Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/21/2006 7:13:44 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		If attempts to provide some info get bagged by a select few, It would be better to keep my info to myself.

I DO NOT pretend to be an expert, but I have a lot of info at hand and if it starts the relevant people in the right direction thats great.

My Agenda is not intended to be towards the Allied planes only, but the vast weight of data is to American & British aircraft. What little info is around on Japanese types is of very poor quality, at least I found something on the Hayabusa. I researched and found reasonable explanations for the ability of the Hayabusa to have covered Northern Malaya after the opening days. I cannot find any comments on them being over G/canal, which only means I need to look further. Also, my pathetic mod has the peurile American nicknames for Japanese types deleted and where possible, the Japanese name added.

Somehow you think I have insulted you and accused you of being a REMF, I cant see where??

As to my personal opinion of Subaru Sakai, I have read a number of books and articles where his exploits are queried and in a number of places proven incorrect. His claims of aerial victories have also been doubted and brought down by (about) 20-25.

PS. If every one wants to wave their old fellow about their previous exploits, I spent some time based at Campbell Barracks, Swanbourne. WA and had a fewyears in an Intelligence based role.

Does that make me perfect and my research beyond question, no bloody way.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 91
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/21/2006 7:27:40 AM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		I do not wish to anger ANYONE. The Matrix webgoers have impressed me as, generally, much more mature than what I see on other website forums, as well as extremely well informed on a subject matter that I have had a life long interest in. (WW 2 history.)

I enjoy reading, and participating if I can, in the discussions herein. I have not "black listed" anybody yet (with the "ignore posts" feature). I hope I have not earned a spot on someone else's list.

When I read posts, I "hear" a voice in my head doing the narration, along with what my mind assumes is the intended "tone of voice" and word stressing. Usually I get the intended meaning correctly. Sometimes not. When I get it wrong, I either ask for clarification, or very occasionally, I embarass myself. If I have got it wrong again, my sincere apologies.

Hmmm. I better save the above statement for future use. Like the man once said to me: "Son, your mouth is writing checks your face is gonna have to cash in!"

< Message edited by mlees -- 4/21/2006 7:30:22 AM >

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 92
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/21/2006 3:01:46 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		Hey, folks.. just checking in from a busy week (four meetings, a Bible Study on Revelation, and a Choir Practice in addition to the other stuff - worship, etc.) and want to put a word in here. This is a great thread about a great game with a question I have been concerned about for a long time - which basically began with "Why in the name of pluperfect purgatory is a F4F flying cover over it's own base with two bombs on board and no drop tanks?" So I began modding it out with what I have read either recently, as in Warren Bodie's book on the P-38, or...ah.. less recently.. as the bit about Joe Foss and others having drop tanks on their Wildcats on the Canal, or even talking with my Uncle (now deceased) who flew both F4Fs and F4Us out there in 42-43.

This also has in it a code question. Does the load out for each plane change as the mission changes?

Does the game assume a longer range on escort than on ground attack?

Does the Catalina change from torpedos to depth charges if the mission changes from Naval Search to ASW?

I see that the bomb load for Level Bombers evidently changes from Normal Range to Extended Range. What happens with the fighters?

And, my great question is, what in the name of all that is holy is the Spitfire doing flying with bombs on it? Personally, that would be about as crazy as Hitler loading down the Schwalbe with bombs.

I have continued in the last few days to check different game settings - such as with the P-38 with two 250 gal tanks, and found that result to be almost unbelievable - except for what Lindbergh did with them in the Pacific. What I would like to see is a believable, and functional (in the game sense) range/load combination which could be realistic. Like, what did the P-40 do with the 147 imperial gallon drop tank - or what that just a transfer device? And if the P-39 carried a drop tank, did it forfeit it's ground/barge attack capacity? Some of the data I have stored in my rapidly becoming overload Cranial Memory Banks is from over 40 years of reading, and I have no earthly idea where it came from, nor the time to try to dig it out. So, if someone could explain the load out reasoning to me as I muddle through this game, I'd appreciate it because I really like playing the game. It keeps me from bashing some parishioners sometimes. I don't have to "play nice with others in the game." I can fire Ghormley automatically, and not worry about it.

