Jap "Heavy" bombers

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Jap "Heavy" bombers

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 >> Jap "Heavy" bombers

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/5/2014 10:07:28 AM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

Why were their bomb loads so light in comparison to Allied bombers?

For example, the main Jap bombers in the war, the Helen/Sally, carried 4 x 250kg bombs. Yet the equivalent B25/B26 usually carried double that (8 x 500lb) despite having pretty much the same power/weight ratio as the Jap a/c.....

Post #: 1

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/5/2014 10:16:15 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

I think it may be because the Japanese a/c engines were less powerful as a general rule. IIRC the US/Allies were capable of producing higher quality metal for use in their engines.

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 2

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/5/2014 10:17:15 AM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Why were their bomb loads so light in comparison to Allied bombers?

For example, the main Jap bombers in the war, the Helen/Sally, carried 4 x 250kg bombs. Yet the equivalent B25/B26 usually carried double that (8 x 500lb) despite having pretty much the same power/weight ratio as the Jap a/c.....

I think that (at least in game terms) the Allied planes you cite carried 6 x 500lb, or 50% more. I've only noted the Wellingtons carrying 8 x 500lb.

As to why, I have to let others answers for real, but I can speculate a little...

With the emphasis on range, that might have dictated a lighter load directly, and indirectly dictated a lighter load due to lighter structural design. Again, that's just speculation.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 3

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/5/2014 11:23:58 AM

Erkki

Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Why were their bomb loads so light in comparison to Allied bombers?

For example, the main Jap bombers in the war, the Helen/Sally, carried 4 x 250kg bombs. Yet the equivalent B25/B26 usually carried double that (8 x 500lb) despite having pretty much the same power/weight ratio as the Jap a/c.....

I think that (at least in game terms) the Allied planes you cite carried 6 x 500lb, or 50% more. I've only noted the Wellingtons carrying 8 x 500lb.

As to why, I have to let others answers for real, but I can speculate a little...

With the emphasis on range, that might have dictated a lighter load directly, and indirectly dictated a lighter load due to lighter structural design. Again, that's just speculation.

Allied bombers simply had more bomb bay space(mostly) and they get their full "Wikipedia-payload" for normal range. However they mostly flew with less than the full bomb load to increase range(to actually get to that "normal" range in game) and speed. In this regard the available bomb loads for bombers in game are not very consistent and arguably at least somewhat favour the Allies. I think the worst one off is the Ki-67 that only gets to carry 50% of the listed maximum real life bomb load. Similarly to Allied ones, many Japanese bombers including G4M could carry more bombs, equal to US and British, but would then suffer in range, again similar to Allied planes.

However at least the Ki-49-I in reality did not carry more than 3 x 250kg to its "normal" range while in game it gets the full load of 4 bombs. Possibly the same thing with the entire Ki-21 series, so at least in early war it goes both ways. Martin 139 could also do with a larger bomb load.

edit: what I wanted to say is that Allied planes mostly get their full bomb load with normal range, but Japanese planes mostly get the bomb load they had to carry to get the normal range in the first place, or the typical combat load instead of theoretical or practical maximum load they could take off with. There are exceptions for both sides.

< Message edited by Erkki -- 8/5/2014 12:32:54 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 4

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/5/2014 11:58:48 AM

btd64

Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

Airframe construction, Range to target. I think that has a lot to do with it..

In fact, and I don't know if the game works this way,( Haven't tested it yet) If a B-25 attacks a target 2 hexes away, It should carry the FULL bomb load. If the same aircraft attacks a target near the end of its range, it may only carry a fraction of its normal capacity to be able to reach the target.....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Erkki)

Post #: 5

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/5/2014 12:16:53 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

Airframe construction, Range to target. I think that has a lot to do with it..

In fact, and I don't know if the game works this way,( Haven't tested it yet) If a B-25 attacks a target 2 hexes away, It should carry the FULL bomb load. If the same aircraft attacks a target near the end of its range, it may only carry a fraction of its normal capacity to be able to reach the target.....GP

Game does not work that way. There is no pro-rating of bomb loads in AE. (Yes, I know, it would be nice.)

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 6

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/5/2014 1:20:34 PM

btd64

Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

Airframe construction, Range to target. I think that has a lot to do with it..

