RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

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: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Page: << < prev 62 63 [64] 65 66 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 6/21/2010 2:00:14 PM

Iron Duke

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

Air group - slot 3131 - 80th Sqn RAAF renames to 440930 on 30th sept 1944 (440930)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 1891

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 7/16/2010 9:34:13 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Guess this has been discussed before but I'd just like to add my opinion to the fact that it's not possible to perform fighter sweeps over friendly bases.
- In my opinion it should be possible to sweep any hex on the map.

Any potential misuse of this option should be regulated through house rules.
That sweeps seems a bit too effective is another matter.

A few other questions I've noted;

Guess it's outside the boundaries of the code to include options like evasive action against enemy fighters and offensive actions against bombers!?

I also find air combat still be too bloody, in real life it was very rare that formations of 20-50 bombers were wiped out by 20-50 fighters.
- It was also very rare that bomber formations continued to contested targets if their fighter escorts didn't show up; which happens very often i AE despite escorting out of the same base.
The option of ordering bombers to turn back if escorts don't show is sorely missed.

I was also looking forward to see small packets of bombers slip through enemy CAP more often; this is not the case after much gameplay.
If there are 50 fighters on CAP they wipe out 99% of any bomber formation of 30 ac or less (from the Jap point of view).
- Suggest that there should be a random chance based upon e.g. strike size, strike altitude, weather, pilot skill and radar type and year regarding whether parts of a bomber strike manage
to bypass CAP. In early war radar mistakes and mailfunctions should also be quite high, especially in poor weather. In 42 Allied radar constantly reports most Jap strikes at 35-55 miles range and
allows ALL CAP fighters on standby to scramble and intercept.

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to Iron Duke)

Post #: 1892

Radar - 7/17/2010 6:44:18 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB
In early war radar mistakes and mailfunctions should also be quite high, especially in poor weather. In 42 Allied radar constantly reports most Jap strikes at 35-55 miles range and
allows ALL CAP fighters on standby to scramble and intercept.

The weather effect on radar ... is this modeled?

In any case, I agree that it appears that the allied radar in '42 does need to be toned down. Not the range, but simply the probability. The sets were cranky, spare parts tough to come by, techs even tougher to find ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1893

RE: Radar - 7/17/2010 5:37:16 PM

Califvol

Posts: 135
Joined: 11/8/2002
From: The Land of Yore
Status: offline

I just saw I posted my orignal post in the wrong thread over at Tech Support Forum when it belongs here. So, please let me repeat it.

US Float Planes

I notice that the production for the Seamew appears "light" as there were over 700 made and production did not end until Jan '44. (Of course this was a universally loathed plane, but issued to the fleet never the less)

http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/curtiss_model82.php

This is 2 for 1 production over the Seagull that only had 322 produced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOC_Seagull

And the SC-1 Seahawk is not even in the game and yet there were near 600 of them made as a replacement for the Seamew (which in its turn was suppose to replace the Kingfisher). The Seahawk was well recived by the fleet in Oct. 1944 and was the last of the US float planes produced for ship catapult use in my readings. (Note it had a far less range than the Seamew, but was a much better flier)

http://plane.spottingworld.com/SC_Seahawk

Because the Seamew is "light" in production and because the SC-1 isn't in the game, the net result is that the US goes out of manufacturing float planes for ship use as of Nov 44 when the Kingfisher ends prodution.

This is a great game and I understand that a cut has to be made somewhere on aircraft. I also am not an expert on float planes and am a victim of what limited readings I have done, so my data may be suspect. But, is it game design intent that there be no US Float Plane being produced/supplied to the fleet after Nov '44 when the Kingfisher goes out of production?

Or have I totally misread the situation and in game the US is still producing a float plane for ship use after Nov '44?

Thanks for any response.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 1894

G5N & G8N heavy bombers - 8/3/2010 7:36:51 PM

Gormadoc

Posts: 31
Joined: 3/18/2008
Status: offline

HI, iam a newcomer to this game so parden me for any stupid questions.

