OutOnTheOP

What, so if we compare the maximum time an aircraft at a different gross weight, and different aerodynamics because of it's different shape... if we compare the time IT can stay aloft, INCLUDING the climb-out, which comes to 2.2 hours... somehow we can compare that to the 2.8 hours the Mustang spends aloft to cover 790 miles at 280 mph TAS, and that is supposed to show that the Dora, which is a COMPLETELY different airframe from the FW190A8, has comparable endurance to the Mustang? Even though even THAT comparison shows the Mustang having (at a minimum) 28% better endurance on wing tanks only than a full-fuel whatever-franken-plane you get when you combine FW190A8 and FW190D9 data? I've already shown that to maintain 270 IAS at 20,000 feet, the Mustang requires only 84% as much fuel per hour as does the Dora. Do you *really* think that the Mustang is so much more fuel efficient in that regime, but much LESS efficient at some other speed regime? The Dora is less aerodynamically clean. It is draggier. And the Dora, as I think we ALL can agree, starts with a lot less fuel onboard than does the Mustang- even if the Mustang is only using it's (internal) wing tanks. Shouldn't be a surprise that the Mustang can go just as far as a full-fuel Dora, when only carry partially filled wing tanks. Now, that said, I'm done with your ludicrousness. Flail away at a brick wall if you like; anyone who reads this thread will know I am right, and you are pulling numbers out of thin air.

No, it's not. Oh. My. God. You mean, the EXACT same thing I said earlier? Now, if only you could actually PROVIDE the data for maximum range engine settings for the Dora, we could compare them. But you cannot. You have only provided the max continuous, which means the only fair comparison we can make is the range and endurance for the Mustang maintaining the SAME SPEED AS THE DORA MAINTAINS AT MAX CONTINUOUS. Which, per the chart I provided, is 580km/h TAS, IE 267 mph IAS.

Yes, there for all to see that you arbitarily chose the best endurance settings, and not the setting that most closely matched the Dora's max continuous setting. Because apparently you feel it is a more valid comparison between the Mustang's known best endurance versus the Dora's completely "extrapolated" best endurance, instead of comparing a KNOWN burn rate for the Dora against a burn rate that we can easily look up for the Mustang, due to the much more complete Mustang charts. So instead of comparing known rates, you found an excuse to make shit up. Oops, I mean "extrapolate" the best endurance fuel burn rate for the Dora. And from your "extrapolation", you then claimed is 375 l/hr. Which, AGAIN, will only last 1.39 hours on the Dora's internal fuel. Simple math, 524 liters divided by 375 liters per hour. 1.39 hours. Which, AGAIN, is far, far less than the Mustang can go on it's 184 gallons of (internal) wing tank fuel, as per YOUR OWN POSTED CHARTS. The ones YOU POSTED.

Tanks. In the wings. Wing tanks. Not drop tanks. And if the chart DID include drop tanks, it would, in fact, only make the Mustang's endurance estimate as based on the chart even MORE conservative; as it would have even BETTER endurance without them. Yes, I noticed it has racks mounted. I didn't object to that (even though range and endurance would be EVEN farther yet if they were not mounted), because the chart showing the speed the Dora can maintain at 375l/hr engine setting (2700rpm) *also* includes the ETC504 rack, so it's apples to apples in that regard.

Wow, good thing all those gliders out there carry ~33 gallons onboard to ensure they can descend and land! Otherwise, how could they POSSIBLY make it? I mean, what fundamental, universal force could POTENTIALLY give them the ENERGY to convert into downward and/or forward motion? I just can't fathom it! The world may never know.

