. It is debatable which one is more realistic in a sim, as the fact is that in a sim you only need the a/c to run for one sortie, with no thought to the next flight in it.
-
It's a big handful for new players.. It's hard enough for them to stay in the air.. I'm not in HT's head, but it's probably as it is to best compromise between full and relaxed realism.
-
......Besides, any argument that historical accuracy should drive MA play is utterly unrealistic. Show me one place where you can find historical accuracy. P-38s fighting P-51s. 109s brawling with Ki-84s. Tanks that can leapfrog miles of water to spawn.
Fuel loads are part of game play because adjusting fuel loads allows for best performance without sacrificing range. Limiting drop tank use only adds to the advantage of the short range rockets like the La-7, Spit16, Yak-9U and the like.
This is another instance where some player or players want others to fly the game the way they desire. The argument that it's historical is not only incorrect, it's a red herring anyway as there is zero historical accuracy in the MA and there never was or will be. If you want the restrictions associated with historical accuracy, lets look at just one example.
You must perform your prestart checklist. Start the engine. Allow temps and pressures to stabilize in the green. Do a run-up and mag check. Get permission to taxi to the duty runway. Get cleared to take off... All of that will take 15 to 20 minutes. But wait, you only have an hour to play? Tough luck, eh?
There's no penalty for dying... No downside to failure. No risk.... It's a game gentlemen, it isn't supposed to be historically accurate. Accuracy is the sole domain of the aircraft modeling. Yet, aircraft workload is simplified to where any 6 year-old can get airborne and fly.
Please stop trying to tell others how to play.
My regards,
Widewing
very well spoken, the MA is very far from "reality",
but it seems to me that some want more of it, (me personally i think the game is pretty much spot on,)
it seems though it would benefit HTC to implement a more realistic arena using the AVA, or a new one, that is as close to reality as possable, although i think it would not be very busy.
-
I am against this one. The distances flown in WWII were quite different from what we see here in the MA. I think this one would be a bad idea.
-
It would be interesting in other arenas, though.
-
This is incorrect. P-51s flying combat air patrols over Normandy did not take off with full internal fuel. They cycled two hour shifts over the beachhead. Their typical fuel load was 1,080 pounds (180 gallons), or 510 lb less than full internal capacity. Moreover, standing patrols beyond the front lines were often fitted with two 75 gallon tanks and the 1,080 lb load of fuel. John Thornell of the 353rd FG has mentioned that they sometimes flew with reduced internal fuel and the two 75 gallon drops. The reason? They could loiter for a long period and then "go light" as soon as enemy fighters or bombers were detected approaching from the east.
My regards,
Widewing
Widewing, did you hear that from Thornell? What made me ask the 38 driver was thinking about the 352nd on Bodenplatte day entering that fight off the runway with full fuel including fuselage tanks. That and the cessna days where it was always practice to fill the tanks after a flight to keep the condensation down. I imagine the issue was the same.
I've just never seen it anywhere mentioned, and to be honest really hadn't thought about it until now. I'm not saying I don't believe you btw, just wondering if you've seen it on 8th Ops orders or elsewhere? I just don't ever recall seeing it in print anywhere.
-
Widewing, did you hear that from Thornell? What made me ask the 38 driver was thinking about the 352nd on Bodenplatte day entering that fight off the runway with full fuel including fuselage tanks. That and the cessna days where it was always practice to fill the tanks after a flight to keep the condensation down. I imagine the issue was the same.
I've just never seen it anywhere mentioned, and to be honest really hadn't thought about it until now. I'm not saying I don't believe you btw, just wondering if you've seen it on 8th Ops orders or elsewhere? I just don't ever recall seeing it in print anywhere.
I have a photocopy of transcribed interview notes recorded in an interview of Col. Thornell in 1974. One of the things discussed was flying tactical missions with fuel in the fuselage tank. Thornell discussed the handling problems, including stick reversal. He also mentioned that there was a great deal of complaining in fighter units about operating with full fuselage tanks flying from fields in mainland Europe. Thornell returned to CONUS in July of 1944.
Thornell stated, "Over the years since the war, I've had many discussions with P-51 pilots who served through to the end in Europe. As units deployed to fields in France and Belgium, some pilots were extremely concerned about the possibility of finding themselves mixing it up with Luftwaffe fighters while still having fuel in their fuselage tank. This was a real possibility operating from bases on the continent.
There was considerable rancor, bordering on outright insubordination within several of the Group HQs. Fighter Command finally passed the word to the Groups that the Group COs could select the fuel load they preferred so long as there was adequate reserve. Standing orders for all ramrod missions would continue to include fueling fuselage tanks.
Some Groups, including the 352nd on several occasions, left the fuselage tanks dry but flew with 75 gallons under each wing. The knowledge that a pilot could pickle off the tanks and go light in mere seconds appealed to just about everyone."
If interested, I can scan the notes and e-mail you a copy. Three pages, hand written in pencil on a spiral notebook. I believe I got my copy from Bodie, or perhaps Tillman (likely Bodie).
My regards,
Widewing
-
I'd be interested in reading it too, if you don't mind sending it to me.
