Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: 800nate800 on April 05, 2013, 07:49:06 PM
-
For my request as a jug pilot. The P47c and fuel dumping posting this via moblie so please post info for me.
-
select external fuel tank, press b and that should take care of your fuel dump.
semp
-
select external fuel tank, press b and that should take care of your fuel dump.
semp
:aok
-
Another game the game request??? Not only no, but F no.
I dont think DT's should be available unless %100 is selected, and at no time should an aircraft be able to up with less than %50. Out of the pages and pages and pages of flight logs I have that belonged to my grandfather, the only time he took less than %100 is when he ferried B17's from AZ to southern CA. Otherwise, every time he took up any of the 10 + aircraft he flew they all had "F(full)" or "%100" in the log books. Combat missions or not, it was smart to take %100 fuel.
The list includes:
C-45F
B-24D
C-47A
C-3
AT-6C
C-87H
C-78
C-61A
B-17E
L-4B
In AH, it is obvious many planes do not need %100 to go a sector or 2 and engage other players, but to wish for a game the game feature is disappointing.
-
SmokinLoon,
Where did the OP wish for DT with less than 100% option? and you are wrong. Your gradfather flew planes that were not intended for air combat. Fuel load made little difference for them, so taking extra is a safety measure. Still, some bombers had to trade fuel load and bomb load to keep within weight limitations and in order to carry the maximal bomb load had to take less fuel.
Fighters do care about how much fuel they have in the tanks and in which tanks. However, planes are usually designed for their mission, so a P51 was not used as a short range interceptor. If it had, I am sure they would not load its aux tank for example. The russian planes had a fuel tank the size of a vodka bottle. Had they not filled it to the rim, the planes would have the range to take off do a couple of circuits and land. In aces high we use the planes in a-historical missions. Any combination of loadouts is fair, as long as it was possible in reality without any modification to the aircraft. Could you fill a P51 to 50% and then attach two DTs, without any modification to the aircraft in reality? Of course yes. If it offered any advantage in real life it would have been used this way. P51s never were assigned to such missions where it did offer an advantage.
(The P51 is just used as a typecast)
-
SmokinLoon,
Where did the OP wish for DT with less than 100% option? and you are wrong. Your gradfather flew planes that were not intended for air combat. Fuel load made little difference for them, so taking extra is a safety measure. Still, some bombers had to trade fuel load and bomb load to keep within weight limitations and in order to carry the maximal bomb load had to take less fuel.
Fighters do care about how much fuel they have in the tanks and in which tanks. However, planes are usually designed for their mission, so a P51 was not used as a short range interceptor. If it had, I am sure they would not load its aux tank for example. The russian planes had a fuel tank the size of a vodka bottle. Had they not filled it to the rim, the planes would have the range to take off do a couple of circuits and land. In aces high we use the planes in a-historical missions. Any combination of loadouts is fair, as long as it was possible in reality without any modification to the aircraft. Could you fill a P51 to 50% and then attach two DTs, without any modification to the aircraft in reality? Of course yes. If it offered any advantage in real life it would have been used this way. P51s never were assigned to such missions where it did offer an advantage.
(The P51 is just used as a typecast)
Um... first off I didn't say anything about the O/P "wishing for DT's with less than %100". I called him out of asking to be able to dump fuel as being "gamey", especially when there is already enough manipulation of fuel capability in AH as it is. Secondly.... if you read my sig line you'll see what my grandfather's primary plane was and where he flew it. For you to say that "fuel didn't matter", etc, shows specifically that you did not think before you posted. I have all of his "official" flight logs and I have all of his personal flight logs with his personal notes and it is obvious that none of his flights in the PTO had less than %100 fuel. Your knowledge of "why" aircraft took %100 fuel and DT's if they could in the southern PTO is obviously lacking. Fighters did not up with a trivial amount of fuel, they upped with as much as they could carry knowing that they could fly for hours and hours and most probably not see the enemy, AND not to mention the vast size of the area in question. As far as the other aircraft my grandfather flew, he flew them when his unit had down time "for something to do and the extra money". He ran supplies, mail, officers, etc, to other islands and airfields all over the south PTO, and ferried numerous B17's from San Fran-Hickam-south PTO. He took off from fields you cant even pronounce let alone know where they're located (Tongutabuo, Aitutake, Bora-Bora, Funafuti, to name a few). Oh, I say fuel was very important.
