Drop tanks and 100% internal

[Delirium]

Why does HTC allow us to carry DTs when we don't have a full internal fuel load? It is pretty silly for everyone to fly around with 25% internal and carry a DT...

I can't recall this ever happening historically, does anyone have a reference of this occurring in the field?

edit: I did do a forum search but I can't find any incidents of this being discussed in the past; apologies if this is in error.

[waystin2]

I support drop tanks allowed only when carrying full internal fuel first.

[BaldEagl]

I support drop tanks allowed only when carrying full internal fuel first.

Seconded.

[bongaroo]

Makes sense.  I personally fly the p38 with 100% or 75% with 2 dts but I wouldn't have a problem with this being implemented.  

[stroker71]

Never really thought about it but is along the gaming the game lines.  I support this idea!

[Gwjr2]

good idea and I don't recall this being mentioned  

[Spikes]

I usually take 50% or 75% and a drop in a 38, but I wouldn't mind this.

[CAVPFCDD]

i'm all for historical accuracy, but yet a little torn on this one, its just the convience factor of the drop tanks, but i guess if it was implemented i wouldn't be mad since it would be more acurate.

[moot]

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. 

[SmokinLoon]

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.

[moot]

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.

[Soulyss]

The only passage that comes to my mind is in "To Fly and To Fight", going from memory Col. Anderson is discussing entering a dogfight with a full internal fuel load and the effect it's having on the handling of his P-51. 

He mentions something to the effect of if the target of the bombers that day was close enough they would take off and burn off some of the AUX tank to help the handling should they need to punch the DT's and engage, but on longer missions they didn't dare waste a drop.  They still took off with full fuel and drop tanks though.

[Anaxogoras]

Isn't this also an economics issue?  I would imagine that taking 50% gas an drop tanks would be more expensive than just 100% fuel.

I support the idea.

[Motherland]

I know that taking 50% and a drop tank would be impossible in some aircraft- like the Bf.109. In the 109 the drop tank merely kept the internal tank full while it fed the engine, instead of bypassing that and directly feeding the engine.

[moot]

If the plane was unable to do it, I'd agree. Otherwise it's bogus realism IMO.

And Im pretty sure the AUX disqualification from aerobatics was really specific.. It might have been in a pilot's manual.  I recall specificaly that the AUX tank disallowed maneuvers more intensive than e.g. formation flying. I dont remember if it was for as long as the AUX had fuel, or what, though. 

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