Drop tanks and 100% internal

[Delirium]

The 152 will last.. off the top of my head.. 20min with internal fuel excluding AFT.

38 minutes, not including the drop tank. With the drop tank it has 72 minutes worth of fuel... and that range is greatly increased the higher the Ta152 goes, even a few K makes a huge difference. How often do you need to extend your range beyond 38+ minutes?

[SectorNine50]

Meh, I like it how it is.  I don't ever take drop tanks, but what would be stopping me in real life?  It's not like the aircraft are physically unable to use drop tanks unless the internal fuel is full...  Hell, people get in Lancs, bomb a base, then bail out all the time, and flying with drop tanks is a concern?

If I were in a battle that is anything like the MA in WWII, I would go 50% and DT's in my Pony every time.  DT's to get there, 75% or so of the internal fuel, then the last 15%-25% to get home.

Man, running, picking, and alt monkeying in the MA would become an absolute epidemic...

I'm actually hoping for a more COMPLEX fuel system than we have now, which would be the complete opposite direction.  I want the ability to fill whatever tanks I want.  I'd love to be able to fill the wing tanks all the way and just leave the AUX tank empty...  It's realistic.

[moot]

38 minutes, not including the drop tank. With the drop tank it has 72 minutes worth of fuel... and that range is greatly increased the higher the Ta152 goes, even a few K makes a huge difference. How often do you need to extend your range beyond 38+ minutes?

Read this carefuly:  The 152 (and the other 190s to a slightly lesser degree) is helpless with fuel in the AFT.  It can't compete in anything but stretched out BnZ till it's dumped that weight and (to a lesser but non-negligible degree) some ammo weight.
2.0 MA fuel mod means fwd+wings = 10min of furballing before you have to rtb (I usualy dont but most prolly do). Taking 50% gives you full FWD+wings and a few drops of AFT. By the time you get to the furball, you've eaten into the precious few minutes of furballing fuel already. 75% gives you something like half or 2/3 of the AFT to burn before you can do anything but BNZ. Get jumped before then and you've got a foot in the grave already. So the obvious solution is to take a DT, fly to the furball, and drop it when you get there. Much more adapted than the unsalvoable AFT fuel.

'20min with full internal excl. AFT' was what I recalled from the DA, where fuel is at 1.0.  It would be a different story if that was the MA's fuel mod.

And again, were this situation encountered in WWII, pilots woulda done the same thing we do.. The MA is all about killing or being killed. That comes before having the fuel to RTB. There's no use for RTB fuel if you're dead from same RTB fuel's agility handicap.

[moot]

half or 2/3 of the AFT to burn before you can do anything else than BNZ.

[moot]

Dunno how I wasn't corrected on this.. The fwd+wing tanks under 2.0 fuel do give 20min (I was confusing a permanent mental note that getting down to a full fwd = only 10min left, and took it for granted when I saw the definitely incorrect 38min figure for fwd+wings). So it's a minor issue, if you consider it from that point only (A5 and D9 dont have wing tanks, so they've prolly got only 10min).   
I still disagree in principle though, there shouldn't be anything forcing the pilot to not do something he could have done in reality. I personaly wouldnt mind if they implemented it, but it wouldn't be for the better, imo.

[BnZs]

Read this carefuly:  The 152 (and the other 190s to a slightly lesser degree) is helpless with fuel in the AFT.  It can't compete in anything but stretched out BnZ till it's dumped that weight and (to a lesser but non-negligible degree) some ammo weight.
2.0 MA fuel mod means fwd+wings = 10min of furballing before you have to rtb

'20min with full internal excl. AFT' was what I recalled from the DA, where fuel is at 1.0.  It would be a different story if that was the MA's fuel mod.

I also agree this would be implementing this change would be a very shaky proposition.


But, I can't recall off the top of my head, I think a D9 has about 12 minutes on the forward tank on MIL.

Um, don't you think under R/L conditions a pilot probably WOULD be rtb'ing if he was down to 20 minutes of fuel though? Basically, I see the need to RTB after you exhaust the aft and before you burn too much as realistic. The 2x fuel burn is what forces you to do this under AH MA conditions (close bases, no navigation or traffic pattern headaches.) I think engaging only after the aft tank is empty in A-5s or D-9s because they handle better would be the actual unrealistic practice here.

[LLogann]

You are correct sir.

USAF general rule for aviation fuel was to use only the needed amount.... However, historically, most squads would use drop tanks, if they had them, simply to conserve internal fuel until they got to altitude.

If I was a WWII pilot and found such a great cheating bastard trick, I'd use and abuse it anytime the situation allowed it. 

The game follows the "real" world just fine.

[moot]

Um, don't you think under R/L conditions a pilot probably WOULD be rtb'ing if he was down to 20 minutes of fuel though? Basically, I see the need to RTB after you exhaust the aft and before you burn too much as realistic. The 2x fuel burn is what forces you to do this under AH MA conditions (close bases, no navigation or traffic pattern headaches.) I think engaging only after the aft tank is empty in A-5s or D-9s because they handle better would be the actual unrealistic practice here.

