Crumpp

It is gamey because it introduces a culture and thinking that is not present in the thing we are trying to simulate in a study sim. It should be allowed as an option for those who want it and equally an option to eliminate for those who do not.

I made a track but have not posted it because of the "track bug".

Here is what it looks like when Rate of Turn is higher than radius. Your opponent cannot get a head on shot and you are more than 180 degrees ahead of his flight path.

I see this as nothing more than a very immature and somewhat paranoid statement. I fly the Mustang as much as I do the Dora. I enjoy both aircraft. It was not like I was hiding from him. :smilewink: For the last week I have issues with my controllers and I have been trying to find a solution. Netman was nice enough to help out as I check out the latest attempt to fix it. He is a long haul trucker and I enjoyed talking to him as much as flying against him. Which brings up the next point on maturity. Net_Man was a gentleman and very nicely confessed to the practice of taking reduced fuel. I enjoyed interacting with him and hope to get this controller issue taken care of so I can get back in the mix. However, not everyone feels the same way you do about the practice of "racing to the bottom" for fuel. I had intended to return that favor but using discretion not mentioning names or even servers. So let's discuss the issue not individuals, Squads, Servers, or anything else not related. I am glad to see your Squad has voted. I have in the fact I do remove the drop tank the Dora spawns with on your server and told others who did not realize it was there too. I actually really like taking it until I found out about the 40% fuel practice. I am not asking that you change your server, only that full disclosure occurs and that the community has options. I agree and I am an advocate for choice. The current load out options leave the server/mission administrator with nothing to prevent abuse of the percentage slider. I labeled it as gamey because it encourages thinking that no pilot would use. You take as much fuel as you can when you go up to get the job done and come home. The thought process in reality is and should be, "Why can't I take MORE fuel?" Believe it or not, it was more common to find auxillary fuel tanks and drop tanks mounted than 40% fuel going into combat or even a clean configuration fighter. For the fuselage tanks, it was very likely you would use the fuel before entering combat, you would take it! If the chances are high you are going to get into combat with fuel in the tank, you would not. The same question is answered by the German Pilots. Fuel or MW50? Because in the Mustang and FW-190A series, the fuselage tank carried the limitation of "No Combat Maneuvers" due to the longitudinal instability. The Dora's AC change facilitated the addition of the tank and it is why there are no limitations on it. That very nicely answers the pilots question, "Why can't I take MORE Fuel?" All sides developed or tried to develop fuselage tanks and other auxiliary tanks to carry MORE fuel. Answer, you would be violating a limitation and therefore; no fuselage tank fuel. Thank You Jcomm! :thumbup:

' They show a Mustang with 10% fuel vs a Bf-109K4 with 100% fuel. Because in reality if they bomb his airfield or one of his buddies crashes blocking the landing area..he cannot land there and might have to fly someplace else. That happened quite a bit in World War II. Taildraggers do not do well at all landing downwind. If there is weather at alternate field, he might have to fly even longer before he find a place to get down safely. If tries to land on a unsuitable landing field clogged with wreckage or bomb craters or ended up in a fireball from a downwind landing, he could easily be just as dead as losing a dogfight. :music_whistling: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-fly-from-facts/

Well, I can only show you facts. I cannot change your emotional beliefs.

Do you think it realistic then for a pilot to think, "how little fuel should I take?" Seriously?? But, Do finish the sentence please and put it in context. I am about choice. or custom server that did allow the slider.

What is to stop them from just altering the code? People will find a way to cheat. If they have a choice, then they can move to a server that offers the slider. Choice two is not starting with full tanks either. It is full tanks by design loading options. In other words, you cannot choose something the airplane could not support and the chosen tanks would be full of fuel. That basic choice for tankage would be found on the authorized load out sheets like the P-51 weight and balanced posted in this thread.

The rear fuselage tank is not normally filled Echo38. The wing tanks are the only standard tank that is always filled. There is risk in angle fighting for everyone in a realistic scenario. Why do you think Eric Hartmann did not do it if he could avoid it? :smilewink: You could also still join an arcade or custom server that did allow the slider. That is why I voted for a choice.

Yes. It becomes a guessing game as to how little to take...for each side. You cannot even accomplish your goal of outturning the Bf-109K4. Here is the P-51 vs Bf-109K4 turn performance analysis. The Bf-109K4 is at take off weight and the P-51 has 10% internal fuel. That is 18 US gallons and will get your to the runway entrance or possibly to the crash site at the end of the runway in a real P-51.

If everyone had to take full internal fuel at a minimum.... How is the Mustang disadvantaged? If there is choice between the arcade slider and full tankage based on the authorized load out sheets.... How are you disadvantaged?

Who is telling you that the internal fuel of the Mustang is 15% of the aircraft? (1089lbs of fuel / 9478 lbs of airplane ) x 100 = 11.4% (500Kg of Fuel and MW50 / 4272Kg of airplane) x 100 = 11.7%

Yes, that is correct. You got about 2.2 - 2.5 hours of flying out of World War II fighter on internal fuel. Me too. I found myself on one map having the default tank installed. It was not much fun because the choice becomes having to reload the aircraft in order to try and compete with those exploiting the fuel slider. Has anyone ever ran a comparison of endurance on internal fuel to compare. I am sure it has been the argument used to justify the exploit, but the truth is the P-51 got its long legs from the addition of a fuselage tank and carried a whole lot disposable wing tanks. It's internal fuel capacity is the same as most World War II fighters in terms of how long it can stay in the air. Look at the P-51D's Take Off and Landing charts and plan the fuel consumption. Total internal fuel capacity (Wing Tanks) = 184 gallons. Yes there is unusable fuel included in that figure but it will only shorten our endurance slightly. First flight, Take Off, climb to 20,000 feet, Descend, Land. This does not include go-around or any reserve fuel. Taxi, Take Off, and Climb fuel = 33 Gallons Descent, Landing, and Take Off = 33 Gallons 66 gallons total to get up and get down from 20000ft. 184 gallons - 66 gallons = 118 gallons to fly around with... At our most maximum fuel efficiency, conducting a perfect flight we need: We are burning 48 gallons per hour at 20,000 feet. The is the LEAST amount of fuel the aircraft is capable of consuming and remain airborne. 118/48 gallons = 2 Hours and 27 minutes of doing nothing. Let's compare that to the BMW801D2 20,000 feet = ~ 6Km (6.09Km so we are a little conservative in favor of the Mustang) A little extrapolation puts our BMW801D2 FW-190A8 at 2 hours and 10 minutes for the same flight profile. A advantage of 17 minutes or 13.5 gallons of fuel extra which equal = 97lbs of weight. 97 lbs of weight = ~.4 degrees/sec rate of turn gain. It does not make a practical difference. The Dora would be much closer in the fact the Jumo 213 consumes less fuel than the BMW801. The BMW801 uses ~450liters and hour while the Jumo213 uses ~375liters and hour at 6 Km. Yes I did just as an example to show the Jumo213 consumes less fuel than the Merlin, therefore it needs less fuel to achieve a similar amount of air time. See above for fuel planning. The flight endurance will be proportionally shorter if we included a reserve as well as combat maneuvering allowance. The argument the P-51 will suffer is just not based in fact. "Doing it right" is doing what you enjoy. If you enjoy taking as little fuel as possible to reach the combat area then that is fine. Why is it so difficult to understand that not everyone enjoys that?

It is the airfoil that determines our Clmax. This is V24 and AFAIK, it did have slats as well as other configurations. http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/display.php?lang=de&auth=e&name=version_display&fotonummer=1027 The slats on the Bf-109 did not do much for raising the Clmax. They kept the ailerons effective at the stall, mitigated the stall behaviors, and prevented spin entry. Here is the polar. Now the 1.4 used by the RAF and Mtt simply may have been just a significant digit value. I get 1.41 in my calculations based on the 15 degrees radiator position. You can see the dependance of Clmax on the split flap cooling position: If you look at where the coolers are located, it is right at the root where flow separation occurs first. It was a wing designed to squeeze every bit of performance out of the airfoil and still maintain good stall characteristics. You have a split flap system placed at the point of flow separation with LE slats over the outboard section on a wing with no twist. It is not surprising radiator flap position has such an effect. Mitchell did the same thing in the Spitfire.

Which is why I voted for both as an option. It is not self correcting and I do not think many folks want to fly 4 hours to drop the tanks and fight on full internal fuel anyway. :smilewink:

The math is done, anybody who understands fuel planning can do it as well. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2580369&postcount=7 FWIW, While the time in the air is pretty close, the consumption is not. For example, the Merlin needed more fuel at War Emergency Power than the Jumo213A. Noteleistungen fuel consumption for the Jumo 213A was 161 US Gallons Per Hour. The Packard Merlin V-1650-7 used 194 US Gallons Per Hour at War Emergency Power. Point being the fuel consumption changed but all of them needed ~ 2.2 - 2.5 hours of endurance and where designed for that.

Look at the diagram above... If the Mustang is able to get head to head with you...you do not have a turn rate advantage.

About 360 Kph IAS for the Dora and 200 mph IAS for the Mustang for best Rate of Turn speeds. http://vnfa2.tripod.com/FA-18_BFM2.html

Right. Do folks have something against others enjoying the game? You can still take the 30% fuel fuel and fly around; just let others know that is an option and post it on the server. It is not a hard fix for the devs to give us a choice to remove that exploit from the mission editor and the server. It is just that simple. There is a reason the market for a study sim is for people who are interested in realism. Not everyone enjoys a gamey situation.

I agree, It does not have to be all or nothing. That is why the poll offers the choice of including both the percentage slider and the design fuel tankage as an option. All I want is to know what the playing field is going to be...gamey or realistic. I also think it should be a mission editor option to lock in the configuration for a specific mission design. That is a good idea.

Only if this is a study sim. If I looked at my boss at work and said I wanted to plan to land at my destination on fumes....I would be fired before you could period on the end of sentence. It is just not a realistic line of thought that enters a pilots head. The load out menu is already set up with fixed drop down selections so it would be very easy to modify I think.

They are all about the same in terms of endurance on internal fuel. You are right about the airquake. Finding out that people do this kind of gamey behavior really diminished the "shine" DCS had for me. Hear I am climbing at Vy, using appropriate power settings, paying attention to how I am maneuvering the aircraft. Treating it like the real thing and enjoying the heck out the "cockpit immersion" a study sim gives you and have the chance to pit my skill at operating this thing against someone elses skill. Not pit my ability to take the least amount fuel available. I have no issue if guys want an airquake game. Let's just keep it separate from the those who do not and have full disclosure on the servers.

But it does not work. It is mostly used as an exploit and unrealistic for normal combat servers. There is no option or way to fix it either at the moment. Which is why having both gives the community options.

It might seem that way OutOnTheOP but is just not correct. In real life, engines need fuel and you run the a piston engine at pretty close to the same power setting ideally in the descent so you do not cool it down too quickly. Now turbines love to be pulled to idle in the descent and that is proper. You are still burning a considerable amount of fuel as turbines are thirsty engines anyway. http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Fuel_-_Flight_Planning_Definitions Good catch! Yes, we are comparing best range times to best range times. It is apples to apples and the comparison is valid. War will be won in a day! :smilewink: What makes that unrealistic is the thought process. Pilots do not look at an airplane and say, "I wonder if I can take less fuel? Let's get this down to the last drop." It is exactly the opposite of what pilots think. The fuel calculation is not realistic because there is no fuel for reserve. Who cares what you do during the time you are trying to fly at minimum fuel consumption. It overestimates the amount of time both of the aircraft can do anything useful.

I would not have put the poll up if I didn't!