Now that I have rambled, keep up this good thread, guys, and don't let it dissolve into bickering. None of us have all the answers, and I suspect we have a lot more questions anyway.

Shalom;

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 93
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/21/2006 3:37:43 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		Rev Rick,

Your post and mine clashed and mine dissapeared

I'll have to do it again (PS The Spit carried Bombs because there weren't enough German/Japanese opposition to keep them employed at this stage)

K-43 in Malaya
From JAPANESE ARMY AIR FORCE FIGHTER UNITS AND THEIR ACES by Ikuhiko Hata, Yasuho Izawa & Christopher Shores
On the opening day the 64th Sentai escorted bombers to the Penang area (Ayer Tawar) and claimed aerial and ground victories. (Page 29)
59th Sentai escorted light bombers to Kota Bharu claiming 6 Buffalo's
Which proves the Ki-43 could fly to Northern Malaya from Indo-China

On Dec 9, 64th Sentai STAGED through Singora on the way to Kota Bharu and 59th Sentai moved to Nakhorn, about 100km north of Singora.

So the JAAF used stages to increase the range of their aircraft

By 12 jan 42 both 59 & 64th SEntais were based at Ipoh.

So the Ki-43 performed well over Malaya, RAF pilots called them Zekes (as even the Japanese public weren't aware of them) but differentiated the Zekes with engine guns and Zekes with wing cannons. But apart from 1st day raids, no mention is made of other long distance missions. (My opinions)

1 & 11 Sentai (12th Hikodan) re-equipped with Ki-43-I in June & July 42, they made their way to Truk (another source says flown to Soerbaja & CV to Truk) were the were finally led to Rabaul. 11th arriving on 18 Dec and 1st on 9 Jan 43.

This allowed 11th Sentai to move to Buka Is and 1st moved to Ballale (Shortland Is) from where on 27 Jan the first JAAF sorties over G/canal were flown . (Page 38)

Sadly their book doesnt provide any performance info except for the basics, its an interesting read though, it looks like the JAAF shot its bolt over China & manchuria and was less effective over the Pacific & Sthn Asia after the first rush.






< Message edited by JeffK -- 4/22/2006 4:01:34 AM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 94
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/21/2006 7:41:55 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

Hey, folks.. just checking in from a busy week (four meetings, a Bible Study on Revelation, and a Choir Practice in addition to the other stuff - worship, etc.) and want to put a word in here. This is a great thread about a great game with a question I have been concerned about for a long time - which basically began with "Why in the name of pluperfect purgatory is a F4F flying cover over it's own base with two bombs on board and no drop tanks?" So I began modding it out with what I have read either recently, as in Warren Bodie's book on the P-38, or...ah.. less recently.. as the bit about Joe Foss and others having drop tanks on their Wildcats on the Canal, or even talking with my Uncle (now deceased) who flew both F4Fs and F4Us out there in 42-43.

This also has in it a code question. Does the load out for each plane change as the mission changes?

Does the game assume a longer range on escort than on ground attack?

Does the Catalina change from torpedos to depth charges if the mission changes from Naval Search to ASW?

I see that the bomb load for Level Bombers evidently changes from Normal Range to Extended Range. What happens with the fighters?

And, my great question is, what in the name of all that is holy is the Spitfire doing flying with bombs on it? Personally, that would be about as crazy as Hitler loading down the Schwalbe with bombs.

I have continued in the last few days to check different game settings - such as with the P-38 with two 250 gal tanks, and found that result to be almost unbelievable - except for what Lindbergh did with them in the Pacific. What I would like to see is a believable, and functional (in the game sense) range/load combination which could be realistic. Like, what did the P-40 do with the 147 imperial gallon drop tank - or what that just a transfer device? And if the P-39 carried a drop tank, did it forfeit it's ground/barge attack capacity? Some of the data I have stored in my rapidly becoming overload Cranial Memory Banks is from over 40 years of reading, and I have no earthly idea where it came from, nor the time to try to dig it out. So, if someone could explain the load out reasoning to me as I muddle through this game, I'd appreciate it because I really like playing the game. It keeps me from bashing some parishioners sometimes. I don't have to "play nice with others in the game." I can fire Ghormley automatically, and not worry about it.