Not really.. 5min fuel is usualy plenty to rtb at MIL. IRL thatd be safe enough.. you can squeeze out maybe 1.5 the distance with eco settings, and at least 2 if you have 5k feet more than the target runway. It's not just a matter of playing it historicaly safe.. it's about making the most of the tool available.  No fuel in the aft is prime time, as far as dogfighting is concerned.

[Murdr]

Just catching up on this thread...

I agree with moot and race.  The MA environment is too fluid to apply this type of restriction on the basis of realism.  One can plan flight to head to a furball 2 minutes away, to have it evaporate before you get there.  Or what looks like a milk run from the hanger, may actually be you getting bounced before you are 10 miles from the tarmac.

Someone also said something long ago about this being a game intended to be fun and fair.  So it would rub me the wrong way if I am required to cart around a P-38 internal fuel load of 2,460 lb to have a drop tank option, while the spit16 horde would merely need 612 lbs of fuel for the same option.  Likewise, I would not consider it "fun" to have the choice of being on the clock to find a fight constantly due to a light fuel load, or wasting my time refusing fights because my fuel load isn't light enough yet.

I'm all for this idea being added as an arena setting.  I'm sure it might come in handy in event settings, but keep it out of the MA.

[flatiron1]

while we are at might as well fix it where sometimes the tanks will not release, same thing with bombs.

[Widewing]

If a pilot in WWII tried to take a full DT with only %25 or %50 of his planes internal tanks used... the ground crew chief would just laugh at him.

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

This is incorrect. P-51s flying combat air patrols over Normandy did not take off with full internal fuel. They cycled two hour shifts over the beachhead. Their typical fuel load was 1,080 pounds (180 gallons), or 510 lb less than full internal capacity. Moreover, standing patrols beyond the front lines were often fitted with two 75 gallon tanks and the 1,080 lb load of fuel. John Thornell of the 353rd FG has mentioned that they sometimes flew with reduced internal fuel and the two 75 gallon drops. The reason? They could loiter for a long period and then "go light" as soon as enemy fighters or bombers were detected approaching from the east.

When much of the 8th Air Force fighter Command was involved in supporting the invasion, aircraft were not refueled to max capacity, but to that amount specified by Group orders. P-38s didn't have fuel in the leading edge tanks. P-51s didn't have fuel in the fuselage tank. Why would any commander load 8 hours of fuel for a two hour sortie? Crew Chiefs had no say in the load out of their fighters.

Besides, any argument that historical accuracy should drive MA play is utterly unrealistic. Show me one place where you can find historical accuracy. P-38s fighting P-51s. 109s brawling with Ki-84s. Tanks that can leapfrog miles of water to spawn.

Fuel loads are part of game play because adjusting fuel loads allows for best performance without sacrificing range. Limiting drop tank use only adds to the advantage of the short range rockets like the La-7, Spit16, Yak-9U and the like.

This is another instance where some player or players want others to fly the game the way they desire. The argument that it's historical is not only incorrect, it's a red herring anyway as there is zero historical accuracy in the MA and there never was or will be. If you want the restrictions associated with historical accuracy, lets look at just one example.

You must perform your prestart checklist. Start the engine. Allow temps and pressures to stabilize in the green. Do a run-up and mag check. Get permission to taxi to the duty runway. Get cleared to take off... All of that will take 15 to 20 minutes. But wait, you only have an hour to play? Tough luck, eh?

There's no penalty for dying... No downside to failure. No risk.... It's a game gentlemen, it isn't supposed to be historically accurate. Accuracy is the sole domain of the aircraft modeling. Yet, aircraft workload is simplified to where any 6 year-old can get airborne and fly.

Please stop trying to tell others how to play.


My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

Delirium, I agree with your post.

HTC implement it.   

No chance.... Call Pyro, ask him....



My regards,

Widewing

[moot]

Thank you Widewing.

[Saxman]

Yet, aircraft workload is simplified to where any 6 year-old can get airborne and fly.

Then again, maybe there ARE good reasons to introduce more complex aircraft management.

*squeak!*

[BnZs]

Limiting drop tank use only adds to the advantage of the short range rockets like the La-7, Spit16, Yak-9U and the like.

Ah yes, correct, the overuse of point interceptors. Sometimes I wish we would leave fuel burn as it is and get maps that make the average distance between bases 2 sectors instead of one...

You must perform your prestart checklist. Start the engine. Allow temps and pressures to stabilize in the green. Do a run-up and mag check. Get permission to taxi to the duty runway. Get cleared to take off... All of that will take 15 to 20 minutes. But wait, you only have an hour to play? Tough luck, eh?

 Accuracy is the sole domain of the aircraft modeling. Yet, aircraft workload is simplified to where any 6 year-old can get airborne and fly.

I don't have to do a good pre-flight,  HTC has already made sure my plane is in tip-top shape...
 

But seriously, I don't find in sims like Il2 that the complex engine management increases workload all that much, nor, surprisingly, does manual trim. The difference between the complex engine management system and AHII is that with the former you CAN run your engine at high power settings until it would probably be a write-off, where AHII forces you to stay more or less within specified limits. It is debatable which one is more realistic in a sim, as the fact is that in a sim you only need the a/c to run for one sortie, with no thought to the next flight in it.