Perks for Self Sealing Fuel Tanks??

[BigKev03]

Was just wondering what you all think about letting players use perk points to equip their planes with self sealing fuel tanks (for those planes that had them)?  I hate when I go out and take a hit to the tank and I watch my fuel drop but historically the plane I am in had self sealing fuel tanks.  Or is this addressed somewhere in the game already as maybe a reduced fuel leak flow?  Just wanted your thoughts.

Thanks

BigKev

[Tupac]

Self-Sealing fuel tanks dont stop a fuel leak.

A self sealing fuel tank is a rubber bladder that shrinks along with the fuel supply in the tank, preventing fumes from building up and a catastophic explosion.

[Soulyss]

I believe self sealing tanks are already factored into the damage model on the various aircraft (at least as near as I can tell).  Look at how easy an A6M get's a fuel leak compared to say most of the U.S. fighters. 

The self sealing system doesn't mean that it's impossible for the tank to spring a leak, it's just harder.  That's my interpretation at any rate.

[Imowface]

if you put a big enough hole in it, it aint gonna be self sealing no more, the way self sealing tanks work, is that when a bullet hits it, it has sort of a jello effect, and seals the bullet, but if a bigger round were to hit it (20mm) it would put too big of a hole in it for it to seal, they wernt the miracle tanks that some people make them out to be

[BigKev03]

I believe self sealing tanks are already factored into the damage model on the various aircraft (at least as near as I can tell).  Look at how easy an A6M get's a fuel leak compared to say most of the U.S. fighters. 

The self sealing system doesn't mean that it's impossible for the tank to spring a leak, it's just harder.  That's my interpretation at any rate.

Soulyss, I think you are on target with what I guessed about the sealing tanks being factored in.  I just wasnt sure if it is or not.  Yes you are correct about a self sealing fuel tank not being 100% sealed as the composition of the material in the tank would swell up to seal the bullet hole upon contact of the fuel with one of the layers of the tank material.  I was just thinking that if it wasnt factored in it would be nice to pay a perk or two to "enhance" your planes ability to take hits and keep flying longer because you dont lose all your fuel out of one tank.

BigKev

[BigKev03]

if you put a big enough hole in it, it aint gonna be self sealing no more, the way self sealing tanks work, is that when a bullet hits it, it has sort of a jello effect, and seals the bullet, but if a bigger round were to hit it (20mm) it would put too big of a hole in it for it to seal, they wernt the miracle tanks that some people make them out to be

Historically the tanks could take .50 cal hits and seal.  In some instances a 20mm could be absorbed (not always granted).  The US Navy had many a plane come back that would not have had enough fuel to make it back to the carrier if it had not been for the self sealing tank.  I am not saying they are a god send.  I am just saying in the game it seems like the fuel leak rate for a fuel tank hit is really fast and if the self sealing fuel tanke is factored in then I can live with that.  If not then what does it hurt to ask to add it for a perk price if you want it?

BigKev

[Imowface]

in game I am 99% sure, that it is modled where the bigger the hole, the more fuel you lose, because I have had a center tank hit on my La-5 where my E6B states I have only lost 4 min of flying time, and then I have had the same tank hit where it is compleatly empty in 1 min flat

[LLogann]

We already have this in rides like the Hellcat (to the best of my knowledge).

Tupac, that isn't entirely accurate but yes, for the most part totally correct.  A self-sealing tank is composed of 2 different rubber membranes, one that has been vulcanized (inner) and a normal, or untreated, rubber layer (outer).  The untreated rubber when coming into contact with aviation fuel would expand thus sealing the "hole."  As Imowface points out, the larger the round, the less likely for it to completely seal.  100% correct.

[RTHolmes]

power-ups? no thanks

[Karnak]

So far as I know, the only aircraft in the game without self sealing tanks are the A6M2, A6M5b, B5N2, D3A1 and the upcoming G4M1.  If we get a Ki-43-I it will also lack self sealing tanks.  Starting with the Ki-43-II and A6M6 those lines of fighters also had self sealing tanks, so far as I know.

There were quality differences between different aircraft's self sealing tanks and I do not know if HTC has tried to model that.

[Wmaker]

So far as I know, the only aircraft in the game without self sealing tanks are the A6M2, A6M5b, B5N2, D3A1 and the upcoming G4M1.  If we get a Ki-43-I it will also lack self sealing tanks.  Starting with the Ki-43-II and A6M6 those lines of fighters also had self sealing tanks, so far as I know.

Brewster doesn't have self-sealing tanks either.

Due to the wing/integrated fuel tank structure, the tanks basically could not be made self sealing. That was one of the actual reasons why the Brewster was phased out by the US and not because the heavy losses in their first combat.

[curry1]

power-ups? no thanks

25 kills you get a nuke?

[Soulyss]

Brewster doesn't have self-sealing tanks either.

Due to the wing/integrated fuel tank structure, the tanks basically could not be made self sealing. That was one of the actual reasons why the Brewster was phased out by the US and not because the heavy losses in their first combat.

For what it's worth I believe the undercarriage was also deemed to not be strong enough for prolonged carrier operation.

The following is taken from John B. Lundstron's "The First Team".

On paper at any rate, the Brewster F2A-3 statistics look a little different from those of the Grumman F4F-3., to be described below.  When first produced, the Brewster F2A-1 was an excellent aerobatic aircraft,  a delight ot fly. The Finns used that model Brewster for several years against the Soviets with good success.  However b y the time the FSA-3 came into service, much additional weight had seriously compromised the original design.  The F2A-3, for example, had the same power-plant as the F2A-2 but weighed 500lbs more.  This greatly reduced maneuverability and worsened flight characteristics when compared with earlier version of the F2A.  Airframe design did not permit installation of a more powerful engine. The fighter did not prove as rugged as hoped, and there was a growing tendency for the landing struts to fail.

For the next five days Brown operated south and west of Oahu, mainly seeking to keep out of trouble.  Fighting Two flew combat air patrols on 9 and 10 December, but thereafter secured on alert status.  Paul Ramsey was reluctant to fly his fighters because of defective landing struts.  He would note on 11 December just before returning to port that Fighting Two had "ceased all operations until enemy contact became imminent." During this cruise three more landing struts had failed, and of the seventeen F2A-3's currently on strength, there were progressive strut failures on no fewer than twelve.

[Wmaker]

For what it's worth I believe the undercarriage was also deemed to not be strong enough for prolonged carrier operation.

You are absolutely correct.

...and that is why I said one of the reasons and not the only reason.

I'm well aware about the landing gear problems.