Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 12/26/2014 12:16:07 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
I am not happy with the Allied aircraft pools in the 1943 campaign… it just doesn’t hang right with the unit changes in aircraft in RL. I don’t have access to all the necessary production data, but I have used what I do have. In the main I have back calculated from aircraft introduction and usage (which in the case of aircraft types used extensively abroad - the PTO for example, is the better way).
I don't think these are bugs, rather scenario set up issues. I suspect I have misunderstood a few points, so comments welcome (especially from testers)

In no particular order.
1. 305th BG has no aircraft at start. I cannot see any reason for this, as the group became operational in Nov 42, and appears to have been in continuous action. Suggest group has a ‘normal’ amount of B17F added
2. The Spitfire XII has 32 a/c in units, and 100 in pool. There were only c 100 built. Suggest pool is dropped to 68, or slightly less to account for operational losses.
3. The P47 initial pools and allocations seem very odd. No units have P47C when I think almost all USAAF units flying the P47 should still be on the C. The D is in production in RL but I don’t think any had yet gone operational. For example 56th FG crashed a P47C (41-6216) in Aug ’43. I can’t find definitive records but P47C aircraft are still in combat at the turn of 1944, and I do not see any P47D-5 series events prior to November 1943. Thus all units should be P47C at start of scenario, and pool should be c75 (from a guestimate). Assuming the P47C actually also represents early model P47D (pre D-5/no water injection), production should probably still be under way for a few months (the first 960 odd D series are pre D-5). Alternatively add another few hundred Cs to the pool.
4. P47D-5 should be just about in production but with minimal pools. There should be about 100 in (accessible) pool by October, allowing the first groups to convert about then. At the current 32/week (I have no figures for production rates or proportion sent to Europe) this means we should have deliveries starting maybe late Sept, or earlier with a ramp up. If starting in July (as now) this needs to be an average of no more than 6-7 week., but could well be running at 32/week at the end of the ramp in October.
5. P51B has too many in pool. At game start, there are more in pool than the P47D-5, and higher production. The 3 month delay helps but the P51 should not be able to operate in groups until Jan 44 (one group). By End Feb, 8AF was operating c150 P51 on a mission (3-4 groups in game). Whilst in production in RL at game start, I think the pool should be zero, and production very low (but ramping up). The problem of US manufacturing pools seems common. After the 3 month delay, the entire production becomes available, so hundreds of aircraft effectively cross the pond in a week.
6. For the Beaufighter, Wiki states USAAF was sent 100 MkVIF (NF) in 1943, which would imply 36 left in the pool (less losses). I do not know how many were subsequently available to US, and I guess there is an issue with the type being split CW/US. Can’t the pool be cut to 36, but the US Beaufighter be set to convert/import from CW one? If not, it is difficult to judge how many are needed, so probably best left alone.
7. A36A appears to have too small a pool. According to wiki, 300 were deployed to Europe, and so the pool should be close to 200 (maybe 150 allowing for losses).
8. There are too many B17G. 70% of B17Fs in Europe can be changed out overnight once the 3 months delay expires. 8AF BG should not start converting until say Sept 1943. At 71 per week, that means a bomb group per week can convert, which is probably about right. So I suggest a pool of about zero, rising from Sept.
9. The B17 issues also seem to apply to the B24. The D was in service into 1944, but given the shortage at start, and the large pools of H/J, all B24D would be changed out overnight if the player wanted. There isn’t much difference between the two models, but they are in game so the changeover should be right.
10. What is the US Baltimore V? It seems to be a duplicate to the Baltimore in the CW list?
11. A 4 week conversion period would be very nice though (although probably not justified for B17 F to G…)