Maybe try actually addressing how your math is fundamentally flawed (I mean, aside from the fact that you don't even BOTHER to explain what calculation you used to "extrapolate" the Dora burn rates)? Might serve you better than repeatedly posting the same flawed, biased, agenda-driven drivel you have posted a dozen times already. *edit: incidentally, the arbitary fuel burn rates you're pulling for the Mustang are assuming it's going on a SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY statute mile trip with only the wing tanks, cruising at a speed for which you have no comparable burn rate data available for the Dora. Not that a Dora is even CAPABLE of a 790 mile flight, mind. *I*, on the other hand, compared the endurance of the Mustang at speed for which we have burn rates available for the Dora: 375 liters an hour to maintain 267 mph IAS at 20,000 feet. Besides, you yourself state: And then you insist on using the "best rate" column for the Mustang, which gives a range of 790 miles AFTER the 29 gallon warm-up, taxi, and take-off fuel useage. Which means that the Dora would burn through it's 524 liters available- at the rate YOU insist on- in 1.39 hours, which means it could range only 500 miles (and that, without even bothering to cut the fuel used for climb-out, NOR for warm-up and taxi), while the Mustang, going 790 miles at 280 mph TAS would be aloft 2.82 hours. I *literally* gave a more fair, AND less favorable to the Mustang, comparison of time aloft and range attainable on the wing tanks than YOU just did. Facts are facts. The Mustang- on wing tanks only- flies twice as long and better than half again further than the Dora on full internals. You're comparing apples and oranges, and it is getting tiring.

Maybe try actually addressing how your math is fundamentally flawed (I mean, aside from the fact that you don't even BOTHER to explain what calculation you used to "extrapolate" the Dora burn rates)? Might serve you better than repeatedly posting the same flawed, biased, agenda-driven drivel you have posted a dozen times already. *edit: incidentally, the arbitary fuel burn rates you're pulling for the Mustang are assuming it's going on a SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY statute mile trip with only the wing tanks, cruising at a speed for which you have no comparable burn rate data available for the Dora. Not that a Dora is even CAPABLE of a 790 mile flight, mind. *I*, on the other hand, compared the endurance of the Mustang at speed for which we have burn rates available for the Dora: 375 liters an hour to maintain 267 mph IAS at 20,000 feet. You're comparing apples and oranges, and it is getting tiring.

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=129297&stc=1&d=1449176847 Yeah, so, with 180 gallons, after 33 gallons to climb to altitude, the Mustang can cruise either 420 statute miles at 290 indicated burning 100 gph (wow, 420/390 TAS=1.08 hours aloft, doesn't it?), or 590 statute miles at 270 indicated burning 84 gph (gee, even longer aloft, even thought it's not even counting time for initial climb-out; 590/370 TAS=1.59 hours aloft, not counting the climb-out! Egads, this KINDA seems like it confirms all the things I've said earlier, doesn't it?). As compared to the Dora, which, to maintain 267 mph indicated/ 360 TAS, is burning 99.06 gph and burns through it's entire tank in 1.39 hours, and that's assuming it starts the engine and immediately takes off and climbs out at max continuous, and not the more fuel-hungry climb power setting (530 liters per hour, per your own calculations). 1.39 hours * 360 mph TAS= 373 miles. At the SAME SPEED, at the SAME ALTITUDE, when PENALIZING THE MUSTANG FOR USING CLIMB RATE ENGINE SETTINGS AND 29 GALLONS WARM-UP AND TAXI, but not accounting for ANY fuel WHATSOEVER used for warm-up and taxi of the Dora, and assuming the Dora DOESN'T USE EXTRA FUEL TO CLIMB, and that the Dora MAGICALLY CLIMBS OUT AT THE SAME SPEED AS IT CRUISES ON MAX CONTINUOUS, the Mustang STILL flies 3mph FASTER for 158% the distance! That is literally THE most generous interpretation you can possibly give the Dora, and yet it's still getting it's bags smoked by a wing-tank-only Mustang in endurance and range, and speed, too. Still not seeing how any of this actually disproving ANYTHING I have said, nor how it supports your assertion that the Dora on full internal fuel has the same range and endurance as the Mustang on full wing tanks.

