Slitherine

quote:

Yeah...Kinda makes me think small research was done regarding the "range" of some of the planes, or maybe they did not understand drop tanks were NOT for ferry range, but for combat missions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Yeah...Kinda makes me think small research was done regarding the "range" of some of the planes, or maybe they did not understand drop tanks were NOT for ferry range, but for combat missions?

Not sure where that idea comes from? Planes surely DO use drop tanks on ferry missions if that is required to make the other field. And why not? It would be silly not to. You want to study some drop tanks, and in WWII, study the Mosquito, particularly the recon ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Only in the USAAF.

Especially in the early years, the British had Ferry tanks which were not intended to be dropped, though by 1943 the Hurri IIB had 2 x 44gal Drop Tanks as an option (Range of 920 miles when fitted)

Many Bombers would have Ferry tanks fitted into their Bomb Bays and a Mossie PR version had permanent tanks in the Bomb Bay.

quote:

No, what I meant was, it would seem somebody did not realize drop tanks were used for combat missions, and not JUST for ferry range..(Of course tanks were used for BOTH.)

quote:

Yeah, and the point I have been trying to make all along, is that (ever since UV days), whoever gave figures for the "extended range", and the figures for the "combat range" was not being real uniform in their range calculations. Some planes were given a range as if they had "drop tanks". Other planes were not given that benefit whatsoever, but nearly all planes were given an "extended(ferry) range"....

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Because it is in RAF documentation, the Thunderbold II DID have drop tanks already. But because it was not in several of the US references, the P-47 did not - although I actually found it in American Warplanes of World War II. That makes it documented and confirmable from easily available references - so it is in.

Now what is this about F-4Fs and F-6Fs? They are not listed with drop tanks. Only the Sea Hurricane - of all carrier planes - is. Tell me about this - and where you are finding it. Hopefully in a standard reference book - more hopefully one on the listed ones for CHS. But tell me. Maybe the ranges given include drop tanks - but I don't have the tanks themselves - and for consistency should.

By the way, neither stock nor CHS ever used drop tanks - although apparently some of you have done. This means RHS is the first mod to attempt to do so - and I wish it to be comprehensive (therefore fair).

Someone said something about the Hyabusa. I know of no tank for it either - and it badly needs one - its range is awful.

quote:

There is a Ki-43I in existence - and it appears it is back in production - in fact I saw one of these at Tillimook - but forgot about it.

quote:

The IJA had little need for long range combat flights and I know of no instances in which one was attempted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

There is a Ki-43I in existence - and it appears it is back in production - in fact I saw one of these at Tillimook - but forgot about it.

Not production, restoration.

Leave the Oscar's range as is. The IJA had little need for long range combat flights and I know of no instances in which one was attempted.

Chez

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Possibly,

The Hayabusa transitted via Buin/Shortlands et al and refueled ??

Thats how Marauders hit Rabaul from Townsville.

I also cant see where they "regularly" took place in action over Guadalcanal, and it doesnt state that they accompanied bomers to G/canal, just to Rabaul.

I would check this, and any of Sakai's claims, a lot closer before accepting them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Possibly,

The Hayabusa transitted via Buin/Shortlands et al and refueled ??

Thats how Marauders hit Rabaul from Townsville.

I also cant see where they "regularly" took place in action over Guadalcanal, and it doesnt state that they accompanied bomers to G/canal, just to Rabaul.

I would check this, and any of Sakai's claims, a lot closer before accepting them.

What are you smokin"?

quote:

I would check this, and any of Sakai's claims, a lot closer before accepting them.

quote:

Maybe the CHS team should also allow a limited amount of supporting info from the Net, especially Joe Baughers site on US aircraft which goes into a lot of detail.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki43.html
(He mentions the Tanks but not the range!!)


There is as much chance of getting poor info from a book as the net (Well, nearly as much chance)

Allied aircraft which should have drop tanks are:

(At Least)
P-38
P-39 & P-400
P-40
P-47 & Thunderbolt II
P-51
P-63
Hurricane II
Spitfires
F4 & Martlets
F6

Some others are possibles like the Dauntless & Boomerang.

Its now a case of finding data on them, enough to keep the CHS team happy

quote:

As the articles above do not claim the Hayabusa flew directly Rabaul/Gcanal/Rabaul, is it possible they staged through bases en route.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Maybe the CHS team should also allow a limited amount of supporting info from the Net, especially Joe Baughers site on US aircraft which goes into a lot of detail.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki43.html
(He mentions the Tanks but not the range!!)


There is as much chance of getting poor info from a book as the net (Well, nearly as much chance)

Allied aircraft which should have drop tanks are:

(At Least)
P-38
P-39 & P-400
P-40
P-47 & Thunderbolt II
P-51
P-63
Hurricane II
Spitfires
F4 & Martlets
F6

Some others are possibles like the Dauntless & Boomerang.

Its now a case of finding data on them, enough to keep the CHS team happy

There is some confusion here - and it is probably my fault. I regard myself as a member of the CHS team - and have done some small things for CHS - BUT CHS has decided NOT to do a major plane revision (AFTER it was completely done at their request). So this discussion is about RHS planes - NOT CHS planes. RHS has attempted to greatly expand the types of planes available, and to significantly better state the data of existing planes to a consistent standard. RHS also is open to changes ANY TIME better information can be shown - while CHS gives a priority to "stability" - meaning no change for great periods of time.

Second, you have not observed the list posted above: many - most - of the planes on your list HAVE drop tanks already in RHS - the first major mod to offer any.