I was wondering why these two airplanes are not added to game?

Both are 4 engine long ranged heavy bomber designs.

Nakajima G5N Shinzan codenamed LIZ by allies, first flight april 1941. (The few actually built where used as transports)
Nakajima G8N Renzan codenamed RITA by allies, only very few built by mid 1945, when allied bombing effectively ended development.

There are several other japanese prototype planes included, if war had gone differently, one could assume the G8N would have made it into real production.

A few links for these airplanes:
http://www.savagesquadron.com/JPpage/JPBombers/Na_G5N1.htm
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=469

< Message edited by Gormadoc -- 8/3/2010 9:54:06 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Califvol)

Post #: 1895

RE: Radar - 8/3/2010 7:54:19 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Can't speak as a developer but not many 'what if?' planes were included. Actually, I can't think of any. In effect the G5 and G8 were experimental planes. Besides the vast amount of resources that they would use if put in production, they would also represent a major shift in IJNAF/IJAAAF thinking from airplane design, air force composition and role from a tactical emphasis to a strategic one. Not likely with rl officers in charge of such decisions.

I think one of the mods has them (although I might be thinking back to WitP days).

Having read the links that you supplied, they offer good explanations for why it was doubtful that either aircraft would have ever entered operational service.

< Message edited by anarchyintheuk -- 8/3/2010 8:01:22 PM >

(in reply to Gormadoc)

Post #: 1896

G5N & G8N heavy bombers - 8/3/2010 9:14:40 PM

Gormadoc

Posts: 31
Joined: 3/18/2008
Status: offline

There are several other airplanes included that never did enter production.

Example of this:
S1A1 Denko, no prototypes where ever finished, the two they where working on where destroyed in bombing raids.
Ki-94-II , only one prototype built but war ended before it was flown.

Both the two i mention above, had several prototypes completed and both airplane types where flight tested.

EDIT: The Ki-119 never left the drawing board, under assumption that source below are correct.

Quote: it was initially planned that the first flight would take place in September 1945, but most of the drawings were destroyed during air attacks on the Kagamigahara plant in June 1945. Despite this setback, Kawasaki stroved to complete a new set of drawings and it was hoped that the first prototype would be ready in November 1945 but the Japanese surrender halted further work.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=32870

< Message edited by Gormadoc -- 8/3/2010 9:54:59 PM >

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 1897

RE: Radar - 8/3/2010 9:41:19 PM

invernomuto

Posts: 986
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

I think one of the mods has them (although I might be thinking back to WitP days).

Having read the links that you supplied, they offer good explanations for why it was doubtful that either aircraft would have ever entered operational service.

CHS mod for WITP has the Liz. Only 2 or 3 betty squadrons could upgrade to Liz, so the "balance" of the game was preserved IMHO.
Hope to see a mod for AE that include thos bombers.

_____________________________

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 1898

RE: G5N & G8N heavy bombers - 8/3/2010 10:13:08 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gormadoc

There are several other airplanes included that never did enter production.

Example of this:
S1A1 Denko, no prototypes where ever finished, the two they where working on where destroyed in bombing raids.
Ki-94-II , only one prototype built but war ended before it was flown.

Both the two i mention above, had several prototypes completed and both airplane types where flight tested.

EDIT: The Ki-119 never left the drawing board, under assumption that source below are correct.

Quote: it was initially planned that the first flight would take place in September 1945, but most of the drawings were destroyed during air attacks on the Kagamigahara plant in June 1945. Despite this setback, Kawasaki stroved to complete a new set of drawings and it was hoped that the first prototype would be ready in November 1945 but the Japanese surrender halted further work.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=32870

The game goes past 8/45. A plane design stopped from production or going in service by the rl end of the war is in a bit of a different category than a plane design cancelled during the war. Imo the former is a valid 'what if?' the latter is not.

It's just my opinion why the G5 and G8 were not included, I'm not one of the developers.

(in reply to Gormadoc)

Post #: 1899

RE: Radar - 8/3/2010 10:14:09 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

I think one of the mods has them (although I might be thinking back to WitP days).