Awesome. So, point out where the fuel consumption rates for the FW190D9 to maintain 280 TAS/ 205 IAS at 20,000 feet. You haven't provided that. The only numbers you have available are a) max WEP, b) combat power, and c) max continuous, which, as shown in the chart I provided, results in 267mph IAS at 20,000 feet. The closest thing you have provided to a cruise setting for the FW190D9 is the max continuous, so I have compared max continuous to max continuous. Provide max range for the Dora and I'll be happy to do the math on that, too. Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

Oh, wait, I don't HAVE to guess, because I have the info right here! Looks like the Mustang only burns 84 gallons per hour to keep up with the Dora at 267mph IAS at 20,000 feet. http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=129281&stc=1&d=1449174626 So, I guess that means that the Mustang can stay up there at 20k and 270 mph IAS on that 118 gallons after climb-out for 1.405 hours, while the Dora can stay up at 20,000 feet and 267 mph IAS on the 362 liters available to it after climb-out for only 0.965 hours. This is assuming both started the engines and immediately took off without any fuel used for taxi and warm-up, because we don't have the data on how much that is for the Dora (so it would be grossly unfair to count it against the Mustang but not the Dora, as you have been doing). Now, why is this on-topic? Simple: because your basic argument is that the pilot should be FORCED to carry full tanks, which means the Mustang should be FORCED to carry extraneous fuel for at least 47% more flight time than the Dora. That means penalizing the Mustang pilots with at least 47% more fuel than they really need to EXACTLY MATCH the operations the Dora is limited to by it's smaller tanks. So, funny thing, when you count the wing tanks (68% total fuel) of the Mustang as 147% of what you need, and reduce it to match the 100% equal to the Dora, you end up with, surprise surprise, 46% of the total fuel mass of the Mustang giving the SAME range and endurance as the Dora. (0.68/ 1.47= 0.46= 46%) So, again, how is taking 46% fuel in the Mustang "cheating"? It's the amount of fuel that lets you fly EXACTLY the same mission at EXACTLY the same range and speed as a full-up Dora. (edit: not exactly true, it lets you fly the same distance at 3mph indicated faster!) That guy "cheating" by taking 45% of his total allowable fuel was, in fact, PRECISELY matched with a Dora at 100%. Oh, and he was even penalized by the dead weight of an empty, unused 85 gallon fuselage tank.

Man, truth hurts. Particularly when you insist on repeatedly head-butting it. TAS at max continuous at 20,000 feet for the Mustang is clearly marked in the column right of that: 390 mph *edit* though now that I run the IAS/TAS calculator on that, I see that I used .02 OAT estimation correction to translate the FW190D9 max cont speed at that altitude; to get the Mustang from 290 IAS to 390 TAS requires a correction of 0.0173, which in turn increases the Dora's speed to 267 mph IAS. Still, that makes the Mustang 9% faster AND have 22% more endurance. Considering drag squares with velocity, I'd bet the Mustang's endurance at the 267 mph IAS is at least 30% greater than the Dora's.

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=129272&stc=1&d=1449171963 Hey, look, I can put big red boxes around things too. Those instructions are for the upper half of the sheet. The bottom half is just engine settings and their associated airspeed and fuel burn at assorted altitudes. At 20,000 feet, a Mustang at max continuous power burns 100 gallons per hour, and goes 290 mph IAS. At max continuous at 20,000 feet, a Dora burns 99.0645 gallons per hour and goes 258 mph IAS. Almost identical burn rate, but the Mustang both goes faster and does so significantly longer. The ONLY Dora fuel burn rate data you have provided is for the combat setting, the WEP setting, and the max continuous setting. Max continuous is the closest of those to a cruise setting, so I have made direct comparison between Dora at max cont and Mustang at max cont. http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=129276&stc=1&d=1449172675 http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=129277&stc=1&d=1449172675 As a result, the Mustang can do the same thing as the Dora, while carrying slightly less fuel. And the Dora at full tanks is already carrying less fuel than the Mustang with wing tanks only. Therefore, if you want to be able to perform the same mission profile as a Dora with full tanks, you STILL do not need full wing tanks on the Mustang. Trying to force the Mustang to carry more fuel than required to fly the exact same mission profile as a full-bags Dora is nothing more than an attempt to ensure the Dora (and Kurfurst) are always at a weight advantage.