In fact, and I don't know if the game works this way,( Haven't tested it yet) If a B-25 attacks a target 2 hexes away, It should carry the FULL bomb load. If the same aircraft attacks a target near the end of its range, it may only carry a fraction of its normal capacity to be able to reach the target.....GP

Game does not work that way. There is no pro-rating of bomb loads in AE. (Yes, I know, it would be nice.)

Oh well. Would bring the game one small step closer to reality. GP

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 7

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/5/2014 5:51:56 PM

Rising-Sun

Posts: 2082
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline

Japanese wanted to push range limit instead, lack of armor, etcs. So that why they have light payloads.

_____________________________

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 8

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/5/2014 6:49:22 PM

wdolson

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

Additionally the Allies also used 100 and 140 octane fuel and Japan was mostly limited to 87 and 92 octane fuel.

Different articles on Wikipedia are written by different people who use different criteria for their details, so while I will say Wikipedia is generally better than some people here give it credit, I also take it with a grain of salt.

The bombs loads were calculated based on data from the same sources for all nations as much as possible. When the air data team had to deviate from those sources, they were very careful to make sure the aircraft data conformed to the same standard. A few small errors crept in, but I don't know of any wholesale errors.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Rising-Sun)

Post #: 9

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/5/2014 6:59:59 PM

Erkki

Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

Higher octane rating does not mean higher power(for a given engine). Palembang also had one of the largest high-octane gasoline refineries in the world, and there were pretty surely more in Japan(that were later bombed).

I think Wikipedia is a pretty good source for checking most stuff but there often seem to be mistakes, contradictions or missing important stuff when it comes to details.

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 10

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/5/2014 9:31:48 PM

Symon

Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

Brother Bill is good with that octane crap. The usual pre-teens whine about hi-octane. The flight tests (TAIC, March, 1945) make it clear they were done with 92 octane, or 87 octane with methane. The usual pre-teen nonsense is just that.

Think some of the IJ bombers should get a push in range. The loadouts are right frikkin perfect, so go frikkin fish. I don't use your wikipoedia. I use the flight test reports from Wright Pat.

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la libert�! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Erkki)

Post #: 11

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/5/2014 9:53:30 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Brother Bill is good with that octane crap. The usual pre-teens whine about hi-octane. The flight tests (TAIC, March, 1945) make it clear they were done with 92 octane, or 87 octane with methane. The usual pre-teen nonsense is just that.

Think some of the IJ bombers should get a push in range. The loadouts are right frikkin perfect, so go frikkin fish. I don't use your wikipoedia. I use the flight test reports from Wright Pat.

Are we saying that fuel quality had no impact on engine performance?

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Symon)

Post #: 12

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/5/2014 11:01:54 PM

Erkki

Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

rustysi: octane rating isn't fuel quality. An engine can be powerful and reliable even if it does not make use of high octane fuel's qualities.

Symon, can we have a post without curses? Also saying that "Oh I used this and that, and made calculations, complicated stuff, I wont be telling you, but the data is fine"(I'm referring to other threads mostly) does not help people understand why the data is now OK or at least better than it used to be, or evaluate it or the thought process behind it.

And I never even stated what my sources are.

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 13

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/5/2014 11:31:17 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

Japanese metallurgy was not as good as US. Neither was Soviet for that matter. When they got their hands on a B-29 that landed in their territory in distress, they reverse engineered it and built some of their own. They were inferior to the real thing for that reason, but were still estimable. The US has pretty well pissed away much of that metallurgical knowledge and we have to go to Europe to get the good stuff (Italy, German and Czech).

(in reply to Erkki)

Post #: 14

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/5/2014 11:49:33 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

rustysi: octane rating isn't fuel quality. An engine can be powerful and reliable even if it does not make use of high octane fuel's qualities.

So, why the big push to develop high octane fuels. IIRC Jimmy Doolilttle did work on this prior to the war. High octane fuels are required for high performance piston engines, no?

_____________________________

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 15

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/5/2014 11:57:16 PM

Erkki

Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

rustysi: octane rating isn't fuel quality. An engine can be powerful and reliable even if it does not make use of high octane fuel's qualities.

So, why the big push to develop high octane fuels. IIRC Jimmy Doolilttle did work on this prior to the war. High octane fuels are required for high performance piston engines, no?

Because higher octane level allows for higher compression and temperature(and power) without premature detonation. So lighter engines to achieve the same power as an engine designed to use a lower octane fuel. But an engine designed for low octane gets little to no extra power from higher octane fuel.

