Fw-190 field mod, removing MG 17s

[Olt_Kloetenburg]

Dear Developers,

 

I would love to have the possibility to remove the small caliber machine guns in the Fw-190 to save weight and justify the deployment of the outer wing cannons as this was done by several units on earlier models.

Furthermore many late 190s were delivered without the MG17 / MG131 installed at all. 

 

Thank you for hearing me.

[ShamrockOneFive]

The FW190A-8 has a G-8 modification that removes the MG131 machine guns.

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

The FW190A-8 has a G-8 modification that removes the MG131 machine guns.

 

But you cannot seem to have that without adding armour or similar.

[Bremspropeller]

Maybe this is worth digging into for the devs. It would give us a G-2 or G-3*.

The G-2 could only carry droptanks beneath the wing, which makes it a bit pointless, as we're currently not having droptanks at all.

 

Is there a plan to rectify this, or is it indeed a basic game-limitation?

 

___

*The G-3 actually is based on the A-6, as IIRC the underwing ETC503 and Fw-Bombenschloss required the newer A-6 wing.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Drop tanks are/were in the long term roadmap but don't expect them anytime soon. They were rarely used in the East so they were not modeled in-game. They may become necessary if we go to the Pacific.

[EAF19_Marsh]

22 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Drop tanks are/were in the long term roadmap but don't expect them anytime soon. They were rarely used in the East so they were not modeled in-game. They may become necessary if we go to the Pacific.

 

Used a lot on Tempests and 190s in the BoBp timeframe

[InProgress]

I wonder what's the point of drop tanks now, maps are "small" you don't really need them for normal missions, unless you would get airfield on the edge of map and escort bombers on another edge of map and go back. How big is going to be BP map? ?I think G6 could fly more than 800km. I don't think you need any drop tanks, you would easly escort them and go back. Unless want to sit there for 30min and fight :P

Would be cool to have, especially on pacific if  they make really huge maps (99% of water).

[Dutchvdm]

5 minutes ago, InProgress said:

I wonder what's the point of drop tanks now, maps are "small" you don't really need them for normal missions, unless you would get airfield on the edge of map and escort bombers on another edge of map and go back. How big is going to be BP map? ?I think G6 could fly more than 800km. I don't think you need any drop tanks, you would easly escort them and go back. Unless want to sit there for 30min and fight

Would be cool to have, especially on pacific if  they make really huge maps (99% of water).

 

For attack aircraft and bomber i think you're right. But it still amazes me how fast you can burn through your fuel in a 109 or even 190 if you are climbing and fighting on combat power. Can't image that being any different for the P-47. 

 

Grt M

Edited October 25, 2018 by I./ZG1_Martijnvdm

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Used a lot on Tempests and 190s in the BoBp timeframe

Anything is possible and these Devs often surprise us but I haven’t seen any mention of it recently. I’d say possible for BoBP but pretty unlikely before we head to the Pacific.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

On 10/24/2018 at 3:51 PM, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Drop tanks are/were in the long term roadmap but don't expect them anytime soon. They were rarely used in the East so they were not modeled in-game. They may become necessary if we go to the Pacific.

 

RE drop tanks. Sombody did find a template for them in a skin file for a 190 or 109. Make what you will of this information. 

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, InProgress said:

I think G6 could fly more than 800km. I don't think you need any drop tanks, you would easly escort them and go back. Unless want to sit there for 30min and fight

 

As Martijn pointed out, you'd be surprised how fast you'd burn through a tank of gas at higher power-settings in the short-legged fighters.

That's why 109s and 190s during Reichsverteidigung were roften seen with Dödels.

[ZachariasX]

5 hours ago, InProgress said:

I don't think you need any drop tanks, you would easly escort them and go back. Unless want to sit there for 30min and fight

30 minutes instead of 5 minutes over the target makes the difference in a fighter from being a piece of useles junk or actually  being something useful. Thats why by 1942 the 109 became a piece of junk for fighting a war you actually win. It was however resonably well suited for fighting a war that you are losing.