No proof? I'm just using YOUR own charts. (well, plus the airspeed chart for the Dora at 2700 rpm to compare the difference between the airspeed the Mustang is doing at max continuous versus what the Dora goes) Not my fault if you repeatedly mis-represent what they actually say.

By the way, it's probably also worth noting that the P-51D, at max continuous power, maintains 290 mph IAS at 20,000 feet (from your chart). Meanwhile, the Fw190D9, at max continuous (2700 rpm; the only setting for which we have the Dora burn rates to make an endurance comparison), is burning fuel at almost exactly the same rate, but maintains 580km TAS... IE, 360mph TAS, IE 258mph IAS at that altitude. (from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_D-9_210006_flight_performance.jpg) So in addition to flying up there for 22% longer, the Mustang is doing so at 12% (42 mph IAS, 30mph IAS) faster. If the Mustang throttled back to match the Dora's SPEED at max cont, it would have even GREATER comparable endurance.

No. Bottom line up front is that the Mustang, with only wing tanks, can remain aloft for over twice as much time as can the FW190 with full tanks. The "planning tools" include some safety margins in them. The "maximum time aloft" is exactly what it sounds like. Maximum time the aircraft spends aloft, in best-case circumstances. I am comparing apples to apples. Maximum time aloft until the tank runs dry, versus maximum time aloft until the tank runs dry. You have repeatedly attempted to present the "gesamt flugzeit" numbers as the time available AFTER climb out, which it is NOT, and you have repeatedly tried to state that the Mustang has to keep 33 gallons to descend, which it does NOT. You are either very mistaken, or are attempting to deliberately mislead people. Either way: You. Are. WRONG. You are also falling back on the rather disingenuous tactics of trying to muddle the issue with irrelevant, technical-looking data in what I can only assume is an attempt to confuse people. As if throwing walls of irrelevant FAA rules' text at the issue makes you an expert on the basic physics as outlined in the charts. You posted charts. Your own charts prove your own contrived assertions false. Now you are trying to distract from the issue.

Yes, it does. I suggest you read the P-51D flight operation charts that YOU posted. See down there in the bottom right, where it says "maximum range", then look at the "SL" row, where it has, in the "G.P.M" column, "34"? Yeah, that means the Mustang can stay airborne at 34 gallons per minute, at sea level. That is the LOWEST burn rate shown on the chart. Mind you, it is NOT the lowest fuel burn that the Mustang can remain airborne at, because it is for 200 IAS at SL. An even LOWER engine setting would be required to maintain ~110 IAS at SL, which is the slowest the Mustang can fly, which means that the maximum time aloft the Mustang can spend, starting with 184 gallons fuel, is AT LEAST 5.4 hours. Probably longer, because it CAN, in fact, fly at a lower engine setting. It does not take 33 gallons to climb to 0 feet altitude. It takes only 24 gallons to get to 10,000 feet, and they don't even INCLUDE it for getting to 5,000 because it's negligible. But given that it takes 4.2 minutes to 10,000, and 2.1 minutes to 5,000, we can infer that it would take no more than 12 gallons to take off and climb to 5,000. Even less to climb to sea level, thank you very much. Either way, it takes at MOST 12 gallons to take off, meaning you then have AT LEAST 172 gallons to burn at your best endurance burn rate. Which, again, PER. YOUR. OWN. CHART. is 34 gallons per minute. 172/34= 5.05 hours airborne. And that's an extremely PESSIMISTIC estimate. This is so retarded I'm not even going to address it again. Dead horse, beat yourself. Both wrong, and irrellevant. Best endurance is at Sea Level. Right, 34 gallons. Per your chart, at S.L. Still wrong, though, because that's the burn rate for best RANGE, not for best ENDURANCE. Best endurance would, in fact, be even less fuel burned. Again, wrong. Wrongwrongwrong WRONG WRONG. Best endurance- IE, maximum time airborne- for the Mustang will be found at the engine setting where the lowest gallons per minute are burned. That's at sea level. Logically, the best endurance for the Dora would ALSO be at sea level. Maybe it's not. Either way, per the FW190 data plate YOU YOURSELF posted, the maximum time a FW190 can physically remain airborne- IE from the instant the wheels leave the ground until the instant they come back down- is 2.2 hours. That's it. It doesn't say what engine setting or altitude that is, but that's irrellevant. I've already proven that the Mustang can stay airborne AT LEAST 5.05 hours, and the FW190 can stay airborne AT MOST 2.2 hours. Perhaps you should google what "gesamt flugzeit" translates to. It's not "amount of time the aircraft can remain at cruise altitude after climbing at combat setting for ten minutes". It's "maximum flight time". Which includes the climbout to whatever is the most fuel-efficient altitude. But, of course, that's using FW190A8 data, which is stupid, but hey, I'm not the one that posted irrelevant data in and pretended it was representative, I'm just going with what you provided.