Fuel in the real deal was FAR more important than in AH. In AH the players are spoon fed so many things for the sake of "game play", and that is understandable to a certain degree. I am not concerned AH will ever get to the point of allowing players to "dump fuel", I have faith that they'll go only so far with the spoon feeding.
-
Use the 45 to shoot a hole in your tank.
-
Didn't Saburo Sakai once say that he felt sorry for the German Bf109 pilots in the Battle of Britain due to their having to fly and fight while constantly thinking of fuel while he didn't have to worry about fuel at all in the A6M and could just focus on the fight.
Certainly I have not encountered any examples of WWII fighters using less than full internal tanks.
-
Ta-152s were often test flown with no fuel in the wing tanks, I believe. I believe they flew into combat with this fuel loadout as well. This was due to the large fuel capacity, I suspect.
Generally speaking, fuel was more important than anything else. It was almost always (and I do mean ALMOST always, probably 99.999999999%) topped off to have the maximum fuel that your takeoff weight would allow. Even on SHORT runs across the channel and back, bombers would fill their tanks to the limit.
Fuel was more important than bombs, even.
-
Hmm, I wonder if that is entirely true though. The B-17G could, technically, carry 16,000lbs of bombs, but not very far. Was the range reduction purely based on having to run the engines at full power or was it also due to a reduced fuel load to allow 16,000lbs of bombs to be carried?
Before somebody goes and asks for it, I don't think that option was used much, if ever. It was just a option Boeing provided.
-
Hmm, I wonder if that is entirely true though. The B-17G could, technically, carry 16,000lbs of bombs, but not very far. Was the range reduction purely based on having to run the engines at full power or was it also due to a reduced fuel load to allow 16,000lbs of bombs to be carried?
Before somebody goes and asks for it, I don't think that option was used much, if ever. It was just a option Boeing provided.
Also it would be a matter of takeoff performance, you cant load a plane up to the gunnels, if the takeoff distance is a factor. If it wasn't, then the cruise altitude would be another factor, the heavier you are the lower you will be, sure you'd climb as you burned off weight, but that would be a slow process. You would want to be a reasonable height before crossing into enemy territory.
just saying
-
3 things that are no good to a pilot.
Runway behind you.
Altitude above you.
And fuel left on the tarmac.
-1 on fuel dump
-
Did ANY plane of the era have that ability?
-
Very few. Some Blenheims did, for example.
Karnak: The bombload was always secondary. It was sometimes preferable to drop 1000lbs of bombs 1000 miles away than it was to drop 16000lbs 100 miles away.
B-29s raiding Japan, for example, had very reduced bombloads. Sometimes as little as 2000lbs to 5000lbs.
So it was a balance of fuel and bombs, but fuel always trumped bombs. Even on bombers where the bombload was more fixed, such as medium bombers, the fuel would ALWAYS be maxed out even for short range missions.
-
Very few. Some Blenheims did, for example.
Karnak: The bombload was always secondary. It was sometimes preferable to drop 1000lbs of bombs 1000 miles away than it was to drop 16000lbs 100 miles away.
B-29s raiding Japan, for example, had very reduced bombloads. Sometimes as little as 2000lbs to 5000lbs.
So it was a balance of fuel and bombs, but fuel always trumped bombs. Even on bombers where the bombload was more fixed, such as medium bombers, the fuel would ALWAYS be maxed out even for short range missions.
I know all of that. That completely skips the question, which was about how the B-17G managed to carry 16,000lbs. I know it had greatly reduced range when doing so, but was that just a result of running the engines at higher boost settings or was it also due to a reduced fuel load to accommodate the extra 10,000lbs of bombs? It was never used operationally for the reason you state, but that wasn't what I was getting at.
-
Ah, specifically to the B-17 with 16k....
That much more weight means a higher AoA and probably even slower cruising speeds and lower altitudes, not to mention added drag from external racks, but primarily the range was reduced throug gas reduction. To counter-act some of this, the engines may have been run at slightly higher settings but this would lead to more engine problems (there were already enough at cruise settings) and meant more problems with maintenance. They were not run at full throttle, though. That was more of a life-or-death emergency setting. Say one engine died entirely... The rest might be run at full just to stay alive to make it home.
