Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Chalenge on January 10, 2010, 02:33:22 AM
-
Why doesnt the Mustang have 165 gallon drop tanks? Iwo Mustangs had them. Iwo Mustangs also carried rockets which I believe was disputed before. I still dont have evidence of ten rocket loads but I do have evidence of 165 gallon tanks and six rockets.
I wish for larger 165 gallon external fuel tanks for the P-51D.
-
Why?
wrongway
-
He could climb higher :noid
-
He can take up more fuel that he can save at 30k :D
If you have proff of it why not?
-
Why should P51s have 165 gallon 'P38 tanks' when the P38s don't even have them?
The answer is AH doesn't need them, we aren't flying anywhere near the distances the Pacific Mustangs did. Well, some of us are, but just vertically. :devil
edit: I only flew a great distance once. In the DGS scenario, the 474th flew about 18 sectors with the bombers. As the bombers got to their primary target, it had 10/10 cloud cover and had to move to a secondary (which had the same) and then the tertiary while defending them from the Luftwaffe. I ended up landing with 8 gallons of fuel after burning the DTs dry and then the internal.
-
Because we have a 2:1 fuel modifier and since the plane actually used them during the war it should have them.
-
Why should P51s have 165 gallon 'P38 tanks' when the P38s don't even have them?
The answer is AH doesn't need them, we aren't flying anywhere near the distances the Pacific Mustangs did. Well, some of us are, but just vertically. :devil
edit: I only flew a great distance once. In the DGS scenario, the 474th flew about 18 sectors with the bombers. As the bombers got to their primary target, it had 10/10 cloud cover and had to move to a secondary (which had the same) and then the tertiary while defending them from the Luftwaffe. I ended up landing with 8 gallons of fuel after burning the DTs dry and then the internal.
<-misses DGS. We need DGS 2!
-
Because we have a 2:1 fuel modifier and since the plane actually used them during the war it should have them.
you want to fly for hours up a buff :devil.
semp
-
So I just flew a simple test to look at the numbers. I took off and did an AH full power climb to 20,000 feet with 100% internal + DT's and the heavy gun package.
With the fuel burn set to 2.0 I climbed to 20,000 feet and leveled. Once I got to 340 TAS I set for maximum cruise according to my P-51D-5 Manual.
It stated 2,400rpm and 36" MAP for Maximum Cruise, the ingame E6B gave me the following data;
TAS- 330 mph
Time- 150 minutes
Range- 831 miles
Do you really need to loiter for longer than that in the MA?
-
I'm guessing he wants the bigger drop tank, so he can dump it and have 50% internal (maybe 30 min full throttle?), in the event he actually stumbles into someone higher than he and has to do that dogfighting stuff :D
-
See here, the Mustang flies for like 35 minutes with 75% internal. Who the devil WANTS to sit a chair longer than that without getting a coke, taking a leak, or seeing whats on ESPN?
-
I agree with Del, why should the P-51 get drop tanks that were primarily used by the P-38 when the Lightning doesn't even have them in game?
ack-ack
-
Why doesnt the Mustang have 165 gallon drop tanks? Iwo Mustangs had them. Iwo Mustangs also carried rockets which I believe was disputed before. I still dont have evidence of ten rocket loads but I do have evidence of 165 gallon tanks and six rockets.
I wish for larger 165 gallon external fuel tanks for the P-51D.
I see you REALLY want to ownt he skies above 40k and need more fuel Voss. Go play with a scorpion.
-
+1 for including the droptanks for BOTH P-51 and P-38. The tanks were used and should be available for both planes. Why anyone would use them is their own business. :joystick: :aok
-
Why doesnt the Mustang have 165 gallon drop tanks? Iwo Mustangs had them. Iwo Mustangs also carried rockets which I believe was disputed before. I still dont have evidence of ten rocket loads but I do have evidence of 165 gallon tanks and six rockets.
I wish for larger 165 gallon external fuel tanks for the P-51D.
I've posted numerous photos of the Iwo Rocket carrying birds, and we've had the discussion about 10 rockets and how they were not carried on the Iwo birds or on the later Korean war 51s. Understand the Iwo 51s carried the 165 gallon tanks rarely and it was because of the rocket load causing the 51 to burn more fuel on the way to Japan. They did not carry rockets very often and the normal load out was 2 110 gallon metal DTs.
-
+1 for including the droptanks for BOTH P-51 and P-38. The tanks were used and should be available for both planes. Why anyone would use them is their own business. :joystick: :aok
Why? It would take developer time and have zero effect on the game. It is such a low priority compared to the stuff that could be done that I can't imagine it would ever be worth the time to do it.
-
Why? It would take developer time and have zero effect on the game. It is such a low priority compared to the stuff that could be done that I can't imagine it would ever be worth the time to do it.
Exactly, the current drop tanks we have in the game for the P-51 and the P-38 are more than enough in the MA. Even with fuel burn rate at 1x, the current drop tanks are more than enough.
ack-ack
-
See Rule #4
-
I've posted numerous photos of the Iwo Rocket carrying birds, and we've had the discussion about 10 rockets and how they were not carried on the Iwo birds or on the later Korean war 51s. Understand the Iwo 51s carried the 165 gallon tanks rarely and it was because of the rocket load causing the 51 to burn more fuel on the way to Japan. They did not carry rockets very often and the normal load out was 2 110 gallon metal DTs.
I dont believe 'rarely' is accurate but it doesnt matter either way... they were used and should be added (they are added for the 47s already).
-
I dont believe 'rarely' is accurate but it doesnt matter either way... they were used and should be added (they are added for the 47s already).
You are talking a short time frame between June and early August 45. In the overall scheme of things in terms of Merlin Mustang sorties flown in WW2, it's rarely.
The impact on gameplay would be minimal. It would be purely for more loiter time. Considering the DTs the 51 has already, that seems to hardly be worth the time to add, when development time could go to more worthy additions.
As to whether anything 'should' be added. That call is HTC's not ours.
-
You are talking a short time frame between June and early August 45. In the overall scheme of things in terms of Merlin Mustang sorties flown in WW2, it's rarely.
The impact on gameplay would be minimal. It would be purely for more loiter time. Considering the DTs the 51 has already, that seems to hardly be worth the time to add, when development time could go to more worthy additions.
As to whether anything 'should' be added. That call is HTC's not ours.
Yep
-
You are talking a short time frame between June and early August 45. In the overall scheme of things in terms of Merlin Mustang sorties flown in WW2, it's rarely.
The impact on gameplay would be minimal. It would be purely for more loiter time. Considering the DTs the 51 has already, that seems to hardly be worth the time to add, when development time could go to more worthy additions.
As to whether anything 'should' be added. That call is HTC's not ours.
Exactly... but to make my point: THIS IS NOT about loiter time (time on target). This is about realistically being able to escort bombers along the paths required in the game on the larger maps from the opening field positions to the strats and home while protecting the bombers the entire way. Even if a pilot is very vigilant about power management he will not be able to fly the distances required on the larger maps while providing protection for the bombers along the way including landing AND even with the larger tanks depending on when the bombers are engaged the escorts will have to drop tanks and may have to rtb early. So at best the bombers MIGHT have escorts along the entire way but probably not even with larger drop tanks.
By the way Baumer the combat power settings for 20k are 2150 rpm and full throttle. The Iwo Mustangs with 110 and 165 gallon tanks used 1800 rpm and 31" manifold pressure when they were NOT in the hot areas. Over Japan they could not use the max cruise settings and the orders were to rtb once the fuselage tank was dry (and remember the fuselage tank has no more than 65% fuel at 'tanks away').
-
Exactly... but to make my point: THIS IS NOT about loiter time (time on target). This is about realistically being able to escort bombers along the paths required in the game on the larger maps from the opening field positions to the strats and home while protecting the bombers the entire way. Even if a pilot is very vigilant about power management he will not be able to fly the distances required on the larger maps while providing protection for the bombers along the way including landing AND even with the larger tanks depending on when the bombers are engaged the escorts will have to drop tanks and may have to rtb early. So at best the bombers MIGHT have escorts along the entire way but probably not even with larger drop tanks.
By the way Baumer the combat power settings for 20k are 2150 rpm and full throttle. The Iwo Mustangs with 110 and 165 gallon tanks used 1800 rpm and 31" manifold pressure when they were NOT in the hot areas. Over Japan they could not use the max cruise settings and the orders were to rtb once the fuselage tank was dry (and remember the fuselage tank has no more than 65% fuel at 'tanks away').
P-51s never used these tanks to escort B-17s, B-24s or Lancasters. If the range is so great that the existing drop tanks plus full internal is not enough, you can just fall back on WWII tactics such as handing off the bombers or having Spitfires escort them at the start, your P-51s pick them up a sector or two into enemy territory when the Spits have to turn for home and then the Spits pick them up a sector or two into enemy territory on the way home and take them in. The initial Spit pilots get a short mission and then can go back to their MA play, the second Spit group can be made up of the P-51 and bomber pilots that got shot down.
-
Why? It would take developer time and have zero effect on the game. It is such a low priority compared to the stuff that could be done that I can't imagine it would ever be worth the time to do it.
1. "Zero effect" - Arbitrary and inaccurate. Any new addition to the environment has some effect by definition. I believe you meant to say "minimal effect".
2. "Low priority" - I never claimed that this should be a high priority project. Using priority as an arguement for or against this or any of the "equipment" requests is unproductive since neither you nor I set project priorities for HTC.
3. "Worth the time" - You are entitled to your opinion just as I am. My opinion is that this is a legitimate request for a minor equipment update that is proven to be historically accurate. It is therefore "worth the time" of the developer in response to the legitimate request from its valued customers.
Thank you for your time. All legitimate debate is appreciated. :salute
-
P-51s never used these tanks to escort B-17s, B-24s or Lancasters. If the range is so great that the existing drop tanks plus full internal is not enough, you can just fall back on WWII tactics such as handing off the bombers or having Spitfires escort them at the start, your P-51s pick them up a sector or two into enemy territory when the Spits have to turn for home and then the Spits pick them up a sector or two into enemy territory on the way home and take them in. The initial Spit pilots get a short mission and then can go back to their MA play, the second Spit group can be made up of the P-51 and bomber pilots that got shot down.
You have never had the experience of escorting on the Trinity map from the beginning field locations have you?
Whats worse is ignoring the contribution of the P-51s that escorted the B-29s over Japan. From November of 1944 to August of 1945 aircraft flew into Japan and you feel justified in saying that this was a relatively unimportant part of the war (the implication from your assertion)? I dont believe the development time would be all that significant but certainly providing for more accurate and precise elements that actually did see use in the war for the aircraft we already have is a valid expense of time.
-
You have never had the experience of escorting on the Trinity map from the beginning field locations have you?
Whats worse is ignoring the contribution of the P-51s that escorted the B-29s over Japan. From November of 1944 to August of 1945 aircraft flew into Japan and you feel justified in saying that this was a relatively unimportant part of the war (the implication from your assertion)? I dont believe the development time would be all that significant but certainly providing for more accurate and precise elements that actually did see use in the war for the aircraft we already have is a valid expense of time.
From what Dan said, P-51s didn't use those drop tanks to escort B-29s, they only used them when carrying rockets because the rockets increased drag and thus fuel consumption.
You are asking for them for a reason they were never used for in reality. You are also totally blowing the situation out of proportion.
Try using WWII escort tactics. P-51s did not escort bombers, of any type, from wheels up to wheels down on deep raids. They traded off, first with the Spits or 47s, then later in the flight with other 51s that had cruised in with full tanks and lastly with the Spits or 47s again.
-
No I am asking for tanks for escort duty plain and simple but if I have to carry rockets in order to get the tanks I will! Thank you very much for the suggestion! :aok
-
No I am asking for tanks for escort duty plain and simple but if I have to carry rockets in order to get the tanks I will! Thank you very much for the suggestion! :aok
You could always add them in TAS whenever you get around to finishing that game. Just sayin'.
ack-ack
-
They also called for low blower and lean mixture but that doesn't really apply now does it.
Regardless, with the maximum of a 512 by 512 map in AH, the current P-51D is capable of crossing the map and returning on an escort mission with a 2.0 fuel burn.
-
LMFAO Ack-Ack. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
No I am asking for tanks for escort duty plain and simple but if I have to carry rockets in order to get the tanks I will! Thank you very much for the suggestion! :aok
As mentioned, the 110 gallon metal tanks make much more sense as they were the standard loadout for the Iwo 51s flying escort
-
Sure, sounds like a nice addition for the runstang...wouldn't want any ponyboiz running out of fuel trying to run 5 sectors back to a friendly base...let them be available when the Iwo Jima map is up on the server.
Sorry Chalenge but if you can't escort a bomber across an entire map in the LW arenas with a pony and the existing drop tanks...fly the 109s for a while and learn fuel conservation.
-
Im really surprised (shocked really) that you read what I posted (which I doubt) and came back with my not knowing how to conserve fuel. If it cant be done with a P-51 it wont be done with a 109.
-
Im really surprised (shocked really) that you read what I posted (which I doubt) and came back with my not knowing how to conserve fuel. If it cant be done with a P-51 it wont be done with a 109.
Don't be shocked Chalenge...I did it on purpose... :neener: I've managed to fly a fairly long distance with a 109 at 25k.
You should be able to get to 25k in a pony d model with the existing drop tanks and fly diagonally across any map in the MA's and back to a friendly base...it doesn't have to be the base you took off from.
-
You should be able to get to 25k in a pony d model with the existing drop tanks and fly diagonally across any map in the MA's and back to a friendly base...it doesn't have to be the base you took off from.
Everyone knows that you save more fuel by flying at 35k, right Chalenge?
ack-ack
-
As mentioned, the 110 gallon metal tanks make much more sense as they were the standard loadout for the Iwo 51s flying escort
Maybe so... I have found existing examples of the 165 gallon tanks and 315 gallon P-38 tanks but so far it doesnt appear any 110 gallon drop tanks still exist. The 165s and 315s are still in use by the belly tankers and I think last years (well - 2008s) surprise win was a 165 gallon tank 'Old Crow.'