Now that I have rambled, keep up this good thread, guys, and don't let it dissolve into bickering. None of us have all the answers, and I suspect we have a lot more questions anyway.

Shalom;


Hullo RevRick..As usual, thought provoking questions..As light at the Spit was, I agree it would be a real travesty to load it down with bombs. Of course it would also be insane to force F4F's to provide CAP with bombs as well..(HA!)..
Apparently Sid learned of this strange possibility and is doing all kinds of experimenting to see what he can do to make it more practical, for all parties concerned.
You prior comments on your modding has been a catalyst to look for further inequities, as have the remarks of everybody in this thread..
Sid needs this info, with references to head off armchair critics in the future.
It's painfully apparent, that as GREAT as the game is, itself, many of the planes simply never had realistic range values.
The drop tanks in particular were not just for ferry range, (as seems to have been thought in some cases). This is why the Brits, (and later other nations) began making cheaper "throwaway" tanks for their extended combat missions.
I suspect many of us have seen that John Wayne flick where he pilots an F6F, and when the enemy is sited, the entire flight drops their wing tanks. Well, they were not on a "ferry" mission....Just normal everyday combat......
Maybe attrition can play a role in a bases ability to fly those long range missions too?? If supply falls to a certain level, maybe the CPU recognizes the supply of drop tanks is exhausted and the long flights go in the toilet??

_____________________________




(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 95
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/21/2006 8:09:26 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

This also has in it a code question. Does the load out for each plane change as the mission changes?

Does the game assume a longer range on escort than on ground attack?

Does the Catalina change from torpedos to depth charges if the mission changes from Naval Search to ASW?

I see that the bomb load for Level Bombers evidently changes from Normal Range to Extended Range. What happens with the fighters?


Good questions all.

I don't like all the answers though.

Bombers NEVER carry their maximum bomb load - for example. Sorry.

On the other hand, they DO carry LESS bombs to extended range.

Some planes change between torpedoes and bombs - and probably depth charges - based on mission.

Fighters probably carry no bombs to extended range.

The way drop tanks work is they increase "endurance" - which means the amount of extra range varies with cruising speed. IF we compare a plane with no drop tanks to one with - most of ours had "invisible" drop tanks so it makes no difference - but say the new Ki-43I - which gains range because we didn't know its drop tank range -

then the normal range and the extended range ALSO increase -
but ONLY because the drop tanks increased the transfer range - and these are 25% and 33% of that. Figure at extended range the AI uses the tanks - and normal it does not. There is some evidence that the AI won't even fly the long range missions if your supplies aren't good.

Sid

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 96
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/21/2006 8:10:31 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

And, my great question is, what in the name of all that is holy is the Spitfire doing flying with bombs on it? Personally, that would be about as crazy as Hitler loading down the Schwalbe with bombs.


Ask the Brits. It is what the references say. I guess if you have no planes to shoot at, it is nice to have something to do!


(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 97
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/21/2006 8:13:03 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

And if the P-39 carried a drop tank, did it forfeit it's ground/barge attack capacity?


Essentially yes.

The way it seems to work is this:

IF you fly extended (or transfer) range missions, you don't carry bombs, so you don't attack on the ground with bombs (you can still use that 37mm gun);

If you transfer to a short distance, no drop tanks, but also no bombs - just transfer.

IF you use tanks, the mission costs more supply points - just the same (per unit weight) as if you carried bombs.

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 98
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/21/2006 8:16:30 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

So, if someone could explain the load out reasoning to me as I muddle through this game, I'd appreciate it because I really like playing the game.


It is very simple (crude?) - but remarkable for all that.