12. I haven’t looked at the Stirling I, as it is not really important. A pool of 499 for the Stirling III seems high, especially in conjunction with 110 in units. I have 875 total Stirling IIIs built, including conversions. At 16 per week, this means the total Stirling III production would be available in only 16 more weeks, and this disregards previous losses. Production change over to MkIV (not in game), should be in Q4 1943 so this is about right. But, as losses should be high, I think the pool needs to be reduced by the losses. According to UK MoD there were 67 losses of MkIII in the first 5 months of ops! Thus I think the Stirling III pool should be reduced by at least 150 (to say 250 or less).
13. Stirling reliability seems anomalous. At 16, it is better than Lancaster and Halifax (22). From what I read, availability of Stirlings was poor, and certainly the RAF availability reports (http://www.scribd.com/doc/85616206/RAF-Strength-1939-45-Fighter-Bomber-Coastal-Commands-AIR-22) show a poorer percentage of flyable aircraft than the others. (or have I got reliabilty back to front? The a/c and AFV gets me confused!)
14. 138 Sqd should not be in Bomber Command in the game. Whilst it appears in BC’s order of battle it was not (I believe) ever used for bombing, being far too busy doing cloak and dagger ops. As these aren’t modelling in game the sqd should be deleted, and appear as a reinforcement in Jan 1945.
15. Halifax BII pools seem high again. I have production of BII together at 1977, and the game has 1386 available at start, and production at 7/week (for the rest of the war If I understand the game data correctly – or does the factory convert?). This accounts for most if not all of the 1977. I am not sure MkII production continues so long, and there is no allowance for losses. I think the pool should be similar to the Lancaster (say 150). I have not got data to evaluate it more accurately.
16. Halifax BIII production deliveries seem to start too early (Sept ’43). I have first deliveries Nov ’43. Production numbers seem to be 2092 made. The game seems to stop them in Dec ’44, which may be correct but the somewhat similar BVI continued in to 1945 (457 made, making c2550 of what the game calls BIII). At the max production rate of 18, the game will make about half that number. Halifax BIII production should be November 1943 – end, with production at 33 per week once maxed out. Incidentally I have not checked the factories generally, but BIII/VI should be manufactured: 452 (18%) at Handley Page in St Albans, 1225 (48%) at English Electric in Salmesbury (Preston), 260 (10%) at the London Aircraft Production Group in London, 280 (11%) at Rootes in Coventry – a separate factory to the Mosquito plants, and 326 (13%) at Fairey Aviation at London (separate factory to LAPG). Most of these factories produced other marks or aircraft earlier. I think all factories of a type may be forced to the same production rate? In which case the factory simplification in game may be necessary…
17. What is with the Lancaster B1(Special)? On turn 2 (1943 campaign) I suddenly get 300 of these. Not bad for a variant that had 32 made (if I am correct). Any B1 Specials should be netted off the BI-III Lanc pools). Oddly, when I look in the generic data in the editor, it says max import is 33. I do not know if this is a bug or I misunderstand the data.
18. The pool of Mitchell IIs is zero which doesn’t seem right. The RAF received 538 aircraft and there are 88 in game. Where are the others? The pool should be at least a couple of hundred.
19. The pools of UK Spitfire VBs and Cs are zero, which doesn’t make sense. In game terms the player will rotate them out, and build a pool, but I think there ought to be a nominal pool of 100 or so for each. In fact, Castle Bromwich (Birmingham) was still building VCs on a contract that didn’t start deliveries until July 1943 – but only built less than a week’s worth, so probably VC production stops in July ’43 at that factory. Either way, the player shouldn’t be forced to change from MKVs, it should be a pure choice/upgrade availability.
20. The pool of Spitfire IX/XVI seems high. Whilst Castle Bromwich (alone) was building c50 per week from early 1943, to have equipped c 250 in Europe/NA and built a pool of 1341 in only 6 months seems high. 1600 in 26 weeks is 61 a week without counting losses! Again there are enough to equip all Spit V (CW) units on Turn 2. Whilst I have been unable to determine when the MKV left front line ops in UK/Med I am sure it wasn’t the week of Husky. We should find out when it was and trim the pool accordingly.