Third, it is not good enough to say a plane had them. I need to know how many and what size (if more than one combination, the maximum case)? And the performance range wise in that case. If it is not in my references, I need to know where you know that from? I am freezing the plane files for this release set in about 24 hours (so I can work on other files) - do this now or it will wait for May revisions post RHS release.
I have four or five references on each plane in your list which is not in my list above and NONE states drop tanks were options. Often references are not comprehensive - but it was a massive effort to look up EVERY possible Allied plane - which I did - and I cannot spend time now looking for what is not in the books. I have data entry to do. Find it and I will verify it - but don't just say it - say it formally - with numbers and how you know them. And don't duplicate my effort - if the plane is on my list above - it has the tanks - so don't list it again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Maybe the CHS team should also allow a limited amount of supporting info from the Net, especially Joe Baughers site on US aircraft which goes into a lot of detail.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki43.html
(He mentions the Tanks but not the range!!)


There is as much chance of getting poor info from a book as the net (Well, nearly as much chance)

Allied aircraft which should have drop tanks are:

(At Least)
P-38
P-39 & P-400
P-40
P-47 & Thunderbolt II
P-51
P-63
Hurricane II
Spitfires
F4 & Martlets
F6

Some others are possibles like the Dauntless & Boomerang.

Its now a case of finding data on them, enough to keep the CHS team happy

There is some confusion here - and it is probably my fault. I regard myself as a member of the CHS team - and have done some small things for CHS - BUT CHS has decided NOT to do a major plane revision (AFTER it was completely done at their request). So this discussion is about RHS planes - NOT CHS planes. RHS has attempted to greatly expand the types of planes available, and to significantly better state the data of existing planes to a consistent standard. RHS also is open to changes ANY TIME better information can be shown - while CHS gives a priority to "stability" - meaning no change for great periods of time.

Second, you have not observed the list posted above: many - most - of the planes on your list HAVE drop tanks already in RHS - the first major mod to offer any.

Third, it is not good enough to say a plane had them. I need to know how many and what size (if more than one combination, the maximum case)? And the performance range wise in that case. If it is not in my references, I need to know where you know that from? I am freezing the plane files for this release set in about 24 hours (so I can work on other files) - do this now or it will wait for May revisions post RHS release.
I have four or five references on each plane in your list which is not in my list above and NONE states drop tanks were options. Often references are not comprehensive - but it was a massive effort to look up EVERY possible Allied plane - which I did - and I cannot spend time now looking for what is not in the books. I have data entry to do. Find it and I will verify it - but don't just say it - say it formally - with numbers and how you know them. And don't duplicate my effort - if the plane is on my list above - it has the tanks - so don't list it again.

Which aircraft are listed but you dont have info on the use of tanks, I'll dig deeper.

P39D With 145.7gal , 1100 miles @196mph

Same for P-400

P-38J With 2 x 250gal, 2260 miles @186mph @10,000ft
Clean, 475miles @ 339mph @ 25,000ft or 800 miles @ 285mph @ 10,000ft or 1175 miles @ 195mph @ 10,000

P-51C Clean 955 miles @ 397mph @ 25,000ft or 1300 miles @ 260mph @ 10,000ft

P-51D-25-NA Clean 950 miles @ 395mph @ 25,000ft
Max range 2300 miles No data

P-40E/Kittyhawk 1A Clean 650 miles, with 43 Gal tank 850 miles and 1400miles with 141.5 gal tank

P-40N 340 miles with 500lb Bomb, 3100 miles with ferry tanks
Clean 750 miles @ 10000ft or 1080 miles with 62.4 gal tank.

Hurricane IIB Clean,460 miles @ 178mph or 920 miles with 2 x 44gal tanks.

quote:

My books gives the Ki-43IIb a maximum range of 1988 miles (twice) and the the Ki-43III 1320 miles (normal), hence the problem in getting this right.

quote:

JeffK...While the thread was started by you, your agenda seems to be toward the improvement of Allied planes, alone.

quote:

I understand the post, m10bob. However, regular folks have much less access to museum's and the physical hardware to get performance data.

All I have is (the more or less common) reference books. I can post links to those, but according to your standards, that is less than satisfactory. Therefore, you wish to limit the input to a very small, select group of individuals. ("Industry experts" like aircraft restoration folks at the Smithsonian, for example.)

The rest of us (I served, but not in combat) on these boards are enthusiasts of the subject matter, but as a hobby ("passion" may be too strong of a word), and not a job. So, while we be amateurs, we still wish to "contribute" in some small way to these various endevours. And I applaud your devotion to accuracy.

Your post, while possibly not meaning to, was read by me as "your work ain't good enough, and I had a gun pointed at me too." Well, I salute your service (sincerely), and thank you for it. But please, go easy on my thin hide. A simple "Please post your references, or we can't use them" might have been good enough. *whimpers* I just want to help...

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

I understand the post, m10bob. However, regular folks have much less access to museum's and the physical hardware to get performance data.

All I have is (the more or less common) reference books. I can post links to those, but according to your standards, that is less than satisfactory. Therefore, you wish to limit the input to a very small, select group of individuals. ("Industry experts" like aircraft restoration folks at the Smithsonian, for example.)

The rest of us (I served, but not in combat) on these boards are enthusiasts of the subject matter, but as a hobby ("passion" may be too strong of a word), and not a job. So, while we be amateurs, we still wish to "contribute" in some small way to these various endevours. And I applaud your devotion to accuracy.

Your post, while possibly not meaning to, was read by me as "your work ain't good enough, and I had a gun pointed at me too." Well, I salute your service (sincerely), and thank you for it. But please, go easy on my thin hide. A simple "Please post your references, or we can't use them" might have been good enough. *whimpers* I just want to help...