Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Can you provide a source that says thet the Pe-2I used 1000hp engines? Even the earlier models of Pe-2 used VK-105 engines of at least 1100hp.

You're right about the 1,100hp engines. The typo I made in the original was to add an extra zero at the end of '1,1000hp' rather than adding an extra 1 at the beginning. The position of the comma should have told me that.

Information about the Pe-2I came from http://www.vectorsite.net/avpe2.html among other sources. I concur with the authors observation...' Trying to document aircraft is troublesome -- if you read three different sources you usually get three slightly different stories -- but in the case of Soviet aircraft the stories are often wildly inconsistent, and some sources even contradict themselves. '

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

I don't think it's erroneous to use the Go 229 nomenclature (as stated at the beginning of this entry) but this aircraft was clearly a fighter-bomber and it's a pretty serious hole to have this counter with a ridiculously high air-to-air rating and no air-to-ground rating. I'll be changing the CSV file.

I looked at Il-2 Sturmovik the PC simulation game, and the Go229 is proposed zero ordonnance possibilities when you fly it. You cannot load any bomb on it.

I think that, even if this is right that the Go229 was designed from the start as a fighter-bomber, it could simply have been rushed out in operations in fighter only mode first, being added the ordonnance capacity later, as the Me262 was.

This is a plane for which only 1 exemplary was actually flown, for 2 hours as the Wikipedia is saying (not the most reliable source about planes). So anything that can be written about it is from the "what if" / "suppositions" domain. So I believe that it is credible that the WiF game put it as a fighter only plane. Fighter-bomber version could have been developped thereafter, with less air to air factor and more tactical factors.

About the 13 air to air factor, I do not think that it is ridiculously high.

The best Me262 is at 12, and the designer simply believed that the Go229 was +1 compared to the Me262. +1 is not ridiculously high.

As a comparison, the Mig-15 & Grumman F9F Panther are rated at 15 on the PatiF / AiF countersheets, and the North American P-51H Mustangs are rated at 10.

quote:

Both clearly indicate that the aircraft was designed for bombing. It took time to develop the Me-262 as a fast bomber because it was originally designed as a fighter. The Go 229 was developed as a fighter-bomber from the outset, which radically simplifies the process as the aircraft's structure is already stressed for external loads.

quote:

If you don't like Wikipedia I can provide plenty of other sources for the Go 229 being designed with a bombing capability.

quote:

Maybe the ADG's designers made the Go229 a pure fighter because they thought the first version might have been a pure fighter (It is a 1946 aircraft).

quote:

Well, they would be wrong. The first versions were going to be fighter-bombers. Gotha was building them when their factory was overrun in April 1945.

quote:

That's why I believe that chances are high that the first operationnal versions would have been pure fighters, because the Luftwaffe was in dire needs of pure interceptors to fight the devastating US bombings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Is this the V-2 who flew 2 hours, being destroyed by an engine failure at landing ?
Difficult to identify this bird from that view.

quote:

An aircraft stable enough to be an effective fighter is stable enough to deliver bombs and rockets. On what basis do you say otherwise? I have demonstrated that the Go 229 wouldn't have made a very good interceptor so why would the Luftwaffe ignore its bomber potential?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

An aircraft stable enough to be an effective fighter is stable enough to deliver bombs and rockets. On what basis do you say otherwise? I have demonstrated that the Go 229 wouldn't have made a very good interceptor so why would the Luftwaffe ignore its bomber potential?

To be a good interceptor it should be stable at high speed, because high speed is his better characteristic. This plane could have approached the B-17 boxes with such a speed that manualy aimed guns would be near useless against it.
To be a good bomber, it would need to be stable at (relatively) low speed, and I doubt that this flying wing design plane, with such poorly reliable engines, would have been reliable at low speed low heigth enough to be a good fighter-bomber. It would need lots of months of testing and improvements for this to happen.
See the time it took Northrop to develop flying wings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klingon

