But I LIKE that plane!!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

But I LIKE that plane!!

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 >> But I LIKE that plane!!

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/30/2020 2:42:29 AM

chazz

Posts: 133
Joined: 4/30/2014
Status: offline

Just wondering how you order your a/c production to continue a particular model rather than stop producing it automatically.

My favorite Allied reconaissance plane is the F4F-7. We likes that plane, precious and we wants to keep getting it.

Can you help?

_____________________________

=================================
Thank you for your replies and advice!!

"If you're in a fair fight, then you didn't plan it properly" - Nick Lappos

Post #: 1

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/30/2020 2:47:34 AM

btd64

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

If you go into the editor you can push the production end date back. Not sure if it will work in an existing game though....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 chazz)

Post #: 2

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/30/2020 2:53:41 AM

Shellshock

Posts: 533
Joined: 12/31/2010
From: U.S.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: btd64

If you go into the editor you can push the production end date back. Not sure if it will work in an existing game though....GP

It should work for an ongoing game. I did it once for the Dutch so they would get P-40s for a few months longer. Just make sure you edit the scenario you started with.

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 3

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/30/2020 3:56:57 AM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

If it happens to be produced by an on-map factory (I don't think the F4F-7 is one of those), you can change that factory to not upgrade in your Industry screen (J). You can keep production of some models of the B-17, B-24, and P-38 this way.

(in reply to Shellshock)

Post #: 4

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/30/2020 8:36:46 AM

Leandros

Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chazz

Just wondering how you order your a/c production to continue a particular model rather than stop producing it automatically.

My favorite Allied reconaissance plane is the F4F-7. We likes that plane, precious and we wants to keep getting it.

Can you help?

Among "odd" planes, this is a favourite of mine, too.

Fred

_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to chazz)

Post #: 5

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/30/2020 11:50:42 AM

btd64

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

If it happens to be produced by an on-map factory (I don't think the F4F-7 is one of those), you can change that factory to not upgrade in your Industry screen (J). You can keep production of some models of the B-17, B-24, and P-38 this way.

You learn something new with the game every day. I never thought of this. Thanks Lokasenna

....GP

_____________________________

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 6

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/30/2020 1:03:57 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

The F4F7 has an extremely limited production run.

You would have to use the editor and create a modified scenario with greater production of the air frame to be able to get more use out of it.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 7

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/30/2020 1:51:30 PM

Leandros

Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

The F4F7 has an extremely limited production run.

You would have to use the editor and create a modified scenario with greater production of the air frame to be able to get more use out of it.

Yes, I believe they made 22 copies.

Fred
-----

_____________________________

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 8

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/30/2020 5:25:08 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: btd64

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

If it happens to be produced by an on-map factory (I don't think the F4F-7 is one of those), you can change that factory to not upgrade in your Industry screen (J). You can keep production of some models of the B-17, B-24, and P-38 this way.

You learn something new with the game every day. I never thought of this. Thanks Lokasenna ....GP

To be honest, I don't find it worthwhile to do that unless you have a really good reason to do so.

IIRC there is one P-38 model that I would stop it at, but it's later in the war... and I ended up not feeling the need.

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 9

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/30/2020 5:38:03 PM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

One of the P-40 models goes down to 4 machine guns. I think that is not an improvement. I don't think that the maneuverability went up but I don't recall.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

�Illegitemus non carborundum est (�Don�t let the bastards grind you down�).�
― Julia Child

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 10

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/30/2020 6:13:41 PM

btd64

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

Still a creative idea....GP

_____________________________

(in reply to RangerJoe)

Post #: 11

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/30/2020 6:19:13 PM

alimentary

Posts: 142
Joined: 3/22/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
One of the P-40 models goes down to 4 machine guns. I think that is not an improvement. I don't think that the maneuverability went up but I don't recall.

P-40N1 versus P-40K according to tracker (scenario 1). Maneuver and climb both improve, range drops, ceiling increases.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to RangerJoe)

Post #: 12

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/30/2020 8:17:31 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alimentary

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
One of the P-40 models goes down to 4 machine guns. I think that is not an improvement. I don't think that the maneuverability went up but I don't recall.

