Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

F-5A Lightning

 
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 >> F-5A Lightning Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
F-5A Lightning - 7/25/2007 2:05:19 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
I am in mid-Feb '42 using CHS and have gotten a squadron of these F-5's. I notice their ceiling is 40,000.

What is the highest altitude a Japanese fighter can reach in '42??

These recon guys should be able to fly over anywhere with impunity (as long as they have good quality control on their oxygen masks).

_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/25/2007 2:29:13 AM   
KDonovan


Posts: 1157
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
altitude doesn't matter with recon planes.....my routinely fly above japanese fighter ceilings, and they still get shot down

_____________________________


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 2
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/25/2007 4:43:03 AM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I am in mid-Feb '42 using CHS and have gotten a squadron of these F-5's. I notice their ceiling is 40,000.

What is the highest altitude a Japanese fighter can reach in '42??

These recon guys should be able to fly over anywhere with impunity (as long as they have good quality control on their oxygen masks).

I tend to leave mine on default 20k . don't know why really , one of the mysteries of WITP engine , and i lose very very few

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 3
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/25/2007 1:50:34 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

altitude doesn't matter with recon planes.....my routinely fly above japanese fighter ceilings, and they still get shot down


Yes - ditto...

(in reply to KDonovan)
Post #: 4
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/25/2007 4:06:09 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

altitude doesn't matter with recon planes.....my routinely fly above japanese fighter ceilings, and they still get shot down


Is it possible that the game is moving the planes down to take the pictures? Similar to the attack altitude of DBs and TBs?

In other words, they might fly to the target at 40K, but then they descend to <30K to take pictures before leaving?

What altitude did F-5 snap pictures at in real life?



_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to KDonovan)
Post #: 5
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/25/2007 4:11:37 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait


quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

altitude doesn't matter with recon planes.....my routinely fly above japanese fighter ceilings, and they still get shot down


Is it possible that the game is moving the planes down to take the pictures? Similar to the attack altitude of DBs and TBs?

In other words, they might fly to the target at 40K, but then they descend to <30K to take pictures before leaving?

What altitude did F-5 snap pictures at in real life?




From tree-top level to maximum altitude, iirc. It depends what they were ordered to do, and that depended on what people were looking for.

(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 6
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/25/2007 5:30:21 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
The F-5 is a God send to the Allies. I fly mine between 20k and 25k. Lower my losses are too great, higher the results aren't as good.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 7
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/25/2007 5:32:53 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
But do detection levels rise at lower set altitides, or should I not worry about that?

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 8
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/25/2007 5:38:45 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

But do detection levels rise at lower set altitides, or should I not worry about that?

I'm not sure that this is actually known for certain. The manual says nothing about altitude having an effect on Recon. However, the general conscensus around here is that it probably does....is that sufficiently vague?

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 9
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/25/2007 6:28:42 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

But do detection levels rise at lower set altitides, or should I not worry about that?

I'm not sure that this is actually known for certain. The manual says nothing about altitude having an effect on Recon. However, the general conscensus around here is that it probably does....is that sufficiently vague?



i thought it said in the manual (and it HAS been said on the forum) that recce is worse the higher you go - you get fewer details, so i ASSUME that DL goes down.

High altitude has advantage of spotting MORE units (supposedly) - esp. in naval search, but info you get on each unit is less.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 10
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/25/2007 6:30:37 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
I just checked the manual before making that post, granted I'm at work and read throug it fast, but I didn't see anything under the section of recon aircraft.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 11
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/25/2007 10:51:16 PM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
I don't think anyone has tested Recon altitudes.  Given that DL is a "hidden" factor, I'm not even sure how anyone could.  So everything here is just speculation, guesses and "I think it should work this way so I'm going to assume it does".

As for F-5As getting shot down when flying higher than Japanese fighters can fly, the most likely explanation is that the programmers just didn't put a max altitude check in to that part of the program.

Actually, now that you've got me thinking about it, has anyone tested that aircraft can not climb above their max altitude in combat?  I know you can't set their altitude higher than the fighter's max in the unit screen, but will the program have them climb above that when intercepting enemy aircraft?

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 12
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/26/2007 1:47:13 AM   
RUPD3658


Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline
They will. In early 42 I decided to get cute at Noeuma and fly a Betty strike against the air base at a higher altitude than the defending P-39s could fly. Well, they flew high enough anyway and shredded the Bettys.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke


(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 13
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/26/2007 7:24:23 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
I believe that would now be item #12,859 on the list of things to fix then.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to RUPD3658)
Post #: 14
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/26/2007 7:49:03 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

But do detection levels rise at lower set altitides, or should I not worry about that?


Yes. The lower you fly, the better the info you get more quickly. The con is the lower you fly the more likely you'll get tagged by enemy flak. A2A interception is largely a chance affair and altitude doesn't really impact it a whole lot.




_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 15
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/28/2007 12:26:07 PM   
FeurerKrieg


Posts: 3397
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline
That's odd - when I did this (30K alt Betty strike on Noumea) a message came up in the combat window that was something like 'Bombers to high for ### to intercept' where ### was the name of the fighter squadron.


quote:

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

They will. In early 42 I decided to get cute at Noeuma and fly a Betty strike against the air base at a higher altitude than the defending P-39s could fly. Well, they flew high enough anyway and shredded the Bettys.



_____________________________


Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net, copyright John Meeks

(in reply to RUPD3658)
Post #: 16
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/28/2007 9:02:57 PM   
RUPD3658


Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline
This was in a stock game before the last patch

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke


(in reply to FeurerKrieg)
Post #: 17
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/28/2007 10:15:16 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
Some time ago, players were jumping and down and screaming when fighters couldn't intercept bombers flying 50 FEET above them (or at least 50 feet above their maximum altitude).

i haven't seen this lately, so i guess it must have been patched... i guess fighters theoretically could shoot at bombers some distance above them, and probably the game has been patched to reflect this. How FAR above them is an open question.

i've lost many F-5s that were flying well above the maximum CAP altitude (in prior games)... i always rationalize it that the plane had some sort of mechanical problem during its mission that did not allow it to fly to its max alt, and so got intercepted and shot down.

(in reply to RUPD3658)
Post #: 18
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/29/2007 1:35:43 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
Well, look at it this way. If you are flying at your maximum altitude and an enemy plane is 50 feet above you, HOW are you going to shoot at it? You nose up to bring guns to bear and you immedately stall and go spinning down. I suppose a Defiant or some other type with a turret could, but your run of the mill fighter types certainly couldnt.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 19
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/29/2007 1:53:02 PM   
tabpub


Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline
First, a "max altitude" is kind of a range.....I mean, you don't really konk out at an exact altimeter setting. And most degrade in performance as they near this "max" in RL.
So, I would not have a problem with some air to air in this instance.

2nd, I fly my F5A and C at max over most recon missions and don't seem to have any unusual loss rate on these types; and it mostly seems operational in nature when I lose one.

_____________________________

Sing to the tune of "Man on the Flying Trapeze"
..Oh! We fly o'er the treetops with inches to spare,
There's smoke in the cockpit and gray in my hair.
The tracers look fine as a strafin' we go.
But, brother, we're TOO God damn low...

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 20
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/29/2007 8:18:21 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tabpub

First, a "max altitude" is kind of a range.....I mean, you don't really konk out at an exact altimeter setting. And most degrade in performance as they near this "max" in RL.
So, I would not have a problem with some air to air in this instance.



Exactly... plus, even at altitude, you could probably pitch your nose up for a second or so (and then you'd start to stall, but you could get some rounds off.)

(in reply to tabpub)
Post #: 21
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/30/2007 6:09:30 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
At those altitudes, the settings in the game are in 1,000' increments.  So, at best, by shooting directly vertical a defending fighter would be shooting at a target at 1,000' range.  Since in reality that effectively never happened (planes flying perfectly vertically up), we're talking about fighters firing at some kind of upward angle.  Let's assume its a 45 degree angle, that would mean that the range from the fighter to the bomber is at least 1,400'.  What kind of range did WWII fighters have?

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 22
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/30/2007 11:12:47 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

At those altitudes, the settings in the game are in 1,000' increments.  So, at best, by shooting directly vertical a defending fighter would be shooting at a target at 1,000' range.  Since in reality that effectively never happened (planes flying perfectly vertically up), we're talking about fighters firing at some kind of upward angle.  Let's assume its a 45 degree angle, that would mean that the range from the fighter to the bomber is at least 1,400'.  What kind of range did WWII fighters have?


Fact is stranger than fiction. There actually is a documented case of exactly this happening.


quote:



Shot Down From Nowhere

Hans-Arnold Stahlschmidt was one of JG 27's most successful fighter pilots with 59 victories, all of them achieved in North Africa. Twice he returned from behind the lines. The first occasion was on 21st February 1942 when he was shot down by the Australian ace Clive Caldwell, then flying Kittyhawks with 112 Squadron RAF. Caldwell, the most successful Allied pilot in the Middle East, was credited with 20 1/2 victories before being posted to the Pacific for further duty.

Stahlschmidt tells his own story of what happened that day in early 1942:

We started off with our six aircraft for Acroma and had reached it at a height of 4,500 metres. Homuth was leading the unit, Marseille was heading a Rotte with Feldwebel Keppler and I flying cover. I was using the adjutant's aircraft in which I had already flown over 100 missions. It was pretty old and tired and very slow but I kept using it because
it was reliable.