Having read the links that you supplied, they offer good explanations for why it was doubtful that either aircraft would have ever entered operational service.

CHS mod for WITP has the Liz. Only 2 or 3 betty squadrons could upgrade to Liz, so the "balance" of the game was preserved IMHO.
Hope to see a mod for AE that include thos bombers.

Thanks. Glad to see some of my memory is still operational.

(in reply to invernomuto)

Post #: 1900

RE: Radar - 8/21/2010 8:27:04 AM

Gormadoc

Posts: 31
Joined: 3/18/2008
Status: offline

Can anyone get even close to the same numbers of aircrafts destroyed in a Pearl Harbour attack compared to realworld attack.

Sofar my best attemp where 55 airplanes destroyed on ground according to combat report. That where with all airgroups attacking airfields.

Loading up the Allies, revealed they had total aircraft available on PH to be 247, with 136 rdy and 106 not rdy and 5 in reserve compared to
317 available, 227 rdy and 72 not rdy and 18 in reserve before PH attack.

Results in real attack where around 160-180 destroyed planes and around 100 damaged.

Perhaps increasing damage done to airplanes on ground in morning attack, if 7th december surprise is set to on, would be preferable?

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 1901

RE: Radar - 8/21/2010 9:34:00 AM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Do u play historic first turn or not?
I would assume u dont since u set all the planes to attack.

Reason i ask is i that did some tests on PH attacks some time after the game came out and unless some thing has changed and it might. Spurred on by a gut feeling.
I found a noteable difference in the damage done to ships and planes, depending on whether u play historic or non historic first turn. Even if u attack with exactly same settings, targets, attacking hex and so on.
I did the test as i recall 40 times on each setting. Each time closing the program to avoid distortions from the random generator. The average damage was notable different. On average approx 1.5 BB sunk more in historic then non historic turns. Overall damage shipping as well as plane damage was on average higher too. Average damage to ship was even higher in historic than non historic with all planes on port strikes. Tho i didnt test that very many times.

As well as the lost jap planes was markedly different. On average many more in non historic than historic turns.
Possibly explaining some of the damage difference as strikes "seemed more disrupted".

I can give no logical explanation for this only observe and notice it. My gut feeling in playing the game since is thats it hasnt changed, but i havent done any test to confirm that.
The non historic turns results was closer to the damage in the real attack if u want to make that comparison, btw. In as reference to damaged and sunken ships.

I might suggest to try and see what results u get by doing historic turns. Remember to close the program totally after each test. As apparently the random generator numbers might carry over from each started scn to next if u dont. Destroying the credibility of the statiscal factor in the tests. As per advice of Treespider.

Hope it helps,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/21/2010 4:03:44 PM >

(in reply to Gormadoc)

Post #: 1902

RE: Radar - 8/22/2010 1:03:22 PM

Gormadoc

Posts: 31
Joined: 3/18/2008
Status: offline

I play with 7th December surprise to on and Historical first turn on off, since i want to be able to adjust orders.

Historical first turn should only effect ability to change orders and not effecting combat results according to manual.

7th december surprise should increase damage to airplanes not flying.
With 7th December surprise set to on, i have no trouble to get a "historical" result with Port attack on PH.
Setting all airplanes to attack will regular result in a better result against ship than historical.
However its quite impossible to get a "historical result" against airbases, even by fully focussing initial attacks against airbases and ignore port attack.

Will try to set Historical first turn to on and compare results.

If that changes outcome significantly it would be appropiate to adjust manual so new players would be made aware that Historical First turn also effect combat results on first turn.

In any event thx for the reply.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 1903

RE: Radar - 8/22/2010 1:20:26 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

All my tests was ofc with surprise on in both cases.