This is the first time I've ever heard/read of this being done.
edit: maybe you could post it like you did with the 150 octane thread?
-
I'd be interested in reading it too, if you don't mind sending it to me.
This is the first time I've ever heard/read of this being done.
edit: maybe you could post it like you did with the 150 octane thread?
I'll scan the pages in this weekend and post it here... The handwritten script is legible, but the side notes add clutter.
My regards,
Widewing
-
some pilots were extremely concerned about the possibility of finding themselves mixing it up with Luftwaffe fighters while still having fuel in their fuselage tank. This was a real possibility operating from bases on the continent.
There was considerable rancor, bordering on outright insubordination within several of the Group HQs. Fighter Command finally passed the word to the Groups that the Group COs could select the fuel load they preferred so long as there was adequate reserve. Standing orders for all ramrod missions would continue to include fueling fuselage tanks.
hallelujah :lol
-
for historical acuracy most piltos had 755 and a drop or full so yea no like 25% and a dt
-
I have a photocopy of transcribed interview notes recorded in an interview of Col. Thornell in 1974. One of the things discussed was flying tactical missions with fuel in the fuselage tank. Thornell discussed the handling problems, including stick reversal. He also mentioned that there was a great deal of complaining in fighter units about operating with full fuselage tanks flying from fields in mainland Europe. Thornell returned to CONUS in July of 1944.
Thornell stated, "Over the years since the war, I've had many discussions with P-51 pilots who served through to the end in Europe. As units deployed to fields in France and Belgium, some pilots were extremely concerned about the possibility of finding themselves mixing it up with Luftwaffe fighters while still having fuel in their fuselage tank. This was a real possibility operating from bases on the continent.
There was considerable rancor, bordering on outright insubordination within several of the Group HQs. Fighter Command finally passed the word to the Groups that the Group COs could select the fuel load they preferred so long as there was adequate reserve. Standing orders for all ramrod missions would continue to include fueling fuselage tanks.
Some Groups, including the 352nd on several occasions, left the fuselage tanks dry but flew with 75 gallons under each wing. The knowledge that a pilot could pickle off the tanks and go light in mere seconds appealed to just about everyone."
If interested, I can scan the notes and e-mail you a copy. Three pages, hand written in pencil on a spiral notebook. I believe I got my copy from Bodie, or perhaps Tillman (likely Bodie).
My regards,
Widewing
I'd enjoy seeing that Widewing. My question would be if this applied to any birds beyond the 51? Obviously the 51s had issues with the fuselage tank and handling. I know they capped off the fuselage tanks post war and I don't think they were used in Korea. Did they go with less in the mains too or was it more due to the handling concerns?
-
for historical acuracy most piltos had 755 and a drop or full so yea no like 25% and a dt
Historical accuracy would be all there'd be to it if WWII happened on a 2.0 fuel mod.
-
I understand the arguements about "forgetting realism" in the MA for obvious reasons (P38 v P51, etc). However, when planes area able to up with %25 fuel and take a DT and drop it on the first sight of an enemy... that is gaming the game and that is not anywhere near what a sim is all about. Planes did not up in WWII with %25 and a DT, it went against all SOP's.
If you want the DT, I think there should be a %100 fuel requirement. I support any manner in whish HTC minimizes the "gaming the game" BS we're seeing more and more of these days. From Lanc-stukas, to the bomb-n-bail, to the %25 w/ DT fuel fighter joquies, %25 fuel in hvy buffs, to the swap teams to get the "WINZ" perk points, to shooting through hills and trees, to messin with the gamma setting to see though low light and smoke... it all takes away from the sim.
The more I think about it, the more I think HTC should INCREASE the fuel burn rate to 2.5 or even 3 for a month or two just to gather the data about fuel loads and DT's and see how it changes everything. Oh the horror! :lol
-
I understand the arguements about "forgetting realism" in the MA for obvious reasons (P38 v P51, etc). However, when planes area able to up with %25 fuel and take a DT and drop it on the first sight of an enemy... that is gaming the game and that is not anywhere near what a sim is all about. Planes did not up in WWII with %25
And why didn't they do it? Right, because they were fighting in a different combat envirionment. And that is what shapes tactics. If they had to fight under the same circumstances we do have in the MA's (distances, fighting altitudes, fuel burn 2.0). I'd be pretty surprised if they had not adapted such a"gamey" tactic to the extreme.
If you want to duplicate WWII tactics by the book to the last detail, you first have make sure the conditions are right. But we are fighting under conditions that are vastly different from any WWII theater of operations.
If there are technical reasons you can't do it, that would be fine with me, but If we would simply apply the "but they didn't do it that way", we would have to stop MA play ;)
-
that is gaming the game and that is not anywhere near what a sim is all about.
It's a game. Especialy in the MA. So in fact it is what the MA is about - taking the historical vehicles, their physics, and putting those in a fun setting. Historical immersion of the type you're arguing for is the other arenas' and events' job.
Planes did not up in WWII with %25 and a DT, it went against all SOP's.
WWII did not have a 2.0 fuel mod or any of the other MA environment settings and gameplay goals or SOPs, such as 'fun'.