Also difference between say 87 and 100 is not great - the scale is not linear so 87 octane does not have max compressibility 87% of 100 octane fuel.

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 16

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/6/2014 12:13:27 AM

Gaspote

Posts: 303
Joined: 6/30/2013
From: France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

rustysi: octane rating isn't fuel quality. An engine can be powerful and reliable even if it does not make use of high octane fuel's qualities.

So, why the big push to develop high octane fuels. IIRC Jimmy Doolilttle did work on this prior to the war. High octane fuels are required for high performance piston engines, no?

High engine fuel give better performance with any motor. If you get more fuel than good craftmen, it's logical to upgrade fuel and not engine complexity.

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 17

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/6/2014 12:15:28 AM

sandlance

Posts: 31
Joined: 8/5/2012
Status: offline

Patton just about has it right on. The air unit got the mission, The bomber or fighter was loaded with the fuel to reach the target, then loaded with ammo, what was left of maximum weight was bombs. Hence short range more bombs, long range less bombs.

Stephen Nelson FTG1(ss)ret

(in reply to Erkki)

Post #: 18

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/6/2014 12:23:40 AM

wdolson

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

The octane rating is the rating on how fast the fuel burns. The higher the rating the slower the burn. With low octane fuel, the fuel burns quickly and hammers the piston with a quick jolt. With high octane fuel, the fuel continues to burn as the piston moves so there is a constant push to the cylinder throughout the stroke. The engine has to be tuned to take best advantage of this which is why putting high octane fuel in an engine tuned for lower octane fuel is a waste of money, though it doesn't really do harm to use higher octane fuel than the engine needs.

With the higher octane fuel and the engine tuned right, you can get more power out of the displacement. Modern engines do some sort of electronic magic to get massive performance out of small engines. My SOs new Subaru's engine has almost the same power and torque out of its 4 cylinder engine as I get out of my 90s vintage 350 cu inch V-8. My expertise is in embedded processors which do that sort of thing, and I'm still massively impressed. But that's 21st century technology. In the mid-20th century, one of the few options to get better performance out of the displacement you had was to boost the octane.

American engine technology was also better than the Japanese, but that point had already been made. The Japanese surprised the west with the quality of their airframes, but their best engines at the start of the war were licensed copies from other countries. The Sakae engine that powered the Zero was a copy of a Gnome Rhone engine from the French.

The US started the war with the P&W 2800 just going into production. It powered the B-26, P-47, F6F, F4U, and A-26. At the time it was one of the world's largest radial engines and there were two others even bigger in development. The Japanese had lost access to quality foreign engine designs except from Germany and the lifeline to get that technology involved a perilous and long journey. The Japanese had to step up their engine designs on their own and they did develop larger engines and put them into production by the end of the war, but they were still working out the bugs when the war ended.

The US was about 4 years ahead of Japan in engine designs.

The B-26 had a lot more horsepower to work with than any contemporary medium bomber with 2X 2000 HP engines. The B-25 used smaller engines, but it was an excellent and versatile design. It became the predominant skip bomber because it handled like a fighter. North American had some of the best American aircraft designs of the era. Three of the most common WW II vintage planes still flying are NA aircraft: The AT-6, B-25, and P-51.

I can't tell you for sure why the B-25 did have better load carrying capability than similarly powered Japanese aircraft. I've never looked into it. However, if you consult reliable sources that compare the different designs using the same criteria, you will find the load values for the B-25 are generally more than other aircraft with similar horsepower available.

I do know that by mid war at least most B-25s were flying on 140 octane fuel. My father said that a favorite trick guys he knew would do was to fill their cigarette lighters with 140 octane fuel from a small drain on the engine of the B-25 then go into town (this was stateside before he shipped out to New Guinea in late 1943). They would wait until someone put a cigarette in their mouth and offer to light it for them. They would get a flame about a foot long. I would think the lighter would get very hot too. He never did it because he never smoked and never had a lighter, he just witnessed other people do it.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Erkki)

Post #: 19

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/6/2014 12:42:04 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

Every time I hear or read the term 'Significant Other' I'm thinking Henry Jekyll is saying it.

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 20

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/6/2014 1:12:02 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

As always the answer is in the aircraft weights.

Frame
Crew
Oil
Fuel
Radios etc
Fixed Weapons and ammo
Bombs

But i seldom see anyone checking weights to see how crap are the information we have from Francillon and the likes.

This can only be reliably get from aircraft manuals. Unfortunately not many Jap manuals are around so checking this is not so easy.