P-40N1 versus P-40K according to tracker (scenario 1). Maneuver and climb both improve, range drops, ceiling increases.

Ah, that's the one.

On second thought, I think I did keep this one rather than the N1, if I could. The ceiling goes way up, but the maneuver up that high goes way down. And the max speed increase is not enough to make that a good tradeoff to me.

(in reply to alimentary)

Post #: 13

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/30/2020 11:22:40 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

I like the F4F-7 too. On paper, it looks like a great idea, but in practice it probably was not practical. Single engine fighter, with an enormous amount of fuel, limited visibility,no navigator, built to fly exclusively over water. Regular single engine fighters had enough navigating over oceans as it was. Reconnaissance aircraft should have at least 2 engines and a dedicated navigator who was really good at his job. Say what you will about the p-38 as a fighter, it must have been comforting to have 2 engines over those long open water flights

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 14

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/30/2020 11:49:40 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

from
https://nzwarbirds.org.nz/gallery/warbirds-family-album/Curtiss+P-40N+Kittyhawk.html

"By the summer of 1943, the performance of the P-40 Warhawk was leaving much to be desired, especially in comparison to the later types such as the P-38, P-47, and P-51 which were beginning to come into service. The P-40N version (company designation Model 87V, 87W) was introduced at this time in an effort to improve the capabilities of the basic design and thus avoid interrupting Curtiss production lines by having the company introduce an entirely new type. The first 1500 examples of this new Warhawk line were to have been delivered as P-40Ps powered by Merlin engines, but (as previously mentioned) shortages of the Packard built Merlin caused this order to be cancelled and the P-40N with the 1360 hp Allison V-1710-81 engine to be substituted in its place.

A new lightweight structure was introduced, two of the six wing-mounted guns were removed, smaller and lighter undercarriage wheels were installed, head armour was reintroduced, and aluminium radiators and oil coolers were installed. The resulting reduction in the weight, along with the use of the same V-1710-81 engine as used in the P-40M, made the P-40N the fastest of the P-40 series, reaching a speed of 378 mph at 10,500 feet. Even though by 1943 standards the Warhawk was rapidly becoming obsolescent, the P-40N became the version that was most widely built with 5220 examples rolling off the Curtiss lines before production finally ceased."

but I agree, I would have kept the longer range P-40K

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/30/2020 11:50:59 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 15

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/31/2020 9:59:07 AM

chazz

Posts: 133
Joined: 4/30/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

I like the F4F-7 too. On paper, it looks like a great idea, but in practice it probably was not practical. Single engine fighter, with an enormous amount of fuel, limited visibility,no navigator, built to fly exclusively over water. Regular single engine fighters had enough navigating over oceans as it was. Reconnaissance aircraft should have at least 2 engines and a dedicated navigator who was really good at his job. Say what you will about the p-38 as a fighter, it must have been comforting to have 2 engines over those long open water flights

Seems reasonable. The USN and USMC are eventually forced to use the B24 which has such a crap service rating. I'm thinking that a recon version of the Catalina would have been better.

_____________________________

=================================
Thank you for your replies and advice!!

"If you're in a fair fight, then you didn't plan it properly" - Nick Lappos

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 16

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/31/2020 9:59:56 AM

chazz

Posts: 133
Joined: 4/30/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

The F4F7 has an extremely limited production run.

You would have to use the editor and create a modified scenario with greater production of the air frame to be able to get more use out of it.

Thanks for the reply. Is there a thread showing how to use the editor?

_____________________________

=================================
Thank you for your replies and advice!!

"If you're in a fair fight, then you didn't plan it properly" - Nick Lappos

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 17

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/31/2020 10:01:50 AM

chazz

Posts: 133
Joined: 4/30/2014
Status: offline

Thanks for the reply, folks.

I can see myself using the Liberator recon birds for the long distance recon missions and using PBY squadrons in the recon role with recon-trained pilots. Is there a huge difference using camera-equipped a/c versus not?

_____________________________

=================================
Thank you for your replies and advice!!