I agree with what u say, as to how its players are lead to be belive its suppose to function and most likely how its intended. Its just my experience it doesnt.
Any how let us know what u find out. Would be interresting either way to see what results others might get from tests.
Especially interesting would be the results from all planes on airfield attack vs historic that has far from that.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/22/2010 2:44:05 PM >

(in reply to Gormadoc)

Post #: 1904

RE: Radar - 8/22/2010 2:39:35 PM

Gormadoc

Posts: 31
Joined: 3/18/2008
Status: offline

Think you are correct.

A few test results, all test where done without changing orders in the test which had historical turn set to off.
Significantly higher casualties for allies with Historical first turn set to on compared to off, wich confirms the results you got.
two tests are ofcourse low, but since they confirm the result from a much larger amount of test, that you had already done, I dont think it is necesary with more test to conclude that Historical first turn also adds to damage.

Historical First Turn on, 7th December surprise on:

Airplanes flying
126 Val
144 Kate
68 Zero

58 planes destroyed on ground - acc. combat report

loading allies After attack.
243 total
141 rdy
95 not rdy
7 reserve
1 BB sunk medium damage to rest.

Airplanes flying
126 Val
144 Kate
68 Zero

65 planes destroyed on ground - acc. combat report

loading allies After attack.
242 total
149 rdy
80 not rdy
13 reserve
3 BB Sunk heavy damage to two others.

Historical first turn off, 7th december surprise on:
Airplanes flying
126 Val
144 Kate
68 Zero

37 planes destroyed on ground - acc. combat report

loading allies After attack.
274 total
161 rdy
104 not rdy
9 reserve
1 BB sunk medium damage to rest.

Airplanes flying
126 Val
144 Kate
68 Zero

40 planes destroyed on ground - acc. combat report

loading allies After attack.
271 total
159 rdy
109 not rdy
3 reserve
1 BB sunk medium damage to rest.

Historical 1 turn off & 7th December surprise off 1:
Airplanes flying
126 Val
144 Kate (only 143 reached PH)
68 Zero

0 BB sunk, 1 BB medium damaged, rest minor damage.
15 planes destroyed on ground - acc. combat report

loading allies After attack.
261 total
193 rdy
67 not rdy
0 reserve

Lotts of allied airplanes where lost on attacks on Jap carrier fleet, which explains the same total number of airplanes.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 1905

RE: Radar - 8/22/2010 3:09:56 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Thx for the report. Interesting question is ofc, why?
I dont think its intended, as u say its not what ppl gather from reading the manual.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

(in reply to Gormadoc)

Post #: 1906

Question on Air HQ's - 8/24/2010 2:22:35 AM

Cad908

Posts: 1333
Joined: 10/9/2009
Status: offline

A question came up in the war room about the actual role of Air HQ's.

Could I get a dev to answer these two questions?

Background: Base is Naga on Luzon. At the base is the V US Bomber Command. I have moved some air groups in to begin operations. Note: some are attached to V US Bomber Command, some to Fifth USAAF and others II US Fighter Command.

I would always spend the Political Points and attach all the groups to the V US Bomber Command as that is the ONLY Air HQ within command range in that the groups will activate and coordinate better by being in the range of the Air HQ it is attached to. Other players argue that as long as there is a HQ within command range, it does not matter, therefore I am wasting Political Points.

Questions:

1. Are the groups able to get better activation chances by being in the command range of the Air HQ it is ATTACHED to, or does it not matter?

2. Are the groups more likely to coordinate by being in the command range of the Air HQ it is ATTACHED to, or does it not matter?

Thank you

Attachment (1)

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 1907

RE: Question on Air HQ's - 9/1/2010 10:06:49 AM

henhute6

Posts: 100
Joined: 1/8/2002
From: Tehran
Status: offline

I played War in pacific a lot in 2001-2003 and allied code names for japanese fighters were deleted in latest version. I would like to see that also in admiral's edition. It's strange to see "Oscar" when it should be Hayabusa and "Tony" when it should be Hien.

Also metric system would be great in air combat.

(in reply to Cad908)

Post #: 1908

RE: Question on Air HQ's - 9/1/2010 10:12:37 AM

n01487477

Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: henhute6

I played War in pacific a lot in 2001-2003 and allied code names for japanese fighters were deleted in latest version. I would like to see that also in admiral's edition. It's strange to see "Oscar" when it should be Hayabusa and "Tony" when it should be Hien.