Then after weights the bomb configurations available.

_____________________________

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 21

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/6/2014 1:16:55 AM

PaxMondo

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Higher octane rating does not mean higher power(for a given engine). Palembang also had one of the largest high-octane gasoline refineries in the world ...

In '45? In Palembang? Hardly. I was there in '82. Puny would be a better description. One of the largest outside the US and Europe?, yes. But at 50K tons annual (just over 400,000 barrels), that is roughly what the larger US alkylation units produced in a week.

Here's a more reputable source than wiki:

Table2. 100 Octane fuel production: current production estimates
exclusive of American domestic production, November 1940. From PRO
AIR 19/254 - 23A

Plant Production (tons per annum)
Heysham, UK 150,000
Billingham, UK 15,000
Stanlow, UK 55,000
Abadan 50,000
Trinidad 80,000
Palembang, Dutch East Indies 50,000
Pladejoe, Dutch East Indies 50,000
Aruba, Dutch West Indies 50,000

Note the Heysham unit was 3x as big and the UK has never been known as a large refining country.

Translate that to flights and you are talking ~57000 flights. Also note that it produced only 100 Octane. US held technology on the really high octane process until after the war ... Universal Oil Products to be specific. Des Plaines, IL.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Erkki)

Post #: 22

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/6/2014 8:57:57 AM

Erkki

Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

For the Japanese needs Palembang was huge. And one more time: octane rating does not have direct relation to engine power.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 23

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/6/2014 9:55:50 AM

wdolson

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

Direct no, but indirectly yes. An engine has to be built and tuned for high octane fuel to get the benefit of it. Higher octane fuel allows higher compression ratios, which in turn produce more power out of the same fuel. More of the fuel's energy goes into mechanical force and less into wasted heat. Just putting higher octane fuel into an engine that is built for lower octane fuel is just a waste of money.

Palembang may have been able to produce some higher octane fuels, but the US pioneered a new higher octane refining method that was just coming into use when the war started and the technology was not available to anyone else (though I believe it was shared with the UK soon after US entry). I don't know specifically what any of the Dutch refineries were producing, though I believe the US methods probably became pretty common worldwide in the years just after the war.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Erkki)

Post #: 24

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/6/2014 2:04:13 PM

czert2

Posts: 508
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

Airframe construction, Range to target. I think that has a lot to do with it..

In fact, and I don't know if the game works this way,( Haven't tested it yet) If a B-25 attacks a target 2 hexes away, It should carry the FULL bomb load. If the same aircraft attacks a target near the end of its range, it may only carry a fraction of its normal capacity to be able to reach the target.....GP

Well, not entireyl true :)
if plane was designed to carry x bombs to y range, and it suceed in that way, it will cary that load to that range, doesnt matter how big range is.
So thsi considered normal range with normal bomb load.
If you wanted to increase range over that range, you basicaly have 2 options - remove some boms to reduce wheight and to corsponding increase in cruse speed = range, another was to replace some bombs with aditional fuel tanks = range.
And then you have here max posible bomb load - it was using of all posible harpoints to carry bombs (intermal + external), but that meaned that increased wheigh and drag reduced range, even with full tanks. Sometimes it was impsible to takeoff with full bomb load and fueal tanks since it exceded plane max take off limits :). Not very common but it happened.
It is not general knolenge that b-17/ju 88 did have external hardpoints too, not only internal.

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 25

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/6/2014 7:04:49 PM

witpqs

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

I think that John meant the quoted post for this thread:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Some people seem to think that carrying half the bombs equates to twice the range. This is not so. It is a power law relationship. Range equates (complexly) to fuel and speed, not necessarily weight. The bomb tonnage (aircraft weight) is a second order effect, so long as max take-off weight is not exceeded and the runway is long enough. Range is a power law function of speed and a (kinda/sorta) direct function of fuel � all other things being equal.

But enough of theory, let�s take a look at mistress Sally (to come). There�s two ways the bomb carrying characteristics of planes were established: space limited, and performance limited.

Space limited meant that the bays were configured for a certain set of armaments and there just wasn�t any way to squeeze in any more without reconfiguring the whole of the bay structure.

Performance limited meant that there was space, but that the hard limit was max take-off weight, so fuel had to be taken down to compensate.

