Drop tanks and 100% internal

[Race]

    In WW2 missions you had set targets, rally points and flight paths. The distances were relatively known before hand and flight profiles established. In WW2 you could be reasonably sure you wouldnt have contacts before a setpoint. This gave you ample time to burn fuel off and get your balance better. In Aces High no two flights are the same on any given day. One flight you might have been bounced on climbout and another having to divert to another field. If you takeoff with full internal in a P-51 and jumped by a high 109 5 miles from the field your in for a rough day. Its a trival process to compare this game to the common WW2 practices. Here flights last around 30 minutes (or less) and WW2 was probly closer to two or three hours for a typical fighter. You didnt have Spitfires engaging P-47s or La-7s engaging P-51s and so on. When you narrow down the flight profiles and match ups I would support realstic fuel options. Dont forget the full throttle restrictions on planes crossing the channel with severe range issues.

Race

[Ack-Ack]

Planes in WWII didnt go up without %100 fuel for combat operations.

It depended on the mission.  



ack-ack

[moot]

I think this is what I'm remembering.

The Pilot Training Manual for the Mustang states, “When you are carrying more than
40 gallons of fuel in your fuselage tank, do not attempt any acrobatics. The weight of the
fuel shifts the center of gravity back so the airplane is unstable for anything other than
straight and level flight.”

I recall seeing it on a scan, either from text or from a captioned illustration.
from here.

[Delirium]

And I don't see what this will do for the game, other than realism for realism's sake.

Easy, it will make the weight factor an issue in a fight where it has never been an issue before. Currently, if you see someone drop their tank you know they are carrying 50% or (more laughable yet) 25% internally. You know that the enemy a/c is at peak performance for weight and you act accordingly.

If this is implemented, it will likely help level the playing field a little for the Luftwaffe since their rails add weight to their airframes. Besides, if we aren't doing this for any semblance of realism, why not give my P38 folding wings for CV operations and Merlin engines?

It doesn't make sense to me, Hitech wasn't willing to add the explosive bolts for the WGr 21 rocket tubes to allow them to be jettisoned (which really did occur operationally) but allows people to take off with 25% internal and DTs. It would be an easy fix as well, just add 5 options for fuel, instead of 4; 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, 100% with DT option.

[Delirium]

I cant imagine that pilots weren't allowed to do whatever they could to have any kind of advantage on the enemy.  I very much doubt that a plane like the P51D or Ta152 with their tail heaviness under full fuel load (aux tank in the 51, aft in the 152) wouldnt have been prefered in a DT+ minimum aux/aft tank weight if the situation would have allowed it, as is the case in AH. 

P51 pilots routinely drained their aux tank first, before draining the DTs if it was a long mission. The aux tank was behind the CoG and by draining it first they could not only climb better but also manuver better as well in case they got jumped.

Like I said before I cannot find any mention of anyone taking off with DTs and 25-50% internal fuel.

[Race]

I cant find any mention of taking off within 20 miles of a enemy base either....

Race

[Chalenge]

I dont think it depended on the mission. I asked 'Bud' Anderson about this not too long ago and his answer was very pointed.

'The 109 could fly for an hour and a half on a full tank and we could fly for six or even more with drop tanks. We never went on a mission with less then full tanks it didnt make sense to. If a 109 went off with less fuel then full tanks it was because they didnt have fuel and more then likely in that case they would just fly fewer planes.'

With the P51 no matter what your fuel load you burn the fuselage tank first. Once it was down to 60% or less you could switch to drop tanks (for instance) otherwise the plane was a hand full and the pilot would wear himself out too quickly.

[PFactorDave]

I agree that this concept should be implemented.  It makes perfect sense really.  It would also add a new importance to fuel management.  Manually burning off tanks would become even more important.

I like it.  Make it so.   

[FiLtH]

  The scenic route to max alt would happen burning the internals, then when the internal in down enough, switch back to external. When the fighting finally starts, drop the tanks and back to square one but at 35k

[PFactorDave]

  The scenic route to max alt would happen burning the internals, then when the internal in down enough, switch back to external. When the fighting finally starts, drop the tanks and back to square one but at 35k

You know, you're probably right about that.  I don't enjoy high altitude engagements.  I hereby change my position!   