You can do this yourself via the editor

quote:

Also metric system would be great in air combat.

While I come from an "enlightened metric society" too ... what you are asking is for a complete code base change ... doubt that will ever happen ... Not that I know but back in the 40's metric probably wasn't used for altitudes in planes anyway ... Are they used today ?

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to henhute6)

Post #: 1909

RE: Question on Air HQ's - 9/1/2010 11:53:20 AM

henhute6

Posts: 100
Joined: 1/8/2002
From: Tehran
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Not that I know but back in the 40's metric probably wasn't used for altitudes in planes anyway ... Are they used today ?

Depends nationality of plane. German and Japanese pilots definitely had their altimeters in metric.

http://www.thunderace.org/images/bf109cockpit.jpg

(in reply to n01487477)

Post #: 1910

RE: Question on Air HQ's - 9/11/2010 2:23:30 AM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

The Lilly Ki-48 II2 payload 200kg? this looks to be in error there payload was 300kg normal for ki-48 I & 400kg max load and for the Ki-48II models 400kg was the normal load..infomation from>.R.J francillon ... ALF?

Tigercub

< Message edited by tigercub -- 9/13/2010 10:40:45 AM >

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to henhute6)

Post #: 1911

RE: Question on Air HQ's - 9/15/2010 10:07:31 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

The USN SB2C-5 (slot 484) has no radar, but all previous models of the SB2C do have radar. Is this correct or an oversight?

EDIT to add: I've looked around and I have not seen any reference to radar being deleted in the -5, only fuel capacity being added. So, I presume this is an error and should have the same radar as the previous model.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 9/17/2010 12:27:48 AM >

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 1912

Hurricane IV data - 9/26/2010 5:00:08 AM

Reg

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

Ive just been going through the aircraft data in the editor to ensure I have the right rotating art associated with aircraft types.

However I noticed that the Hurricane IV armament is totally incorrect in Scenario 1. The editor shows this aircraft fitted with 4x Device 168 (20mm Hispano Cannon) and 2x Device 203 (500lb GP Bomb).

In reality the Hurricane IV had a Universal Wing with hard points for 2x Vickers 40mm Cannon (similar to the Hurricane IId) or 2x 500lb Bombs or 8x 3" Rockets or 2x fuel tanks (or combination thereof) plus a pair of permanent wing mounted 0.303 machine guns for sighting purposes. It also had significant engine, armour and airframe improvements over the Hurricane IId which I assume have already been included in the aircraft stats.

Would it be possible to get this corrected in a future update please?

Also on this topic is the 3" Rockets which I believe was the main armament option used by this (and many other) aircraft types during the later part of the war. These rockets are currently not included in the game but do you know if there are there any plans to include them as they are a historically significant armament option???

< Message edited by Reg -- 9/26/2010 5:03:04 AM >

_____________________________

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 witpqs)

Post #: 1913

RE: Hurricane IV data - 9/26/2010 9:16:00 AM

latosusi

Posts: 327
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: London/Kuopio
Status: offline

Those 40 mm cannons seem to be totally ineffective in their intented role: tankbusting

(in reply to Reg)

Post #: 1914

RE: Hurricane IV data - 9/26/2010 9:24:17 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

Those 40 mm cannons seem to be totally ineffective in their intented role: tankbusting

As I recall, they were very effective--the top surface of an AFV has particularly thin armour since it's not exposed to direct attack in most tactical situations. It is a major vulnerability when the tank is operating in a 3-D environment.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to latosusi)

Post #: 1915

RE: Hurricane IV data - 9/26/2010 11:15:02 AM

latosusi

Posts: 327
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: London/Kuopio
Status: offline

I attecked jap tank regiment with them for few days, not a single tank lost

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 1916

RE: Hurricane IV data - 9/30/2010 1:27:26 AM

jcjordan

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

I noticed that the Chinese air units 2522-2533 in Karachi come in w/ US nationality pilots assigned to them & the game initially doesn't seem to recognize them as being in the unit even though they are on the pilot roster. IE you may have 8 American pilots asigned to the unit on it's arrival & max pilots is 16 for the unit, you can draw 16 Chinese pilots for a total of 24 pilots but it seems that after running a turn it does set itself straight. So only looks like this situation is only for the 1st day the units arrive.