Planes carry normal load to normal range;
die rolls may change the actual weight of bombs (2x500 pound bombs may be replaced by 1x1000 pound bomb; in stock that matters not a whit; in RHS it actually changes what happens - due to a trick)

Planes carry a reduced loadout to extended range; IF it is a regular plane that means fewer bombs; IF it is a plane with drop tanks, it means mostly you carry drop tanks

Transports are wierd - they carry normal load to extended range

And NOTHING EVER carries maximum load to any range. Max load is ONLY used to define the base size requirement - and that is official.


(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 99
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/21/2006 8:25:34 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Not here to flame anyone or there style or there info

but over all, I see a lot of stuff that you are just plain missing the point

Max range

combat max range ?
peacetime max range ?

biggest thing I see that you keep missing, is drop tanks in combat are only as good as the internal fuel load, you load a plane with external fuel load that is greater then your internal, once you drop tanks, you are never going to make it home

now ferry tanks and ferry ranges can be much greater, as you do not need to worry about your internal fuel load, as you are not going to be dropping your tanks
(so when you see a statement like, 400 miles clean and 1300 miles with X tanks, that is not combat)


I have noticed that the ranges in UV/WitP are much longer then in BoB/BTR

why?, the first thing that jumps out, since most of them are the same planes, is the cruise speed, most planes in BoB/BTR us combat cruise, while it looks like in UV/WitP they are using travel cruise

(for some of those fancy long ranges for the JP fighters during the war, keep one thing in mind, not every pilot in the squadron could fly it that long, the good ones, the best ones could)

keep up the reseach, you digging up some good stuff, just don't count every number as the final word

(ducks his head and runs away to hide for another 6 months)



_____________________________


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 100
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/21/2006 9:13:48 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

biggest thing I see that you keep missing, is drop tanks in combat are only as good as the internal fuel load, you load a plane with external fuel load that is greater then your internal, once you drop tanks, you are never going to make it home


Most tanks are not greater than the internal cells, but again, the drag is also reduced with the loss of exterior tanks.
A pilot on a planned mission, (as EVERY flight is supposed to be, civilian and military) should already have the fuel allotment compensated for.
If they run out in combat, well, it happened.
It's part of the attrition number.
Sorry, nothing to throw..

_____________________________




(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 101
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/22/2006 12:41:45 AM   
Daniel Oskar


Posts: 123
Joined: 12/15/2000
Status: offline 		I am really glad to see the range issue being tackled as it is inconsistant at best in stock and CHS. I just wanted to through in my two cents from the real world. Without exception every source I have lists aircraft range in a measure of only distance. In addition, if you look in several different sources you will find several different opinions as to an aircrafts range. There is generally no mention of configuration (clean or with external tanks), or if the range stated is to splash, or contains a reserve. The numbers that are important are seldom if ever included in the data. At what speed and rate of climb (cruise climb) does our aircraft use to get to its most efficient cruising altitude? What is the fuel burn in gal/hr? In cruise we can often find cruise speeds, but are they max range or max endurance? Are they clean or with external stores? What is the max range profile fuel burn? We can often find external fuel capacities, but internal fuel is not so easily come by.
To be accurate in measuring range you need internal and external fuel tankage available, burn rate in cruise climb and at max range, as well as the doctrinal reserve for the type mission being flown (escort, bombing, ferry, ect...). What I am saying is that short of getting the applicable pilots manuals or performace charts from a museum the actual no $hit ranges may be beyond the scope of the forum to produce.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 102
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/22/2006 3:01:54 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Max range

combat max range ?
peacetime max range ?

biggest thing I see that you keep missing, is drop tanks in combat are only as good as the internal fuel load, you load a plane with external fuel load that is greater then your internal, once you drop tanks, you are never going to make it home

now ferry tanks and ferry ranges can be much greater, as you do not need to worry about your internal fuel load, as you are not going to be dropping your tanks
(so when you see a statement like, 400 miles clean and 1300 miles with X tanks, that is not combat)


There were (and may still be) errors in the data. However, in theory,
we are supposed to use cruising speed times endurance for ferry range (which we rename transfer range). There is actually a range of possible cruising speeds for all aircraft, so we use the one selected as "normal" and published - whatever that may be - and not always the optimum one for range. Thus in CHS and RHS the A6M2 Zero cannot make 11 hex range - although real Zeros really flew it from Rabaul to Guadalcanal. Not all could do that - and those that did flew just above stall speed - something not desireable for most missions. We must compromise, and the CHS and RHS teams strongly (after some bloodletting) decided not to bow to JFB pressure - the difference between RHS and 11 hexes is only 15 minutes flying time - 5 of them each way and 5 for whatever. But we didn't cheat and give the planes that extra 10-15 minutes - in ANY case. [But if 1 minute would do a hex change - yeah - we cheated - it is called compromise to fit the data set scale. You don't have to live with 99% ain't good enough.] Combat range is 1/3 of ferry range - that is extended range. Normal range is 1/4 of ferry range. These are not really right - but they are outstanding compromises by the Matrix designers - true enough rules of thumb. Lots of exceptions to this - but for a simple system - it is rather good.

The combat range is so much less because you fly both ways - transfer is one way - and so you can burn gas in maneuvers. The fuel in the drop tanks is used first - so you can still go home if you drop them. Sometimes there is a lot of fuel in the drop tanks - and it IS a combat mission - see the Mossy recon bird with two 200 gal tanks! Risky it may be - but what could catch a Mosquito? Not much.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 4/22/2006 3:05:13 AM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 103
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/22/2006 3:07:15 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Without exception every source I have lists aircraft range in a measure of only distance. In addition, if you look in several different sources you will find several different opinions as to an aircrafts range. There is generally no mention of configuration (clean or with external tanks), or if the range stated is to splash, or contains a reserve.


Not to mention load is to not say anything. ONLY references with BOTH load and range and cruising speed are used by me. From that I can calculate anything I need to know - close enough. Used to work as "resident computer engineer" for USAF "software integration laboratories" at Boeing. [Which, oddly, I did as an employee of a major defense contractor - not USAF or Boeing - and I had better parking than either of those - right next to the door - like a Boeing Vice President!]

(in reply to Daniel Oskar)
Post #: 104
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/22/2006 3:08:44 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

In cruise we can often find cruise speeds, but are they max range or max endurance?


This is another reason the game cuts transfer range for real missions. It is not a bad system really - good rules of thumb (25% and 33% with less load or - drop tanks).

(in reply to Daniel Oskar)
Post #: 105
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/22/2006 3:10:25 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

To be accurate in measuring range you need internal and external fuel tankage available, burn rate in cruise climb and at max range, as well as the doctrinal reserve for the type mission being flown (escort, bombing, ferry, ect...). What I am saying is that short of getting the applicable pilots manuals or performace charts from a museum the actual no $hit ranges may be beyond the scope of the forum to produce.


Correct. The database only allows ONE entry for endurance and ONE entry for cruising speed - and this is used to figure out everything else BY CODE - not by us. We give the code max range at cruising speed - and that is ALL we do. I favor reducing this value by 5% (for operational reserves) - but NO ONE EVER backed me up on that. Any takers?

(in reply to Daniel Oskar)
Post #: 106
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/22/2006 5:12:12 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:


And NOTHING EVER carries maximum load to any range. Max load is ONLY used to define the base size requirement - and that is official.



Just curious. What determines what is normal load and extended load if max load is only to define base size? The standard loadout on the file? I thought that loadout is only effective against naval?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 107
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/22/2006 5:19:06 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		Sid --

How are you handling the instances when a fighter could use either drop tanks or bombs but not both?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 108
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/22/2006 2:54:17 PM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline 		Hi

taking into account fuel reserves by reducing by 5% sounds fair.

How are you deciding on what size drop tanks to assign to different a/c , as in real life the a/c's mission sometimes dictated which size drop tank was fitted i.e LR Escort would fit large 360 gal drop tanks where as a Sweep mission would require only 75 gal tanks or will you be just concentrating on max[transfer] range missions?

What range of sizes of drop tank are you planning on using

Cheers

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 109
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/22/2006 3:07:07 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Hi El Cid
over all I agree

still got to push the idea, you can't carry 300 gallons of gas in drop tanks if your internal fuel is only 150, but in WitP that is a moot point

one advantage in my set up (BoB/BTR) I can change the code :)

see the Mossy recon bird with two 200 gal tanks! Risky it may be - but what could catch a Mosquito? Not much.

ahhhh, I hate this statement !

almost any GE fighter, could catch a Mossie !, the thing was, if you were on the ground and then the Mossie showed up, hit or took some pics and headed home, you were not going to be able to take off, climb and then run it down, but, if you were at co alt, or above, and seen it coming, it was in trouble, they were fast, but they wern't that fast :)



_____________________________


(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 110
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/22/2006 3:09:57 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Correct. The database only allows ONE entry for endurance and ONE entry for cruising speed - and this is used to figure out everything else BY CODE - not by us. We give the code max range at cruising speed - and that is ALL we do. I favor reducing this value by 5% (for operational reserves) - but NO ONE EVER backed me up on that. Any takers?


I think operational reserves should be 10 %..but I'll be happy with 5% too...

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 111
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/22/2006 10:36:08 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Just curious. What determines what is normal load and extended load if max load is only to define base size? The standard loadout on the file? I thought that loadout is only effective against naval?


Normal load is "normally" (pun intended) defined by what we write in the database for aircraft -

BUT it CAN BE modified IF die rolls permit it OR IF the mission requires it (thus a torpedo loadout switches to bombs if you go for land targets, and a 1000 lb bomb may replace 2x500 pound bombs if you are "lucky")

Extended loadout is determined by code - not by us - and it does so by picking slots - so don't change bomb slots or it will produce bizzarre results.


(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 112
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/22/2006 10:39:12 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Sid --

How are you handling the instances when a fighter could use either drop tanks or bombs but not both?


That one is (unusually) easy: Just define max load = drop tank weight total. Then there is no load left for bombs. IF a fighter can carry bombs as well - an A6M2 carries two 66 pound bombs plus one drop tank - the max load is defined as 132 pounds more than the drop tank - AND the standard loadout shows BOTH the drop tank and the bombs. Note this will ONLY be carried to normal load range - at extended range it will probably carry no bombs - or only one - it is up to the AI.

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 113
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/22/2006 10:41:07 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

How are you deciding on what size drop tanks to assign to different a/c , as in real life the a/c's mission sometimes dictated which size drop tank was fitted i.e LR Escort would fit large 360 gal drop tanks where as a Sweep mission would require only 75 gal tanks or will you be just concentrating on max[transfer] range missions?

What range of sizes of drop tank are you planning on using


We ONLY can define ONE case - so it is the maximum case. If less range is needed, you carry no tanks, or smaller tanks I suppose - but that is abstract and up to AI - not something we define.

Most drop tanks were already in the device file - just not used. I added one or two - but mostly just use the closest one in the existing list. There are no slots to add any more.

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 114
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/22/2006 10:46:00 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

see the Mossy recon bird with two 200 gal tanks! Risky it may be - but what could catch a Mosquito? Not much.

ahhhh, I hate this statement !

almost any GE fighter, could catch a Mossie !, the thing was, if you were on the ground and then the Mossie showed up, hit or took some pics and headed home, you were not going to be able to take off, climb and then run it down, but, if you were at co alt, or above, and seen it coming, it was in trouble, they were fast, but they wern't that fast :)


This is my meaning - a recon bird comes in high and fast - and you don't usually have any shot at all against her. She also runs if challenged - these are unarmed ships - and they win if they survive - no macho nonsense about shooting the enemy when you have no guns! They operated successfully over Italy from UK - and over Burma, Thailand, Singapore and even Java from India - because of these two huge drop tanks. A late war version we don't have - PR.34 - became a Cold War era ship of import - with even more range.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 115
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/23/2006 4:13:47 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Sid --

How are you handling the instances when a fighter could use either drop tanks or bombs but not both?


That one is (unusually) easy: Just define max load = drop tank weight total. Then there is no load left for bombs. IF a fighter can carry bombs as well - an A6M2 carries two 66 pound bombs plus one drop tank - the max load is defined as 132 pounds more than the drop tank - AND the standard loadout shows BOTH the drop tank and the bombs. Note this will ONLY be carried to normal load range - at extended range it will probably carry no bombs - or only one - it is up to the AI.



Then the tradeoff is that the plane can now never use its bombs at normal range because it is always assumed that the drop tank is loaded. Is that correct?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 116
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/23/2006 6:08:09 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Then the tradeoff is that the plane can now never use its bombs at normal range because it is always assumed that the drop tank is loaded. Is that correct?


Nope. Somehow I have confused you:

It carries bombs to normal range - because its normal loadout SHOWS the bombs - it REDUCES the bombs to extended range. Probably to zero in the case of the Zero (pun intended).


(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 117
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/23/2006 7:53:57 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Then the tradeoff is that the plane can now never use its bombs at normal range because it is always assumed that the drop tank is loaded. Is that correct?


Nope. Somehow I have confused you:

It carries bombs to normal range - because its normal loadout SHOWS the bombs - it REDUCES the bombs to extended range. Probably to zero in the case of the Zero (pun intended).


Thanks cid.

I think I understand. Example: Plane can carry 500lb bomb or one drop tank (device 218 - 75 gal drop tank(witpdev40)). Max Load = 500. Plane loadout lists drop tank and 1x500lb bomb.

Plane will carry the 500 lb bomb to normal range and cannot carry the bomb to extended range because the load cost of the drop tank equals the max load for the plane. Is that correct?


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 118
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/23/2006 11:04:30 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

see the Mossy recon bird with two 200 gal tanks! Risky it may be - but what could catch a Mosquito? Not much.

ahhhh, I hate this statement !

almost any GE fighter, could catch a Mossie !, the thing was, if you were on the ground and then the Mossie showed up, hit or took some pics and headed home, you were not going to be able to take off, climb and then run it down, but, if you were at co alt, or above, and seen it coming, it was in trouble, they were fast, but they wern't that fast :)


This is my meaning - a recon bird comes in high and fast - and you don't usually have any shot at all against her. She also runs if challenged - these are unarmed ships - and they win if they survive - no macho nonsense about shooting the enemy when you have no guns! They operated successfully over Italy from UK - and over Burma, Thailand, Singapore and even Java from India - because of these two huge drop tanks. A late war version we don't have - PR.34 - became a Cold War era ship of import - with even more range.


A fact seemingly unknown to many air history buffs is that nearly every day of the Battle Of Britain, the Germans were flying high altitude Ju 86's for photo recon over all of the British Isles, and the Brits were rarely able to intercept them, because to do so required "guessing" the route of the enemy plane, the cost to dedicate high altitude interceptors to that path, the fuel to keep them up there, not to mention having to then intercept them!
It was soon decided the Germans could take their pictures, and the Brits would use their recources intercepting the bombers coming in.
I believe this was recounted in both Douglas Baders' book, "Reach For the Sky", and Johnny Johnsons' book, "Wing Leader",IIRC..
I have tried to replicate this high altitude with the PR planes in WITP, and while interception is very rare, the morale of the PR pilots goes to the toilet immediately!!??
I really don't understand why??????

< Message edited by m10bob -- 4/23/2006 11:07:54 PM >

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 119
RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks - 4/24/2006 1:16:46 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Thanks cid.

I think I understand. Example: Plane can carry 500lb bomb or one drop tank (device 218 - 75 gal drop tank(witpdev40)). Max Load = 500. Plane loadout lists drop tank and 1x500lb bomb.

Plane will carry the 500 lb bomb to normal range and cannot carry the bomb to extended range because the load cost of the drop tank equals the max load for the plane. Is that correct?


He's got it! By George, he's got it!

Except in the movie version, it was "she's got it" {My Fair Lady}

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: There was ONE P-47 with drop tanks Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.453