Yep... I read the designer's notes from Federation and Empire (a Star Trek strategic game) and simiar issues arose. One class of ship was say 6 points, and another, clearly better one was 7 points,... but then they had the refit of the original ship, wich was clearly better than the original, but also clearly inferior to the second ship... so they had to just decide what it was going to be, and end the debate, and the players would just have to understand that.

quote:

why the Russian is Isolated (red supply status). Nor do I understand why the Poles (and Brazilian!) are merely out of supply. I'm gonna have to read through the code for determining supply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

The mk5 spit was the most produced spit of all models,but was slower {369 mph most mk5s } and had a lower climb rate than the luftwaffe pair both could dive away from the spit allmost at will. FW190a,BF109f/g in just about every war game ever made this over rated plane gets a pat on the back hey but they did fix the carby so they could dive and not stall.

But the winners write history and the loses get lost in it.

there is a hurricane x11 with a 6 rating when they came out they were no longer used in front line sevice as a fighter. rating night mare
spit mk5 rates 6 more like 5 use a mk8 for a 6 rating if you must at least i can keep my lunch down.

BF109f rates 5/6 fine
BF109g1 rates 5 dreaming try 6 or change model to the bomber attack type g6
fw190a rates 6 7 would be more like it was the best fighter in the world for more than 2 years.

The germans lost the control of the air because they were out numbered 10 to 1 not because
of better allied types for the most part.
there is a list of planes with ratings that suck a bit.
D520S 5 to high 4
PZL p24 4 to high 3
good to see that i can change the ratings my self hope it is user friendly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

There are a few air units which have the same designation and different combat power.

You see this with Italian lend-lease as well in the german force pool. (the one I've inspected most closely ;)

So you see planes with designations of 5's and 6's with the same model. The factor that you may not be taking into consideration is that not all air formations performed up to their full effectiveness. Some wings overperformed, some underperformed - consistently.

The first 2 Fw-190's that germany can build are a 6 and a 7 pt ftr both with a range of 6 (exceptional for german aircraft). These planes come so early they become pivotal over your usual russian campaign. A 7 pt ftr is VERY powerful in 1942, particularly when the majority of ftrs backing it up are mostly 6 with some 5 pointers. The Russians get shredded unless they do one or both of two things.
1) get lucky on air-to-air combat (insane russian comrades with their 4 pt leading fighter)
2) withdraw out of enemy ftr coverage and toward your own.

With luck some air-to-air parity will occur in '42 for the russians. Otherwise completely outclassed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

User friendly? No.

But not right user hostile either. Here is a sample.

627,51,76,Spitfire I,Spitfire+I,1938,0,5,0,0,0,0,3,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
628,51,76,Spitfire I,Spitfire+I,1938,0,5,0,0,0,0,3,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
629,51,76,Spitfire II,Spitfire+II,1940,0,6,0,0,0,0,3,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
630,51,76,Spitfire IX,Spitfire+IX,1942,0,7,0,0,2,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
631,51,76,Spitfire IX,Spitfire+IX,1943,0,8,0,0,2,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
632,51,76,Spitfire IX,Spitfire+IX,1943,0,8,0,0,1,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
633,51,76,Spitfire VB,Spitfire+VB,1941,0,6,0,0,2,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
634,51,76,Spitfire VB,Spitfire+VB,1941,0,6,0,0,1,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
635,51,76,Spitfire VC,Spitfire+VC,1942,0,7,0,0,1,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
636,51,76,Spitfire VIII,Spitfire+VIII,1943,0,7,0,0,3,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
637,51,76,Spitfire XIV,Spitfire+XIV,1944,0,9,0,0,2,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
638,51,76,Spitfire XIV,Spitfire+XIV,1944,0,9,0,0,1,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
639,51,76,Spitfire XVI,Spitfire+XVI,1945,0,8,0,0,3,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,

Unit #
51 is the code for fighters
76 is the code for United Kingdom
2nd name is for how it should be fragmented for display on the counter
Year available
Obscure binary variable
The numbers are want you want to change:
- air-to-air strength,
- air-to-sea strength,
- air-to-sea type (normal, pink, or red),
- tactical strength,
- strategic strength,
- range,

More obscure binary variables: extended range, twin engine, night, tank buster, etc.