[Delirium]

  The scenic route to max alt would happen burning the internals, then when the internal in down enough, switch back to external. When the fighting finally starts, drop the tanks and back to square one but at 35k

Changing the way drop tanks are in the game would not affect alt of anyone within AH.

Frankly, if someone wants to go to 35k, burn their aux tanks, burn 50% of both of their wing tanks, and THEN come down I will welcome it. Each flight will take more than an hour and they will be going so fast in the dive they'll have the turn circle the size of Rosie O'Donald's thighs, not to mention they'll maintain that pasty white complexion year round. I won't even bring up their sex life, or lack thereof...

[Saxman]

...and they will be going so fast in the dive they'll have the turn circle the size of Rosie O'Donald's thighs...

That's the beauty of the Corsair's landing gear/dive brakes.

[PFactorDave]

they will be going so fast in the dive they'll have the turn circle the size of Rosie O'Donald's thighs, not to mention they'll maintain that pasty white complexion year round. I won't even bring up their sex life, or lack thereof...

I just threw up, just a little bit, in my mouth...   

[bongaroo]

Because the situation didnt present itself. I cant imagine that pilots weren't allowed to do whatever they could to have any kind of advantage on the enemy.  I very much doubt that a plane like the P51D or Ta152 with their tail heaviness under full fuel load (aux tank in the 51, aft in the 152) wouldnt have been prefered in a DT+ minimum aux/aft tank weight if the situation would have allowed it, as is the case in AH.  The P51's aux tank IIRC was explicitly refered to as a liability in aerobatics, if not an outright disqualification for it.

I cant see why any pilot in his right mind would opt for something detrimental to his plane's maneuverability that he couldn't ditch, as opposed to the same thing but detachable a few buttons/switches away.

Conversly, there's no reason to have B25s with fake defensive guns take off anywhere in the game, because the situation doesnt warrant it.. And it's laughable to replace those guns with extra fuel in the situations in AH.

How many p51d's upped from their airbase to engage the enemy within 50 miles of their home field?  I'm under the impression that most would have hours of flight time before closing in on enemy airspace.

[moot]

Easy, it will make the weight factor an issue in a fight where it has never been an issue before. Currently, if you see someone drop their tank you know they are carrying 50% or (more laughable yet) 25% internally. You know that the enemy a/c is at peak performance for weight and you act accordingly.

It's not like they can just game it like that without any penalty. The current fuel mod means such a tactic's price is reduced range, and it's flat across the board, keeping endurance proportions historical. Really.. The LW needs an additional weight handicap? That's news to me.

If this is implemented, it will likely help level the playing field a little for the Luftwaffe since their rails add weight to their airframes. Besides, if we aren't doing this for any semblance of realism, why not give my P38 folding wings for CV operations and Merlin engines?

Or no combat trim, or no ammo counters, etc, etc. This isnt going to help the luftwaffe at all. You're saying the 190s would benefit from being forced to have their AFT full?
If anything, only the lw are paying with this change.  Most of the US birds have permanent racks. They too would lose the advantage of forward CG extra fuel, but so does the LW.

It doesn't make sense to me, Hitech wasn't willing to add the explosive bolts for the WGr 21 rocket tubes to allow them to be jettisoned (which really did occur operationally) but allows people to take off with 25% internal and DTs. It would be an easy fix as well, just add 5 options for fuel, instead of 4; 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, 100% with DT option.

But you then admit that

P51 pilots routinely drained their aux tank first, before draining the DTs if it was a long mission. The aux tank was behind the CoG and by draining it first they could not only climb better but also manuver better as well in case they got jumped.

then turn around 180deg and say

Like I said before I cannot find any mention of anyone taking off with DTs and 25-50% internal fuel.

Because the conditions never favored it. Do you really think any of us in WWII would not take DTs instead of an AUX tank if we had a particular mission only requiring so much fuel, when we know for a plain fact that the AUX (or AFT in the 190s case) ruins handling?

The argument that there were no bases within 20mi of combat are irrelevant. It ignores the fuel multiplier that you need to account for for an objective comparison between RL & AH. It ignores the fact that the pilot could do whatever sensible mod he needed to help kill the other bastard more efficiently. Put yourself in a very late war LW cockpit, knowing that the damn rear tank(s) are a handicap that you could negate by taking a DT instead.. Then say again that it's an invalid tactic because it wasnt interesting for the preceding duration of the war.