< Message edited by HMSWarspite -- 12/26/2014 1:18:55 PM >


_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord
Post #: 1
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 12/26/2014 12:58:54 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
I have already suggested to have allied aircraft pools reduced to 50% with the exception of some low-pool type like Mosquito B.IV, heavy bombers even further down to 20-25%.
A-36 should get 100 added to pool.
Aircraft reliability is purely based on engine number and type (air vs water cooled) + some points more for known problematic aircraft.
Baltimore V is the US production version the British/Commonwealth version used to import from.
Many of the british Mitchells were sent to the soviets although I don't have exact numbers on hand.
Halifax II will be reduced to 6 but in two facs (Preston, W.London), Halifax III gets an additonal fac in St.Albans (limit 10) and date extended to 2/45, Liverpool/Manchester will produce the Patrol version at limit 3. The first production Halifax III was flown in 9/43, AFAIR operational use (non-training) started in December or January.
Stirling III will be changed to 3 facs a 7 in Chatham, Belfast, Warwick

In one of the next versions there should be updated scenarios with allied aircraft pools reduced + proper production setup for italian aircraft and british bombers + some additional aircraft models and some finetuning of US production.

I'm still working on single-engine fighter production + the Beaus and insects but this will take some time.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 2
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 12/26/2014 1:00:49 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline

Alot of stuff there Warspite, the bottlenecks in Spitfires wernt production but pilots there is always going to be more planes than crews. The second bottleneck for the RAF was physically getting the aircraft to theatres other than home. The third bottleneck was servicing the aircraft once they were there. If I rememeber the RAF equiped whole units with the Packard Spitfires exactly because servicing was an issue. As for the Stirling its use never became widespread due to a number of factors as well as its loss rate so I imagine Equiping part of No 3 Group and a couple of pathfinders was not a problem 15,895 sorties with 3 Group and 557 aircraft lost over a couple of years was not as hard on production as crews, plus the aircraft started being withdrawn from Bomber Command service in 1943 whilst still in production. One thing aboout the Stirling though it crashed alot more than the other Heavies probably because of its high torque causing it to swing to port so non combat acccidents were higher again which probably explains the low servicability.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 3
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 12/26/2014 1:03:44 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
The 300 Lanc specials seem to be a bug.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 4
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 12/26/2014 1:35:38 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss
Baltimore V is the US production version the British/Commonwealth version used to import from.

Isnt this an unnecessary complication. Feeding UK a/c off a US type is only necessary if US usesa similar type. In the case of the Baltimore why not have the offboard fac build it directly?
quote:


Many of the british Mitchells were sent to the soviets although I don't have exact numbers on hand.

Not to the extent of starving RAF units of replacements...
quote:


In one of the next versions there should be updated scenarios with allied aircraft pools reduced + proper production setup for italian aircraft and british bombers + some additional aircraft models and some finetuning of US production.

I'm still working on single-engine fighter production + the Beaus and insects but this will take some time.


That's good to hear, thanks. I am playing with self imposed conversion rules at the moment, but would be nice if it were right.


_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 5
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 12/26/2014 1:42:48 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


Alot of stuff there Warspite, the bottlenecks in Spitfires wernt production but pilots there is always going to be more planes than crews. The second bottleneck for the RAF was physically getting the aircraft to theatres other than home. The third bottleneck was servicing the aircraft once they were there. If I rememeber the RAF equiped whole units with the Packard Spitfires exactly because servicing was an issue.

Not sure what point you are making. The game needs to be able of producing the historic effect (even if the player doesn't have to...). Spit Vs were being sent to all sorts of neutral countries before the end of 1943 so having a shortage doesn't seem right. and we have too many IX/XVI. The V isnt a particular problem now, but might be if IX is reduced in pool.

quote:

As for the Stirling its use never became widespread due to a number of factors as well as its loss rate so I imagine Equiping part of No 3 Group and a couple of pathfinders was not a problem 15,895 sorties with 3 Group and 557 aircraft lost over a couple of years was not as hard on production as crews, plus the aircraft started being withdrawn from Bomber Command service in 1943 whilst still in production. One thing aboout the Stirling though it crashed alot more than the other Heavies probably because of its high torque causing it to swing to port so non combat acccidents were higher again which probably explains the low servicability.


I know it wasn't widespread... I am saying there are too many... The III had not been in production long enough to build up that pool, and the I is not really an issue in game so I didn't comment on numbers.




_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 6
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 12/26/2014 1:47:59 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

. One thing aboout the Stirling though it crashed alot more than the other Heavies probably because of its high torque causing it to swing to port so non combat acccidents were higher again which probably explains the low servicability.


Hadn't heard this. It is quite high powered at low level, but most of the issues on t/o and landing are put down to undercarriage. The Beaufighter is far more famous for torque issues... Most Stirling losses are flak/NF due to 'sticking out of the bottom' of the bomber stream.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 7
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 12/26/2014 2:03:20 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
In 3 Group 227 Stirlings were lost to crashes compared to 78 Lancasters and the Lanc flew 10,500 more sorties for the group.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 8
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 12/26/2014 2:32:43 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
In 8 Group Pathfinders they only flew 826 sorties and had a 1.45% crash rate compare to the Lancs 19,601 sorties and 0.36% rate and these would have been experienced crews. It wernt just NF fighters and Flak that removed the Stirling from service.

< Message edited by Smirfy -- 12/26/2014 3:33:39 PM >

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 9
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 12/26/2014 3:51:07 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
The high wing loading of the Stirling didn't help either with start/landing accidents.

