If The Ta152 is perked...then why isnt the b17/b26

[Lowstrut]

Originally posted by Steven
Military aircraft do not always takeoff with full bags of fuel.  Look at your typical "Mission Planning Form" and you can see fuel is one of the variables calculated for in determining weight/range of an aircraft.  Less fuel carried can sometimes mean more weapons carried as well.  So you are saying USN ATC guys are informed of the amount of fuel carried at time of takeoff?

<>
This is not atypical for many aircraft types through the years, and there can be several reasons for these two points.  Some aircraft will specifically takeoff with an insufficient amount of fuel so they can get off the deck with a good amount of weapons and then tank and get the fuel needed for the mission..if needed.  Also, during form-up over a carrier for a package/alpha strike, afterburner takeoffs and forming up can take time and fuel and it's not aypical to take on extra gas before heading out to bad-guy territory.  And yeah, to land on a CV it's quite common to dump the fuel being carried, but again, this doesn't mean that aircraft started with full bags.

Why yes we were informed.. and you wouldn't believe the amount of jet fuel wasted via dumping.. it trully is a staggering amount.. and I'm really not kidding about carrying as much fuel as physically possible.. Drop tanks were very common, for a little extra.. , hell just the amount wasted sitting on the cats in alert 5 was staggering..


14's CAN carry 6 phoenix missiles. but don't. They like to mix it up.. usually 2-4 sidewinders.. maybe a couple sparrows. But since I left the navy.. they've started using the 14 as a F/A type like the 18.. giving them ground attack capability.. But sooner or later the tomcat will be phased by the new superhornets, and the not too far off avstol Fighters..

[Wlfgng]

don't know about CV aircraft, but in the AirForce they take only what's needed plus a safety margin.

My guess is that CV aircraft take all they can and still take off.

It is common practice in both services to dump excess fuel prior to landing.

[Wilbus]

Apar, not really, the field distances won't change, there will be more fields on a bigger map, but distances between fields will be the same

[mipoikel]

[Steven]

Lowstrut,

I have to say, I still do not believe you on this, but that may just be my problem and error.  So let me get this right, you are informed if an aircraft took off with full tanks of fuel?

I am not military, but I did grow up in a military town (near Miramar) and have known two USN ATC people, though I'd never asked this specfic question.  (In growing up, I have lived directly across the street from an A-6 pilot, F-14 pilot and E-2 crewman who retired as Captain.)  I've known several pilots and can remember this specific topic coming up once in a discussion with a family-friend who flew VF-161 F-4's and how they took off on strikes during the Vietnam War.  This squadron on this specific cruise would takeoff with less than sufficient fuel and would hook up with the tanker, practically as wheels were going up, and took on enough fuel to do the job.  This might be 2,000 lbs or more, but it didn't specifically mean that the fuel tanks were filled completely.  And around the boat, there is the luxury of a tanker and so it's not always necessary that the aircraft be within reach of land on his bag of gas.  

And yes, I believe you on the amount of fuel jettisoned to make landing weight.  I know as in the F-4B it had to get to within about 2,500-3,000 lbs fuel to recover, though this was later moved up to near 6,000lbs I think.  Due to the timing of CV operations, the pilot does not have the luxury to burn his fuel and must land when necesarry and that means dump fuel to make landing weight.  I understand all that.  I'm still not convinced USN aircraft *always* take a full load of gas...not until I hear this from others in the first-hand know.  But I've been wrong so many times before that it wouldn't surprise me.   :-)

Oops, correction.  He flew with VF-151 Vigilantes, not VF-161.  

[Tac]

Ummm.. skurj, a b26 that has salvoed its bombs climbs quite well.
Heck Ive even intercepted 22k buff formations in a ju88 (wish it had cannons.. that puppy RULES up there) for mere fun.

[Wilbus]

Dogfighting in B26's is fun aswell, climbs OK after ord is dumped, good guns.

[RightF00T]

Originally posted by Wilbus
Dogfighting in B26's is fun aswell, climbs OK after ord is dumped, good guns.

Yes, but you dare not manuever at 250mph

[SKurj]

welll we all know under 25k isn't hi alt +)  any fighter can outperform the buffs at 25k or less even in AH.

Take a 26 up to 30k Tac and lemme know how she does...



SKurj

[Revvin]

The Lancaster had a range of 1,550 miles with a 22,000lb bombload, the B17 had a range of 1,800 miles...fuel burn seems to be correct its just the small scale of map we play on. I too like realistic fuel loads but what do you want to do? pork one thing to solve another?

[Drex]

I once saw an F-15E pilot make a statement on a bulletin board in reply to a complaint about the way the F-15's performance fell off at altitude in Jane's F-15. He made it quite clear that fully loaded KC-135 refueling planes outclimbed and outmaneuvered even lightly loaded F-15Es at 30,000 feet. At that altitude, the Strike Eagle is relatively close to its stall speed when subsonic, so it is at a relatively high angle of attack and needs to use a lot of power to compensate for the extra drag.

That was AH's very own Eagl that said that.  He was also the F-15 Pilot that EA Consulted for Janes F-15.  He's a pretty good wingy too.

Drex

[Glasses]

is he the one who was a C/O or part of the 1st Fighter wing  I remember  tha once in a while I met this pilot when my calssign was burn from that wing that used to kick everyone's bellybutton in a 1V1 in  the Jane's F-15 sim I really was frustrated and he gave me some pointers helped a bit but he still out did everyone :-D