Also VMF211 (2587) doesn't seem to resize to 24 like all the other VMF units instead it stays at 18 a/c. No163RCAF (3007)doesn't resize to 16 from 12 like the other RCAF fighter units. VMSB241 (2613) doesn't resize to 24 from 18 like the other VSMB units.

58th BS (3634) resizes to US FS size (25 from 16) in Aug 43 but is locked to bombers until the P-38L comes along. Also I don't seem to see a name change for it either or w/d date to become something else from unit tab. IIRC this unit became 531st FBS in Aug 43 using A-24s so should it w/d in late Jul43 to come back in mid Aug43 as 531st FBS w/ A-24's w/ upgrade at that point to P-38's at Pearl?

This is scen 1 of my game started under original release so things may have changed since then.

(in reply to latosusi)

Post #: 1917

RE: Question on Air HQ's - 10/9/2010 7:23:39 PM

Pascal_slith

Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: henhute6

quote:

Also metric system would be great in air combat.

While I come from an "enlightened metric society" too ... what you are asking is for a complete code base change ... doubt that will ever happen ... Not that I know but back in the 40's metric probably wasn't used for altitudes in planes anyway ... Are they used today ?

Aircraft altitudes in air traffic control still use the English system.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

(in reply to n01487477)

Post #: 1918

PBY Catalina ranges - 10/9/2010 7:27:01 PM

Pascal_slith

Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline

Reposted from main forum.

fter extensive sifting of original data on the performance of the PBY Catalina flying boats
(versions -4 through -6A) (see links and references at the end of this post) the endurance
data in the database (lower right of the database screen in the editor) should be as follows
(data for USN, other countries' versions in parentheses):

PBY-4 (sequence is max, extended, normal, max DT, ext DT, normal DT): 2965, 2340, 1950, 0, 0, 0

PBY-5 2850, 2350, 1950, 3350, 2650, 2350 (also RAAF Catalina I, RNZAF, ML-KNIL and RAF Catalina IVA and VI; Soviet PBN-1)

PBY-5A 2790, 1940, 1650, 3300, 2540, 2290 (also RCAF Canso A, RAF Cat IIIA)

PBY-6A 1830, 1250, 980, 2140, 1430, 1140

The Catalina variants in the game have too little range. Yes, this has been a quip of mine for a few years now and I've posted before about it (along with I think a fair number of others).

The Japanese Mavis and Emily should also have longer ranges (I'm working on this too), as should some of the Betty versions.

Sources:

General Dynamics Aircraft and their Predecessors (Putnam's History of Aircraft)

RAAF Performance evaluation documents here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/pby-performance-data-14239.html

(The ww2aircraft.net website has a wealth of performance data on many, many aircraft)

US Navy PBY Catalina Units of the Pacific War (Osprey)

PBY: The Catalina Flying Boat by Roscoe Creed

Flying Cats: The Catalina Aircraft in World War II by Andrew Hendrie

Excellent article from Popular Mechanics of 1943: http://books.google.com/books?id=xdYDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA19&dq=Popular+Mechanics+February+1943+New+Magic+From+Test+Tubes&hl=en&ei=4W6QTNzUDtH2nAeJvPm0DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=2&ved=0CDMQ6wEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=true

US Navy historical center website has data on certain US Navy aircraft of WWII. For Catalina check:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/pby-6a.pdf

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

(in reply to Pascal_slith)

Post #: 1919

RE: PBY Catalina ranges - 10/9/2010 9:04:06 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

One of the problems in most sources is that the numbers quoted are the optimum maximums. Results in the field were usually less than that.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer