Ok, let's try to sway your opinion with a bit of fact.
For a P40 with a drop tank, fuel burn 1.0:
The trip to 20k, and then accellerating to 300MPH act takes 27 gallons of fuel, and covers roughly 45 miles of distance.
Once at 300MPH, reducing rpm to maintain 300 gives 85 GPH, or about 3.5MPG.
Let's say one wanted to do something stupid with one's P40s, and take them off from Africa instead of the available island airfields on Malta or A114. Then the trip from A103 all the way to the other side of Sicily at V17 is a six sector trip, or 150Miles (we'll call it 145 to make the math easier).
With fuel burn of 1.0, this trip would take rougly 55 gallons of fuel (27 for the first 45 miles and climb to 20k, then 28 gallons for 100 miles@300MPH@3.5MPG).
Now, let's modify the trip distance to match the map scale. Our 145 mile trip is now a 181 mile trip. We now use our 27 gal for the first 50 miles, and 39 gallons for the remaining 136 miles: 66 gallons total.
Now this time, instead of modifying the distance, let's just do a 1.2 fuel burn on our initial 55 gallons: 66 gallons total.
So it works, right? Not really. This is for an absurdly long trip, at nearly full throttle. If you back the cruise speed from 300MPH to 275MPH (314 is max, btw):
145 mile trip: 51 gallons
181 mile trip: 60 gallons
145 miles@1.2 mult: 61
Use of fuel conservation just edges you into the realm of over-penalizing for map scale - again reasonable, but again, this is an unneccessarilly long trip.
For a more realistic transit (from one of the island fields well inland), say 75 miles at full throttle:
75 mile trip: 36 gal
94 mile trip: 40 gal
75 miles@1.2: 43 gal
Now getting into apreciable over-penalization.
Besides, even in the Africa launch case, the P40 doesn't even care - it has only used 1/4 of its fuel to get to target - even from this rediculous start base. And even if it has to use another 1/4 tank to get home (this is a wild over-estimate due to not needing to climb,) the remaining 50% of its fuel is presumably not used for transit, and thus should be unnaffected by map scale - and is instead penalized by the burn rate.
So let's revisit the list of planes affected by the fuel burn mult: B24 doesn't care, P40 doesn't care, P38 doesn't care - and these are the only allied planes making a long enough trip to get you into the realm of increasing realism from the selected fuel burn. Anyone with a shorter transit is being over-penalized, and I expect that all other allied planes have taken a shorter transit.
On the Axis side, you claim that the Ju88 cares, but from the Beta and Frame 1 logs, no Ju88 mission has lasted more than 1:15, while the plane has ~1:50 worth of fuel at full throttle - so the Ju88 never used its full range, and no Ju88 was shot down without enough fuel to easily get home at full throttle. There was a chance that it could have had an impact, but that chance is quite small - and in these two trials never came close to happening (and a bit of fuel conservation, if it had been neccessary, can easilly increase the Ju88's endurance to the entire frame.) Basically, the fuel multiplier introduces a _very_ slight chance that a Ju88 _may_ have to reduce its cruise speed by 20% for a little while.
So only transits greater than 100 miles are affected towards realism. Shorter transits are unrealistically penalized. The planes that are used for long transits - the ones that you are making this adjustment to make more realistic - have so much fuel that for an AH scenario it is unlikely (if even possible) that the extra fuel burn will have a tangible affect on their capability. All short-range transits, and patrol aircraft receive a significant penalty, both in realism and fun (the 205s had to refuel twice in the beta, which was less than two hours long!) That's nearly 1/2 hour of under 2 hours just rearming and grabbing back out, and 25% of the scenario where we could not be on station.
So what portions of Husky exactly are affected by the supposably "correct" combat radii? I can't see them. The CAP aircraft are strongly affected, as are any other aircraft who are going to be transitting < 100 miles, and in a very unrealistic way. The aircraft most affected are those with the smallest tanks, which are being used in the role that small-tanked aircraft were designed for, which has nothing to do with map scale.
It would be nice to get both sides right, but the impact of trying to get the radii right just doesn't actually affect anyone to any significant extent in a AH time scenario. The negative and unrealistic side affect of this attempt is very very noticeable to the aircraft that we agree would be best left alone.
And as to the 109s in BoB, unless you have a German reference that states, "A 109 taking off from Dunkirk has 15 minutes of fuel over London," then I think it's an odd choice for a calibration metric. That "15 minutes" thing is thrown around in so many contexts that I expect it was a British observation or propaganda bit to make their pilots and citizens feel better, and thus not at all technically reliable. And again, I'm talking about net effects here, and the net effect of the fuel burn multiplier in BoB was a small but appreciable disadvantage for the RAF, for a highly questionable (if noble) attempt at realism for one airplane. If you wanted realistic time over london for a 109, perhaps not giving the LW the fields near Dunkirk would be more apropriate and realistic without negatively affecting the realism and capability of the RAF aircraft, or over-inflating the relative power of the 110.
EDIT: Just for perspective vs. the P40 numbers I presented, the 205 with a 1.2 mult uses 20% of its fuel just climbing to 25k and accellerating to 300MPH cruise (a reasonable situation with which to patrol for incoming 20k bombers with high escort.)