Suddenly, a flight of Curtiss P-40s approached us. Homuth pulled up, turning to the left and started to climb over the enemy aircraft. I climbed also but not as quickly. In any case I wanted to have a closer look at the Curtiss fighters. Soon I was well behind. The situation was quite clear to me. I saw the P-40s climbing behind us about 300 metres below.

There did not seem to be any danger from them but my comrades were much higher so I tried to cut their curve. Keppler passed me easily on the outside with his faster aircraft. I now saw the Curtiss fighters 300 metres directly below. I counted eleven of them. I was quite content and even hummed a little song which I sometimes still remember. I continued
climbing, unsuspecting of any danger.

Suddenly there was a frightful banging noise and my whole aircraft vibrated. It felt like cannon strikes! Nothing like that had ever happened before. Damn! Someone had opened up on me from behind and I hadn't even seen him. Shame on me!

From then on everything happened horribly quickly. I realised I had many serious hits from heavy armament, therefore it had to be one of the new Kittyhawks. It looked as if I was finished. My Messerschmitt was turning around uncontrollably, gasolene was pouring into the cockpit, smoke was everywhere and I found myself in a crazy inverted spin. I spun down through the British fighters and heard over the radio, "Which idiot let himself get
shot down?" It was Homuth calling.


<snip> (Deleted quite an interesting yarn here due lack of space on how Hans-Arnold escaped from behind enemy lines)

By six o'clock that evening I was back at Martuba and presented myself to Hauptmann Holmuth.

I now discovered what had happened. One of the leading Kittyhawks had suddenly pulled up into a vertical position, hung briefly on its propeller and fired just one burst. Homuth and Marseille both said it was a fabulous shot. They had no time to watch me, for soon they were mixed up in a dogfight during which Marseille shot down two Kittyhawks and Homuth one. Homuth reported me as killed. After seeming me go down they assumed I had been hit in the cockpit.


Caldwell later said that Stahlschmidt's aircraft, before spinning down, "shuddered like a carpet being whacked with a beater". Sqn Ldr Bobby Gibbes, another Australian fighter pilot who was leading No 3 Squadron RAAF on the same mission, also witnessed Caldwell's ambitious attack and admitted to his leader, "I saw what you were trying to do but never thought you could do it." Both pilots naturally assumed that the Messerschmitt had crashed behind British lines, but now the complete story can be told.

Ref: Planes Of the Luftwaffe Fighter Aces. Vol 2. Bernd Barbas. Kookaburra Technicial Publications, Melbourne 1985. ISBN 0 85880 050 0







_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 23
RE: F-5A Lightning - 7/30/2007 3:31:17 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

At those altitudes, the settings in the game are in 1,000' increments. So, at best, by shooting directly vertical a defending fighter would be shooting at a target at 1,000' range. Since in reality that effectively never happened (planes flying perfectly vertically up), we're talking about fighters firing at some kind of upward angle. Let's assume its a 45 degree angle, that would mean that the range from the fighter to the bomber is at least 1,400'. What kind of range did WWII fighters have?


Not all increments are in 1000' intervals - at the top and the bottom of the altitudes they don't go by 1000' - i.e. strafing at 100', torpedoes at 200'... similarly, at max altitude you are talking (on occasion) differences of 50' as mentioned before. So, now we are talking ranges of 70 feet, not 1400.

i suspect that the game engine has some "slop factor" built into it now to allow for such things (it didn't before - as i have mentioned, players were quite irate about bombers flying 50' over their fighters).

Also, i have the suspicion (but no definite evidence) that you can have aircraft with operational damage on a mission. IE - your airplane is fine when you take off - the game engine does a die roll and suffers some operational damage. Pilot decides to continue on mission (note analagous situation of flak-damaged aircraft always continue to bomb).

Normally, if there is no opposition, the pilot will complete the mission, return to base and land - and plane will have some damage.

However, suppose the "operationally damaged" aircraft instead meets up with a fighter over the recon target. The plane is much more likely to be shot down (i.e.- a recon plane with some engine trouble is intercepted - the plane is unlikely to be able to fly at max altitude, and so now can be effectively intercepted.)

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 24
RE: F-5A Lightning - 8/2/2007 11:44:32 AM   
FeurerKrieg


Posts: 3397
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

This was in a stock game before the last patch


I'm on the latest patch - this was Betty's (30K) flying over P-40Es (29K IIRC) and I got the message about fighters not being able to intercept.

Short lived it was though... my opponent put some P-40B's on cap and they have something around 32K ceiling so they knocked down a half a dozen betty's on my next flight.

_____________________________


Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net, copyright John Meeks

(in reply to RUPD3658)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> F-5A Lightning Page: [1]
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

1.406