47c and fuel dump

[Krusty]

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.

[Karnak]

600 miles, if I recall correctly without checking even wikipedia.

[Golfer]

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?

[bozon]

<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.

[Krusty]

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.

[Karnak]

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