Fuel leaks are not significant enough

[dureyo]

Currently on single engine planes fuel and also oil leaks are draining too slowly. If the plane was losing the amount of fuel we're visually presented with flight time would be much shorter than it usually is most of the times. I know that there is small and big penetrations but they're not visually represented in the game in any way. For comparison i can show you the flightbook of a glider (https://www.sglenzburg.ch/org/public/Dokumente/SGL/10-AFM/Ventus2cx_Handbuch_rev_2.pdf (@4.5.6)) which has 4 water ballast tanks with a maximum capacity of ~200L . The valves where the water exits are comparable (probably smaller, my thumb fits in there barely) to a hole a .50cal would leave in a fuel tank and the drain rates of water and fuel are also comparabale even though fuel should drain faster than water if i'm not mistaken. (please somebody confirm fuel will drain faster, i ain't no expert but if a liquid's density is lower it should exit faster throughout the same sized valve/bullethole right?).

The Flightbook states that with all 4 valves open 200L of water will be gone in 3,75 minutes (225s). If we now now divide 200 by 225 we get the amount of water we lose per second with all 4 valves open which is 0,888L/s or in other words 53,28L per minute. Considering that a bullet that enters a fuel tank also needs to exit it somewhere (= 2 valves open) we divide this number by 2 which gives us a loss rate of 26,64L of WATER per minute "=per fuel tank penetration"

To put it simply, if you ignore engine fuel consumption most non late war allied fighter planes will lose far more than half (for the 109 it's 2/3rds!) of their fuel over 10 minutes if they used water for combustion. And this is for ONE penetration. If you hit a fully loaded 109's fuel tank 3 times with a .50 cal bullet you'd be out fuel in less than 5(!) minutes. Most fuel/oil leaks in this game are caused by high rate of fire MGs and i suppose you always get more than just 1 bullet that hits the tank. But i can't count how many times i and my enemies have made it home over long distances with what was supposed to be a big fuel leak. 

I haven't gotten to test all of this ingame properly yet, but i will update once i get to it. My gut feeling tells me that the current rates are way too forgiving on single engine planes. 

Edited February 22, 2022 by dureyo

[Chief_Mouser]

I think that you will find that it's not as simple as you have portrayed it. I took a flak hit in a 3/4 full Fw190 and the whole lot drained away in less than ten minutes. Other times I've made it back with substantial-looking leaks no bother. The problem is not knowing how bad the damage is until you can see the rate of loss, because the fuel trailing behind isn't a good indicator. 

[dureyo]

35 minutes ago, 216th_Cat said:

I think that you will find that it's not as simple as you have portrayed it. I took a flak hit in a 3/4 full Fw190 and the whole lot drained away in less than ten minutes. Other times I've made it back with substantial-looking leaks no bother. The problem is not knowing how bad the damage is until you can see the rate of loss, because the fuel trailing behind isn't a good indicator. 

In my whole post i was talking about small calibre MGs and never mentioned canon ammunition let alone flak. It's an issue that all leaks look the same yes, but the general logic still holds up here. If i penetrate a fuel tank multiple times with a .50cal MG the fuel will be gone very quickly. Unless there is some other major physics in play such as pressure hindering fuel exiting or sth that i don't know about. For the leaks we're SEEING in game, the fuel drains too slowly. That's the bottom line you won't get around. 

Edited February 22, 2022 by dureyo

[Chief_Mouser]

Have you taken self-sealing tanks into account? Late-war fighters would appear to have been fitted with them.

[dureyo]

2 hours ago, dureyo said:

 most NON late war allied fighter planes 

My issue is mainly with the BoM, BoS and BoK single seaters. I know that allied late war planes are a different matter that's why i wrote it that way.