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 10
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/3/2015 11:03:09 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Just spotted another issue to add to the aircraft numbers shopping list. At start there are c300 Typhoons in units and 1000 in pool which is about 130 less that the entire production to that date. I haven't got loss rates, but I guess the pool is a few too high. The real issue is that the build rate is 14 per week for the rest of the way. The actual rates were 31/week ti D Day, then 14/week to Jan 45 then 7 per week til November, but this doesnt take account of a production slow down after after VE Day. If this is too complex, 18 per week rather than 14 gives the realistic number built by game end. If the pool is cut by 100 - 200, and prod were 18 I would be happy

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 11
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/3/2015 11:22:28 AM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
Production is already set to 18 in the next update, Tiffie production will end in 12/44. If I remember right I have moved some '45 Tiffie production to Tempest with new build limit of 7.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 12
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/3/2015 11:44:03 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Sounds perfect

any ETA for the patch. If the aircraft pools are changing so much we dont want the ground combat to change to allow for the current (too fast/too capable) air forces, and then the air forces wound down to realistic... BC is pretty much indestructible at present, or far more capable if you convert to all Lanc...

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 13
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/3/2015 12:03:23 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
No idea on ETA. This update has a lot of changes to aircraft and requires work on all scenarios so you may well see a hotfix/bugfix release prior to a patch containing the aircraft changes.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 14
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/3/2015 12:13:16 PM   
cmunson


Posts: 6238
Joined: 9/15/2007
From: Austin, Texas
Status: offline
You guys know your stuff. Denniss, one question/observation. What about US 480th Grp flying PY4Y-1's. They start the scenario with this plane but there are no replacements and it is not allowed to switch to any other aircraft. I'm not sure if historical or not but poor yanks dwindle down to almost nothing after a year of flying.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Chris

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 15
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/3/2015 12:15:53 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
+1. I disbanded it for now>

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to cmunson)
Post #: 16
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/3/2015 12:27:45 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
The PB4Y-1 has been made producible at low level, reducing B-24 production. I did not want it to convert from B-24 as that open up all kinds of problems with late war scenarios converting lots of B-24..

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 17
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/3/2015 1:11:46 PM   
cmunson


Posts: 6238
Joined: 9/15/2007
From: Austin, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

The PB4Y-1 has been made producible at low level, reducing B-24 production. I did not want it to convert from B-24 as that open up all kinds of problems with late war scenarios converting lots of B-24..


Excellent Denniss! As always I defer to you on all these matters.

_____________________________

Chris

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 18
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/29/2015 7:08:00 AM   
decourcy2

 

Posts: 516
Joined: 1/29/2015
Status: offline
Also the Spitfire MkVIII seems to be missing. This was one of the major variants with about 1600 built.
Is it rolled into the MkIX?

The MkIX in game has rather too high of performance; top speed for a FIX was 386mph at 15,000 feet. The only IX that broke 400 was the HF which was not as maneuverable as the F and was only built in small numbers.

Also the Dora FW190D was a bit heavier in wing loading than the A5 and thus was a bit less maneuverable.

I am assuming the P40N is representing the K and L? The N had no turbocharger and thus it's dropoff above 20000 feet was faster than you show. The P39Q in game has more dropoff than the P40 but it should be the opposite. Remember the wing used in the P39 was a forerunner of the lamellar flow wing.


< Message edited by decourcy2 -- 1/29/2015 8:25:57 AM >

(in reply to cmunson)
Post #: 19
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/29/2015 10:37:01 AM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
I'm just working through the Spits, yes the 1658 VIII and the 921 II are missing, don't know if the VIII was merged into IX.
I don't buy that maxspeed alt of the Spit IX, that may be correct for the LF but not for F or HF. Will check maxspeed but this should represent a clean aircraft without underwing pylons hanging around.
Maneuvr not only represents what you would assume to be meneuverability, it in parts also represents acceleration. In the latter the 190D was better by a good margin, maneuverability suffered a bit in one region but gained a bit in other regions but in the end plus combined with acceleration the 190D was a lot better (no guns in outer wing posisition helps too). It was never designed as high-alt interceptor, that's what the Ta 152H cousin was designed for. Both were hointly developed, the 190D was a stop-gap version to get more power into the Fw 190 airframe as quickly as possible.
None of the production P-39 and P-40 had turbos. Some additional P-39 and P-40 models have been added to fill gaps in their line-up (including Merlin-equipped P-40F)

(in reply to decourcy2)
Post #: 20
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/29/2015 2:31:22 PM   
decourcy2

 

Posts: 516
Joined: 1/29/2015
Status: offline
This is the data i have for the F-IX.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 21
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/29/2015 3:19:52 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
MS Supercharger gear = lower stage of the two avaliable, in higher FS gear Spit IX BF274 (Merlin 61) reached ~405mph at ~27500

(in reply to decourcy2)
Post #: 22
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/29/2015 3:41:45 PM   
decourcy2

 

Posts: 516
Joined: 1/29/2015
Status: offline
See, that will get you every time. I knew that, I should really check my numbers before posting. The IX's built from V airframes never reached 400 but those airframes were gone by this point.
Thanks for pointing out my mistake there.
According to Jefferey Quill the IX's from V airframes reached 399 without armament.