It does not say that. It says maximum time airborne. Time climbing is, in fact, time airborne. And considering that best endurance (time aloft) is at sea level in the Mustang, I would be willing to bet that it is also best altitude for endurance for the FW190. Doesn't take much time to climb to zero feet, does it? Ok, so the Mustang calculation doesn't include the fuel to get the wheels up. But the engine setting is 2700 and 31 inches. A Mustang can quite easily take off at 31 inches. Just takes a bit more runway. Fine, subtract 0.1 hours from the Mustang to account for a whopping SIX MINUTES to trundle down the runway and get airborne. I mean, if you think it actually takes six minutes to cover the length of the runway. Still leaves 5.3 hours for the Mustang

Really. Really? C'mon, there is a documented option, approved by the USAAF, to remove two of the guns and use the additional space for extra ammo for the remaining guns, but that must be ridiculous, because there's clearly NEVER a reason to want to take a different amount than standard ammo. I mean, it's not like a recon flight might want to lighten up so it can more effectively use it's primary means of defense (IE, running away). Nope, it's silly to think anyone would ever take less ammo, either.

:lol::lol::megalol::lol::megalol::megalol: OMG. Did you actually just say that? The irony is palpable. You *do* realize that the one lobbying to remove "choice" from the players here is in fact *you*, right? As it is now, pilots have the *choice* to take as much fuel as they believe is required for the mission at hand. Reduce at pilot's own risk. Mission makers have the *choice* to make historically-themed missions where aircraft air-start at, say, hour 3 of an 6 hour escort mission, with the appropriate fuel levels to reflect what had been burned on the way in, and what is left for getting home. Mission makers have the *choice* to make players fly for three hours to get to the target (but I somehow doubt that would be a popular server!). *YOU* are the one that wants to take these choices out of the hands of pilots and mission makers, because you don't like the choices they make. I also find it humorous that you have actually doubled down on your "it takes 33 gallons for the Mustang to descend from 20,000 feet" malarkey, AND that your calculations of the Dora loiter time are calculated differently from the Mustang loiter time. Let's apples to apples it. You subtract 33 gallons from the Mustang for climb and another (riduculous) 33 gallons for descent, and THEN calculate your flight time AFTER the loss of that fuel, yet for the Dora you don't account for all that time in the climb-out and descent, which, apparently, is supposed to be performed at kampf- und steigleistung, since you have already opined that descents burn as much fuel as ascents. So: 8 minutes for the Dora to get to 20,000 feet, at combat power (610 l/hr) burns 81 liters (21 US gallons). Another 81 liters lost on the descent, by your methodology (ridiculous though it may be). 524 liters total onboard capacity, minus 162 liters equals 362 liters onboard for time on mission. At maximum continuous (höchstzulässige dauerleistung), the burn rate is 375 liters per hour. This means the Dora gets to 20,000 feet with 0.965 hours of fuel (max cont). Meanwhile, the Mustang, on wing tanks only, carries 184 gallons. After the (again, ludicrous) assumption that it takes 66 gallons to climb and subsequently descend, that means it has 118 US gallons/ 446.7 liters remaining. Burn rate at 20,000 feet and max continuous is 100 US gallons (378.5 liters) per hour. Practically the same as max continuous for the Dora. Only, the Mustang has 446.7 liters left by the time it gets to 20k, where the Dora has only 362. 1.18 hours for the Mustang, 0.965 for the Dora. And that's with the Mustang ALREADY starting at a "mere" 68% fuel (wing tanks only), versus the Dora with full bags. Even then, it has 22% greater endurance. Or, we can compare best consumption rates for staying airborne. The data you have for the BMW801 (again, not sure why you even introduced it to the discussion, but ok, I'm happy to use your own numbers against you) shows 2.1 hours maximum time airborne. IE, the most physically possible, at the best altitude for duration aloft, at the best engine setting for duration aloft. At most efficient setting. For the Mustang, best setting is 34 gal/ hr. 184 gallons divided by 34 gph equals FIVE POINT FOUR hours airborne at best setting. On wing tanks alone. Now, I'm no mathmagician, but I think 5.4 is a LOT more than 2.1 Like, somewhere in the ballpark of TWO AND A HALF TIMES as long. So, please, tell me again why the Mustang pilots should be forced to carry between 22% and 250% the endurance worth of fuel as their Luftwaffe counterparts? Tell me again how that's fair and "historical", and any other fuel fraction is "cheating". Please, do.

1.2, eh? No, I can quite readily think your stance on a topic is absolute crap, and unwarranted whinging, without failing to respect *you* as a person. I'm sure you're a perfectly nice guy. I imagine Crumpp is also a good fellow in person. I still think his stance on this is bollocks and whinging. I didn't say "you are irredeemable idiots", which would be a personal attack (nor do I believe such). No, I said that your argument was crap. Please, let the moderators do the moderating.

Funny how literally a day after I shut down his repeated (and increasingly ridiculous) attempts to explain why the M2 .50 should jam a lot, he's right back with another thinly veiled attempt at backdoor nerfing :lol: If the real airplane performs better with less fuel, and the real pilots knew that the real airplane performed better with less fuel, don't you think they would take less fuel when there was no tactical reason to carry two hours surplus for a short-hop mission? Yes, the distance to the targets in MP tend to be unrealistically short. But if we stretched them to more realistic distances, you'd have cases where the Mustang pilots could reach the target area, but the Luftwaffe birds would be bingo fuel by the time they made the intercept. Situations where the Mustang team could range to (and vulch unmercifully) the German airbase, but the LW aircraft couldn't reach the US base. I mean, if you'd prefer things to be more realistic, then sure, we could go that way. But most players don't particularly enjoy flying three hours just to get to the target area, because this ISN'T a real war. It's a game. And supposed to be enjoyable.

Patently ridiculous. You can manage temperatures with other factors than purely throttle setting. And that link just says "you have to plan fuel for your descent." Why yes, you DO have to plan a relatively small quantity of fuel for the descent. Notice where it doesn't say anything about "you use as much on descent as on the climb-out". Maybe with turbines, where idle is still a fair percentage of full throttle fuel burn, but not piston engines. Your link proves *nothing*. Stop trying to browbeat people with professional-looking references that don't actually support your argument. Yes, you have to have some fuel for the descent and taxi. It is a tiny fraction of what is used on the ascent, because gravity. :doh: There's a reason it's "kampf- und steigleistung", instead of "kampf, steig-, und absteigleistung" :music_whistling:

Absolute bollocks, and totally hyperbole. I do not know *anyone*, nor have I witnessed anyone, "planning one-way trips". Absolute crap. At least give us some consistency in your whinging: if you think people are using this as an "exploit" to rack up kills, then wouldn't it run contrary to the goal to plan on losing an airframe (and therefore getting a death attributed to yourself) in the process? The fact of it is that in a P-51D, if you take ~40% total fuel mass (IE, about 2/3 of your main tanks), you have about the same fuel mass as the FW190 at full fuel, and *STILL* have longer loiter time. On most online missions, a pilot can take 30% total fuel mass (roughly half the wing tanks) and it's enough to get to the target area, loiter at max continuous for half an hour, dogfight at MIL for 15 minutes, and STILL return home. Ammo becomes the limiting factor rather than fuel, even at low fuel fractions. If the mission as frag'd on the ATO is for a 45 minute CAP, there's not much good reason to take three hours of fuel. If it's a bombing run on a target 20 minutes away, filling the tanks to the tip-top is retarded. You take what you need for the mission profile, for 10-15 minutes fight, and 5-10 minutes reserve. No one in the real world expects to be in an hour-and-a-half dogfight. One side or the other will be dead long before then. Seems to me some people just want to penalize the P-51 for the *ability* to carry a lot of go-juice.

....you're kidding, right? Have you ever actually read about the F-111's deep strike capabilities, or it's contribution in Operation Desert Storm? Surely you're trolling :doh:

Um, pardon? The chart does not say 33+33. It says THIRTY THREE. PERIOD. It takes, technically, zero gallons of fuel to get DOWN from 20,000 feet. You do not have to run the engine at much any power setting. Sure, you'd want to keep at least a high idle to keep pressure in the hydraulics, but to suppose that you need the same amount of fuel to get down from altitude as to get up is such an inherently flawed premise I can't believe you'd seriously suggest it. Um, no. Again, you are misinterpreting the data. Or, at the very least, misrepresenting it. That chart does NOT say that the minimum fuel burn per hour to stay airborne is 48 gallons. It says that the fuel burn rate at the best fuel to RANGE settings is 48 gallons/hr. It does NOT say that the best fuel to TIME setting burns 48 gallons/hr. I know you already know that best range is not attained at best loiter, NOR at stall speed. See where it clearly indicates that's at 205 mph indicated? Yeah, not exactly stall speed, 205 IAS. Think maybe it might burn fuel more slowly when run at half that speed? As in, actual stall speed? As in, the TRUE "least amount of fuel the aircraft is capable of consuming and remaining airborne"? Yes, yes, it is SUPER realistic to carry fuel for a climb-out to 20,000 feet and 2 and a half hour loiter, when the mission is a single-pass bomb run against a target 20km away. Or point defense intercept. Also funny how your proposed method would permit the FW190 to carry a mere 232 liters/ 61 gallons (just under an hour endurance) for with a "fill only this tank" (forward tank only) option, meaning it could run at 44% of "standard full tanks", but the Mustang would be stuck with 100% "standard full tanks" (IE, wing tanks full) and 2 and a half hours worth at 184 gallons. Seems legit to me, sure. If people want to risk running out of fuel and having to ditch, that's their risk to take. Just like it was real pilot's risk to take. You argue for custom convergence (an involved process to set), but think selecting an alternate fuel quantity (the work of minutes) is unreasonable. Unbelievable. *rolling eyes* *edit: also, you seem to have accounted for the fuel burn in getting to altitude for the Mustang, but not the Dora. The Dora carries 524 liters, and the lowest consumption rate shown there is 375 liters per hour (granted, that's max continuous, which again is not necessarily best endurance), which means 1.39 hours WITHOUT accounting for the climb-out. Or, we can just take the BMW801 listed flight time at face value: 2.1 hours INCLUDING the climb-out. By the way, 2.1 hours is 2 hours 6 minutes, not 2 hours 10 minutes. At any rate, why we would care about the fuel burn rates for a TOTALLY different engine, at a lower HP rating (BMW801), on a different airframe configuration, I have no idea. Anyhow, that's 2.1 hours INCLUDING climb-out, as opposed to the Mustang with over two and a half hours AFTER the climb-out (actually, after TWO climb-outs, since your math is flawed). What you are actually proposing is that the Dora should be permitted to select a loadout providing a mere 0.62 hour's (max continuous) fuel, while the Mustang should be stuck lugging around 3.5 hours' (again, max continuous) worth. Totally fair, ja?