have we got any information relating to the fuel consumption on the Tonka? Was playing some tonkas today and good lord they drink a lot of fuel for not very much thrust. Are we sure its meant to drink like an alcoholic with a fresh paycheck?
iirc from ages ago, I think Flame has sources for it and they are actually correct I think.
damn… That sucks. Honestly the tonka just really sucks (for WT, its irl meh record is another issue)
needing to carry so much fuel makes it a hopeless airframe as an interceptor or bomber, too fat to run away or chase
hmm, i dont know
It looks about the correct weight, each crew member weighing 78.5kg isnt impossible
i saw it through localhost, 100% fuel mass, which would be the active mass
I’d refrain from using the datamined values, and use the Localhost ones (ill get a screenshot of it tomorrow), as the devs won’t accept the datamined values, but will accept localhost
Actually. I might be wrong and mis-remembering it was from 2+ years ago
Kensai16 has a post from ages ago on it:
and Flame’s response I was mis-remembering
So should be 6x not the current 7x by the looks of things
But this is what I was remembering
1 Like
its just that every other plane bar a few are far too efficient
Dont forget we need our Hindenburg tanks too :P
1 Like
I’ve heard enough, Give Tornado CFTs (if typhoon is anything to go by, it’d be hideous)
Ill corrected the report to use the localhost values then, I’m not sure where to look for those haha, hence why I used the datamined ones
thats… still bloody awful jeez
1 Like
I think they just need to model fuel burn properly for everything and that will normalise AB being something to use tactically and not all the time, and thus is where things like being able to supercruise is actually valuable. At the moment, it doesnt really feel like something of note currently, because AB Is just spammable? (Not sure what the best word to use for it is, but going with spammable)
Even the non-afterburning harrier I think is lacking a lot of fuel burn, about half what it should be, so I wouldnt be surprised if it was fuel burn on literally everything
Also increases the value of fuel tanks too. Give up a hard point for fuel tanks, or take CFTs for more drag, but be able to stay in the fight a lot longer/better.
in VTOL it should absolutely chug fuel, not sure about level flight tbb
At intermediate tiers for sure. At top tier ime you risk overspeeding the airframe unless in an F-15 - which is not correct in the -15E as the -229 engines will starve themselves if left on AB for too long anyway.
Gripen E can’t be left on AB constantly else you get up to like mach 1.4 on the deck and your airframe disintegrates around you
Id say that is more of an issue with people hugging the deck and less so anything else. I sit on AB all day long in the EFT, but im at 25k ft.
Planes chug fuel, likely why the Hindenburg tanks even existed in the first place. Wish we had a reason to actually use extra fuel in the game…
Yeah for sure - at altitude I can get the JAS39E up to mach 1.6 and haven’t tried to get it faster. Just talking about what the vast majority of the playerbase are doing.
Give us a reason to have more support infrastructure like tankers & AWACS, Gaijin. I want to sip gas off a VC10 in my Tonka and then die to a missile fired from like 50km away while I was hugging the deck because multipathing was removed
prolonged NE sorties in tonkas have been cut short by bingo fuel for me. with the drop tanks too, which honestly dont last long when you need to go full chat to even take off
The Tonka doesn’t really have enough muns for me to go bingo on them. If I was full burning in Sim I’d need them, but I just don’t full burn in Sim lol
Ive not had much of an issue with the current map sizes, but if we ever get bigger maps, then yeah, I will definetly have to think about giving up those pylons for tanks.
1 Like