[RedKestrel]

11 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

30 minutes instead of 5 minutes over the target makes the difference in a fighter from being a piece of useles junk or actually  being something useful. Thats why by 1942 the 109 became a piece of junk for fighting a war you actually win. It was however resonably well suited for fighting a war that you are losing.

Expanding on that, the limited range of the 109s was already screwing the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain all the way back in 1940. They lost a lot of materiel and especially well-trained crews because of their fighter's inability to stay in combat long enough without running out of fuel.

[ShamrockOneFive]

The Bodenplatte is a bit larger than past efforts. It may end up being a map where you'd need a drop tank to realistically operate.

[Jade_Monkey]

I would love to see drop tanks too. Not only for longer air time, but that moment when you spot the enemy and order the group to drop tanks, it's priceless. Picture that on the upcoming mustang.

[CrazyDuck]

49 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

I would love to see drop tanks too. Not only for longer air time, but that moment when you spot the enemy and order the group to drop tanks, it's priceless. Picture that on the upcoming mustang.

 

Be that as it may, I'd still prefer to try and choke a tied down triceratops barehanded than dogfight a well flown 109K in a mustang with full internal fuel tanks!

[Legioneod]

54 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

 

Be that as it may, I'd still prefer to try and choke a tied down triceratops barehanded than dogfight a well flown 109K in a mustang with full internal fuel tanks!

Just do it like DCS, only load half fuel in internals and use the drop tanks for the rest.

Drop tanks should be a set amount of fuel and the amount should be unchangeable, internals should remain on the slider and should only affect the tanks in the actual aircraft.

 

That being said, I don't see myself using droptanks unless I'm on a really long flight or I'm flying German. I still want them added though for the historical accuracy, and a fuel management system.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Legioneod

[MiloMorai]

Only gamers would want partially filled fuel tanks.

[DD_Arthur]

As a gamer,  I seem to remember flying a lot of War Clouds Western Front in Mustangs and Jugs with drop tanks and forty per cent fuel selected.

 

The tactic was to take off and climb like hell.   Once in the combat zone you dropped tanks and then had around thirty minutes of patrol time before heading home.

[Legioneod]

32 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Only gamers would want partially filled fuel tanks.

Well this is a game, and I am a gamer.

 

24 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

As a gamer,  I seem to remember flying a lot of War Clouds Western Front in Mustangs and Jugs with drop tanks and forty per cent fuel selected.

 

The tactic was to take off and climb like hell.   Once in the combat zone you dropped tanks and then had around thirty minutes of patrol time before heading home.

Yep, it's a valid tactic as long as the game allows it.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Legioneod

[Jade_Monkey]

They already have the tech to drop the rocket pods on the 109 G6, so i assume dropping the tanks will be similar. 

The bigger challenge might come from the fuel system management and all the work involved with that.

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 hour ago, Jade_Monkey said:

They already have the tech to drop the rocket pods on the 109 G6, so i assume dropping the tanks will be similar. 

The bigger challenge might come from the fuel system management and all the work involved with that.

 

I think these two features are closely linked. It is on the long term roadmap posted ages back that they wanted to do more complex fuel system management. My best guess is that drop tanks and complex fuel management go hand-in-hand and that we won't see the one until we see the other. IMHO, we'll be better off for having both.

Edited October 26, 2018 by ShamrockOneFive

[LeLv76_Erkki]

In some planes drop tank feeds into internal tanks so partially filled tanks shouldnt work anymore. Bf 109 should be one of them, so no more drop tank + 30 % fuel tactics...

[Bremspropeller]

9 hours ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

In some planes drop tank feeds into internal tanks so partially filled tanks shouldnt work anymore. Bf 109 should be one of them, so no more drop tank + 30 % fuel tactics...

 

Yeah, but while the DT fills the 30% filled fuselage tank, the engine sucks it dry at the same rate.

Unless you pressure-feed your fuselage tank out of the drop-tank, there's no net filling the fuselage-tank.

[MiloMorai]

For the Fw190A-8

 

Fuel from the drop tank is not fed to the rear fuselage tank til the rear fuel fuselage tank is down to 240 ltr.