Japanese planes were built to the �space limit� standard. Their bays could hold a certain set of loadouts, and that was it. They spend their budget on fuel so that they could be either �fast or far�. It�s all in the math, and it�s not hard to figure. And it�s tactically appropriate in 1939, but Japan missed the conceptual boat.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to czert2)

Post #: 26

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/6/2014 8:22:12 PM

Symon

Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

Oh yeah, kinda.

Woof !! get some chicken breasts, cut them up. Marinate them in cardomon and yogurt overnite. Thread onto skewers and grill � for the oven, wrap a tray in foil and put a rack on top. Briol for 5-9 minutes, turn them over, broil 5-9 minutes more. They should be crispy at the edges. Set aside in a container.

Then do a sweet onion, 4 cloves of garlic, an inch and a half of fresh grated ginger. Cook til carmelized in clarified butter (ghee). Then add a 28oz can of diced tomatoes, and a 15oz can of sauce or a small can of paste and � cup white wine. � tbs North India curry powder, � tbs sweet chili powder, 1 tsp cumin, � tsp cardamom. Maybe chop up a poblano into teensy bits. Simmer for 2 hours. If you want to do it right and don�t want to stand over the stove mushing and squishing things, throw it into a blender and pulse till it�s a slurry.

The last few minutes, add chicken and chopped cilantro. Serve over basmati rice (none other).and garnish with more fresh cilantro.

Must, simply must, use basmati rice. It�s the taste. If you are crazy enough, put 1 tsp of turmeric into the mix before it boils. The combination of flavors will blow you away. And it shows up nice and yellow (kinda like saffron, but with more flavor).

Why? Because this is exactly how airplanes work. A bit of this, a dash of that, but nothing that will destroy the particular collection of flavors that make for a recipe.

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la libert�! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 27

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/6/2014 8:45:28 PM

Symon

Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: czert2
Well, not entireyl true :)
if plane was designed to carry x bombs to y range, and it suceed in that way, it will cary that load to that range, doesnt matter how big range is.
So thsi considered normal range with normal bomb load.
If you wanted to increase range over that range, you basicaly have 2 options - remove some boms to reduce wheight and to corsponding increase in cruse speed = range, another was to replace some bombs with aditional fuel tanks = range.
And then you have here max posible bomb load - it was using of all posible harpoints to carry bombs (intermal + external), but that meaned that increased wheigh and drag reduced range, even with full tanks. Sometimes it was impsible to takeoff with full bomb load and fueal tanks since it exceded plane max take off limits :). Not very common but it happened.
It is not general knolenge that b-17/ju 88 did have external hardpoints too, not only internal.

And you are flat wrong. The only way to increase range is with added fuel. A reduced bomb-load within parameters results in a higher speed or higher altiture run to the target. It does NOT result in a longer range. The math is pretty good and has worked for over 60 years for propeller driven aircraft. I'll do an example, using Mistress Sally, using actual flight test results from Wright/Pat. I will provide graphs and explanations thereto. Just hope you have a minimal mathematical ability to understand the graphs.

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la libert�! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to czert2)

Post #: 28

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/6/2014 9:21:49 PM

tocaff

Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline

Ouch! Maybe a minimal amount of courtesy is called for.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Symon)

Post #: 29

RE: Jap "Heavy" bombers - 8/6/2014 9:55:07 PM

Erkki

Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

Before Symon again shoots down half the forum, it should be noted that aircraft mass does indeed have a lot to do with range at any wanted airspeed(and thus also effects the maximum range). When the mass is increased, the increased need for lift due to higher mass needs either higher AoA and/or airspeed. Both increase drag and thus more engine thrust and fuel consumption is needed.

Ironically, a crude mathematical explanation is presented in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aeronautics)

Back on topic: yeah I think not many know that a lot of bombers had both external hardpoints as well as a bomb bay or two. Ju 88 for one could theoretically carry 4000 kg (8500 lbs.) of bombs but I believe never operationally did so. 1500 kg load however was pretty ordinary(SC1000 + SC500 side by side carried externally), although as far as I know at least some units did not dive or glide bomb with such loads. Thing is, in game a lot of bombers get their full payload to their normal range, and some only have the typical load. Poor 139WH only carries, what, 1/3 or even 1/4 of what it could, and even G4M gets 740 kg when it could carry 850kg+ torpedo or 1000 kg of bombs. The data is right, but could be more consistent.

< Message edited by Erkki -- 8/6/2014 11:19:14 PM >

(in reply to tocaff)

Post #: 30