PDA

View Full Version : Fuel Tank Selectors, Long Flights



DONB3397
04-08-2004, 10:11 AM
Long flights in the Pacific, I've read, required very good fuel management. The F4U carried some 260 gal. in the wings and fuselage, and another 100 or so in a drop tank. Under 'war power,' that's less than two hours flight time.

There was also the question of balance. Pilots were trained to keep the weight distribution as close to neutral as possible, by using fuel from different tanks continually on long flights. The P-51 was said to be dangerous if fuel wasn't burned from the aft tanks first; the weight caused the plane to yaw and pitch at low speeds.

Zero pilots, according the Sakai, learned to fly on well beyond the a/c's range using careful fuel management and balance.

How difficult would it be to add a functional fuel tank selector switch to the F6F, Zero or F4U?
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCMwWcABz_3TLZQo
There is no 'way' of winning;
There is only Winning!

DONB3397
04-08-2004, 10:11 AM
Long flights in the Pacific, I've read, required very good fuel management. The F4U carried some 260 gal. in the wings and fuselage, and another 100 or so in a drop tank. Under 'war power,' that's less than two hours flight time.

There was also the question of balance. Pilots were trained to keep the weight distribution as close to neutral as possible, by using fuel from different tanks continually on long flights. The P-51 was said to be dangerous if fuel wasn't burned from the aft tanks first; the weight caused the plane to yaw and pitch at low speeds.

Zero pilots, according the Sakai, learned to fly on well beyond the a/c's range using careful fuel management and balance.

How difficult would it be to add a functional fuel tank selector switch to the F6F, Zero or F4U?
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCMwWcABz_3TLZQo
There is no 'way' of winning;
There is only Winning!

Just_Bulldog
04-08-2004, 11:41 AM
Well not to be flippant here, but do you really think people will be sitting around flying a 2 hour mission. I doubt it. I like long and difficult missions, myself, but I can't see me sitting around for more than one 2 hour mission. I find that the fuel loads available plus a drop tank are more than sufficient for even the longest missions I have flown.

Heck, you can fly a 40 minute mission with the P-47 (provided you don't get a fuel leak) starting out with 25% fuel.

Switchable tanks will just hog up key assignments that are better suited for something else.

PlaneEater
04-08-2004, 11:59 AM
Considering fuel manegment was one of the main aspects of PTO flight, I'd call it important.

I've got plenty of room left on my keyboard. Two, maybe three fuel system commands--cycle forward, cycle backward, jettison fuel from selected tank (to lighten for dogfighting)--would be more than welcome.

Lasst das Hollentor offen,
Es FRIERT HIER OBEN!

heywooood
04-08-2004, 12:24 PM
what planeater said.

DONB3397
04-08-2004, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF_Bulldog:
Well not to be flippant here, but do you really think people will be sitting around flying a 2 hour mission....I find that the fuel loads available plus a drop tank are more than sufficient for even the longest missions I have flown.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You may be right for most simmers, but there are more than a few who are serious historical mission enthusiasts. The Yamamoto intercept mission took, I believe, more than four hours. The average mission in the Pacific was over two hours, with only a portion of that time on target. Lindbergh's main contribution to the PTO war was his fuel conservation techniques which he used to train P-38 pilots in the Solomons.

The obstacle to tank selectors isn't likely to be available keys, but available time for the coding required. In real a/c, the use of fuel in different parts of the airframe affected flight characteristics. I suspect that would be difficult to model accurately.

CFS2 took a stab at it. The result was an interesting surprise from time to time when you ran out of fuel in one tank, and had to switch tanks and restart the engine(s), not so easy when flying at wavetop height.

Since we already have a sophisticaed CEM, this seems a natural (and worthwhile) added feature to me.

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCMwWcABz_3TLZQo
There is no 'way' of winning;
There is only Winning!

heywooood
04-08-2004, 01:50 PM
maybe the answer here is to reduce the flying time you get with "full" tanks - in other words instead of the realistic 3-4 hours.. un-scale it and make it so "full" tanks give 1 hr simulated flying time - that should cause us virtual pilote to have to incorporate tank selection.

PlaneEater
04-08-2004, 02:32 PM
No, I'd definitely go against that. Otherwise, it throws off a lot of things.

If you cut a Mig 3's fuel to 1/4th of what it is now, when it takes a quarter tank for a scramble, or half a tank for a short hop, it only has 10 minutes of fuel? What about gas guzzlers like the P-38, which ALWAYS had drop-tanks slung?