As for the gas reduction, 1000lbs of bombs is 166 gallons less gas the plane can carry. Take 10000lbs of fuel away to make room for bombs, and you have removed 1666 gallons (of some 3600 total). Because this was 1/3 less fuel doesn't mean it could fly 1/3 less distant. The added weight put further burdens on the frame and range was drastically cut to very short ranges from what I understand.
-
600 miles, if I recall correctly without checking even wikipedia.
-
Ah, specifically to the B-17 with 16k....
That much more weight means a higher AoA and probably even slower cruising speeds and lower altitudes, not to mention added drag from external racks, but primarily the range was reduced throug gas reduction. To counter-act some of this, the engines may have been run at slightly higher settings but this would lead to more engine problems (there were already enough at cruise settings) and meant more problems with maintenance. They were not run at full throttle, though. That was more of a life-or-death emergency setting. Say one engine died entirely... The rest might be run at full just to stay alive to make it home.
As for the gas reduction, 1000lbs of bombs is 166 gallons less gas the plane can carry. Take 10000lbs of fuel away to make room for bombs, and you have removed 1666 gallons (of some 3600 total). Because this was 1/3 less fuel doesn't mean it could fly 1/3 less distant. The added weight put further burdens on the frame and range was drastically cut to very short ranges from what I understand.
So you're saying that 10,000 pounds of bombs weigh more than the 10,000 pounds of fuel they're replacing thus resulting in a higher deck angle and increased stress on the airframe and higher power settings?
-
<snip>
Oh, I say fuel was very important.
Fuel in the real deal was FAR more important than in AH. In AH the players are spoon fed so many things for the sake of "game play", and that is understandable to a certain degree. I am not concerned AH will ever get to the point of allowing players to "dump fuel", I have faith that they'll go only so far with the spoon feeding.
I did not say fuel was not important to him - not having hundreds of gallon of extra fuel was not important to him.
I am not worry that HTC will have fuel dump option. I remember discussing this about 10 years ago on this very forum and its was clear that the planes did not have the ability and therefore it will never be in the game. Good. By the way, I always was one of the strongest supporters of the high fuel burn multiplier in the arenas. The irony is that requiring all planes to take 100% will eliminate fuel management in many of them. In the mossie VI that I fly a lot this would mean about 70 minutes in full throttle which I will never reach. Today I load it up with 50% and cruise at reduced throttle&RPM settings, watch the gauge and often land with less than 10 gallons in the tank - I find it much more interesting, engaging and "realistic" than flying at full throttle constant and landing with more than 50% fuel still in the tanks - forced historical accuracy does not always add to realism.
3 things that are no good to a pilot.
Runway behind you.
Altitude above you.
And fuel left on the tarmac.
Yes, fuel on the tarmac is slippery and may ignite!
There is a reason planes are not really made with the largest possible fuel capacity. They are made to match some specifications of endurance and range. They are assigned missions according to their capacity. The La7 has a tiny fuel tank compared with the P-47 because they have entirely different mission profiles. For both it makes sense to load 100% because they are likely to use most of it. If someone were silly enough to take a P47 and fly it like a La7 in a La7 mission profile, taking 100% fuel load would have been down right stupid. In AH we use the planes completely irrespective of the missions they were designed to. I loved to up a P47 from CAPed bases. If short range interception was the intended use of the JUG, would have they been built with an internal fuel load equivalent to 3 fully fueled 109s?
The current system is the best there is. It even promotes "realism" depending on your definition of the term.
-
Bozon, that's not entirely the case. It often WAS the case in WW2 fighter aircraft to have the MOST range possible. The MOST. This is even true today for combat aircraft. Sometimes the physical constraints of the size of the airframe simply limit the amount of fuel, but whatever surplus weight they felt the airframe could handle, they used for gas.
There is no such thing as an airplane with too much range. They used P-51s over France as well as in the heart of German airspace. They used B-17s to bomb France as well as to hunt submarines as well as to hit deep into the heart of Germany.
They didn't tailor the plane to the mission required unless they were making some kind of compromise. Otherwise they used what got the mission done.
-
Lancaster crewman describing differing fuel loads giving a clue to the night's target:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HRa8LXUS4Yg#t=1403s