Actually checked my sources that time. Doh.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 23
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/29/2015 3:57:54 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
Don't worry, Spitfire variants are about as confusing as Bf 109 or Fw 190 variants - a myriad of subversions you can't model in a game. I'd need at least eight more aircraft to model the Mk V and IX LF/HF variants so we actually stick to the F variants for them.
Have already added the VIII - 1600 produced + the additional range are worth to be integrated. Will probably upgrade to Mk.XIVE with production in or near Southampton.

(in reply to decourcy2)
Post #: 24
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/31/2015 12:38:36 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
Still working on Spits but already wanna share some information. Don't expect to see it soon as it will require about one week of work on my side and a lot of work to integrate this in the scenarios + you would have to start a new game to see effect anyway.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxx NEW AIRCRAFT xxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
0531 - Spitfire II - Mk.I with new engine, build limit 18 (one factory at Castle Bromwich near Birmingham)
0532 - Spitfire VIII - modified Mk.V with more range and engines similar to Mk IX, upgrades to Spitfire Mk.XIVE
0533 - Spitfire LF.IX - from mid 43 the vast majority of Spit IXs were LFs
0534 - Spitfire PR.XIX - unarmed photo-recon version based on improved Mk.XIV

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Spitfire FR.XIV separated from PR Spitfires and delayed to late 44
Spitfire VB/VC side-by-side production with original Mk.IX
Spitfire II -> VB -> VC -> LF.IX -> LF.IXE
Spitfire IX -> LF.IX -> LF.IXE
Spitfire PR.IV -> PR.XI -> PR.XIX
Spitfire VIII -> XIVE
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I still have to check the VIII - many of them may have been LFs too.
I may introduce a low-production HF.IX, either separate or as predecessor of the XIV.

I'm still looking for verifyable information on converted recon Spits. Please share if you have some good links.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 25
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/31/2015 2:07:37 PM   
xwraith

 

Posts: 76
Joined: 4/17/2008
Status: offline
What are you looking for in terms of recon conversions? I have a book reference that may be of some help.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 26
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/31/2015 2:14:14 PM   
KWG


Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline
"I'm still looking for verifyable information on converted recon Spits. Please share if you have some good links"

this might help.
http://www.airrecce.co.uk/WW2/recce_ac/RAFAR.html


"bomb damage assessment installation".


The PR Mk ID (PR Mk IV) was produced as a super long range version, both wing leading edges were fitted with 66 gallon fuel tanks and the total fuel load including the 30 gallons behind the pilot was 218 gallons. Nicknamed 'The Bowser', it had a range of 1,750 miles.
This version could be fitted with a range of cameras and each setup was coded:
Code W: A fan of two F.8 20" cameras set at inclined of 10 deg. to the vertical and 20 deg. to each other.
Code X: A fan of two vertical F.24 14" cameras, each set at 8t 8� deg. to the vertical. Also fitted was one F.24 14" or 8" oblique camera.
Code Y: One F.52 36" vertical camera.
The "W" & "X" setups were alternative installations for the same aircraft. The "Y" installation was only fitted to a limited numbers of PR.IDs and was known as the "bomb damage assessment installation".

< Message edited by KWG -- 1/31/2015 3:20:36 PM >

(in reply to xwraith)
Post #: 27
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/31/2015 2:15:19 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
Conversion of Mk. V and IX into PR or, most likely, FR recon types. Numbers, timeframe and usage. The FR.XIV was a late 44 direct-production variant it seems.
I assume numbers are too low to be worth including so I may just adjust production of standard PR types.

(in reply to xwraith)
Post #: 28
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/31/2015 5:31:46 PM   
xwraith

 

Posts: 76
Joined: 4/17/2008
Status: offline
I'm digging into it; the scary thing is at certain points during the war, I don't think that the RAF could tell you either!

< Message edited by xwraith -- 1/31/2015 6:52:58 PM >

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 29
RE: Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start - 1/31/2015 5:36:55 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
It's not getting better on the other side. Hardly possible to get exact numbers of Bf 109s/Fw 190s rebuilt as Recons. Just the factory-built recons are known.

(in reply to xwraith)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> Allied aircraft issues at 1943 start Page: [1] 2   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

1.031