You can't 'simulate' a different fuel load or consumption speed realistically without having to 'simulate' a lot of fuel-related issues as well--balance, range, weight, roll, dive speed, climb speed, stall and takeoff speed, and a host of other things.

So, no. It just throws too many things out of whack.

WUAF_Badsight
04-08-2004, 05:50 PM
you guys know how it is in FB

say your in a Heinkel He-111 coop

your get bounced & take holes in your right wing

the fuel can drain out till its all gone

i think thats something that could be looked at

being able to switch off a tank from use to conserve fuel

its not like these planes didnt have this ability .... at least some didnt but its kinda lame when all your fuel can just leak away

heywooood
04-08-2004, 08:47 PM
Yes - I agree with Wuaf the Bespectacled -

I would like to be able to switch tanks if needed (flak/bad dogfighting leading to holes)

I get made an example of enough to really need this feature already.. With Evil Fennecs' Flak filling the sky.. well.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Tully__
04-08-2004, 08:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF_Bulldog:
Well not to be flippant here, but do you really think people will be sitting around flying a 2 hour mission.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, two hours is way too short http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I like 'em 4-6 hours http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)

Salut
Tully

ZG77_Lignite
04-08-2004, 09:12 PM
Would be a worth-while, and important addition, imho, though no doubt it would take some serious coding additions (or Oleg would have done it already no doubt). Give it some play Luthier, maybe it'll work itself in there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SJG1_Therr
04-09-2004, 04:48 AM
hello againhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

2 hours mission online?
long.. but very interesting for flying a formation and you can attack target only one time and turn backhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif flying again about 45 minutes and landing on airfield or carrier

very interesting

Fly or die !!!!!

Commanding Officer
Sonderkomando Jagdgeschwader 1

Longjocks
04-09-2004, 05:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
i think thats something that could be looked at being able to switch off a tank from use to conserve fuel

its not like these planes didnt have this ability .... at least some didnt but its kinda lame when all your fuel can just leak away<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>At least there's one good idea in this thread.

I don't mean to take the thunder out of the original post, but if this idea were to be enabled it bloody well be an option you can disable in the difficulty settings! Anyone who plays games for 4 hours straight, let alone one mission from one game, obviously has either no school, no job, no family or no social life. One of these has to be missing.

I use accelerated time as it is now, even 8x can annoy me on long flights (and it'll be fun trying to juggle fuel at that speed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). I love a lot of realism and I play with close to fully realistic settings (I use map icons... sorry, but I can't be arsed navigating most of the time) but micro management just for the sake of it is where I draw my personal line.

Guys, I hope you get what you want as long as we can toggle it. I also hope that one day you find that special girl that will see you spend less time in front of the monitor doing the one thing.

FOUR HOURS... SHEESH!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://users.tpg.com.au/mpdeans/misc/midgesign2.gif "Thanks for the inspiration to rise above you all."

Tully__
04-10-2004, 03:02 AM
I would imagine that fuel management would fall under Complex Engine Management.

Four hours is nothing, I once (just so I could say I've done it) flew an 8 hour mission in EAW without using the "warp to next" function or time acceleration (though I did use pause for "relief tube" breaks etc.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

As a squad thing, two hour missions are a lot of fun. The transport sections can get to be quite social if you have voice comms running http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Mind you, if they get too "social" you can have trouble hitting the target when you get there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)

Salut
Tully

BM357_TinMan
04-27-2004, 02:17 PM
For those of you that would rather not try to "simulate" piloting, I say "to each his own".

If a good looking, well made shootem up, with some aspects of simulation sprinkled in is what you are looking for, I'm extremely happy for you because IL2 FB is what you are looking for.

Some of us woul like some pretty important stuff included, such as Fuel tank selctors, and realistic navagation over the pacific. This is the main reason we play these "simulations". We have no problem (most of us) with having "less sim" settings for those of you that don't wish to fly a sim, but this doesn't mean we have no life.

I work 45 hrs a week, go to college another 17CR and have a wife and three kids. Really, what I don't have time for is playing "arcade" games. Simulation and WWII is a bit of a hobby for me, and I don't see anything wrong with asking for options to make it more "realistic" or at the very least, more immersive.

$.02

BM357_TinMan
xo BM357 VFG
www.bm357.com (http://www.bm357.com)

heywooood
04-27-2004, 02:33 PM
Nice post, Tinman.

I agree, to each their own.. I like long missions sometimes - and having realistically long pacific missions with fuel management would be great IMO. But it should be scalable or be part of CEM and be optional.