"If you're in a fair fight, then you didn't plan it properly" - Nick Lappos

(in reply to chazz)

Post #: 18

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/31/2020 10:04:45 AM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chazz

Thanks for the reply, folks.

I can see myself using the Liberator recon birds for the long distance recon missions and using PBY squadrons in the recon role with recon-trained pilots. Is there a huge difference using camera-equipped a/c versus not?

Yes. The cameras give a higher DL.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

�Illegitemus non carborundum est (�Don�t let the bastards grind you down�).�
― Julia Child

(in reply to chazz)

Post #: 19

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/31/2020 2:54:47 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: chazz

Thanks for the reply, folks.

I can see myself using the Liberator recon birds for the long distance recon missions and using PBY squadrons in the recon role with recon-trained pilots. Is there a huge difference using camera-equipped a/c versus not?

Yes. The cameras give a higher DL.

And a proper Recon aircraft with camera provides a higher D/L increase than a general purpose aircraft like the Catalina with a camera.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to RangerJoe)

Post #: 20

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 3/31/2020 4:23:10 PM

Leandros

Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

I like the F4F-7 too. On paper, it looks like a great idea, but in practice it probably was not practical. Single engine fighter, with an enormous amount of fuel, limited visibility,no navigator, built to fly exclusively over water. Regular single engine fighters had enough navigating over oceans as it was. Reconnaissance aircraft should have at least 2 engines and a dedicated navigator who was really good at his job. Say what you will about the p-38 as a fighter, it must have been comforting to have 2 engines over those long open water flights

The F4F-7 did have one of the most reliable engines of its time - the P & W Twin Wasp, with a double oil reservoir. It also had an autopilot, improved radio and navigation equipment, camera and a glazed cockpit floor. It could dump its fuel, even had - a "tube"....

. As for navigation, who says it was built to fly exclusively over water? I would also expect that only the best pilots were picked to fly long-range missions in the F4F-7.

Also, while it could carry 500+ gallons of fuel, it could do a good job with 300 onboard, too. The P-36 with the same engine, flown economically, had a range of more than 1.200 sm/200 mph.. with less than 150 gallons of fuel (89 octane).

Talking about the P-36, everybody playing the allied side in WITP should insist on having its performance upgraded in the game. It was the only allied fighter that could actually turn and climb with the Zero. I am talking about the US 1941 version with the 1.200 hp. engine and standard 1941 equipment. That engine was the same engine as the 1.050 hp version, only adjusted for the use of 100 octane fuel (as used in the P-40's Allison engine). Most P-36 performance figures I have seen are quoted for the 1.050 hp. engine, even if the latest engine as such is rated at 1.200 hp.

The P-36 had about equal wing loading and better power/weight ratio and roll ratio than the Zero. While I believe it is generally acknowledged that the Zero's high-speed handling qualities were less than optimal, the P-36's were excellent.

The 100 octane fuel made a marked difference in performance as the British also experienced in the Fall of 1940 with the Spitfire, particularly in the climb. P-36 MTOW time to 15.000 was less than five minutes - 10 minutes to 22.000! Would the US pilots in the Philippines have loved that in December 1941!

Max level speed has little meaning when the turning and climbing starts!

Fred

P.S.: The last chapter in my 8th book of my "Saving MacArthur" series cover the flight of an F4F-7 from Manila to Japan and back.

_____________________________

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 21

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 4/1/2020 2:26:03 AM

CaptBeefheart

Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline

I love that airplane and always increase its numbers in the editor prior to start. I don't know of a thread, but you can load the editor from the start menu and mess around with different things, being careful to save the file under a non-existing scenario number so you don't screw anything up. The different aircraft will be in there and you can tweak the start dates, end dates and production numbers.

Cheers,
CB

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to Leandros)

Post #: 22

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 4/1/2020 11:01:28 AM

Leandros

Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart

I love that airplane and always increase its numbers in the editor prior to start. I don't know of a thread, but you can load the editor from the start menu and mess around with different things, being careful to save the file under a non-existing scenario number so you don't screw anything up. The different aircraft will be in there and you can tweak the start dates, end dates and production numbers.

Cheers,
CB

The F4F-7 or the P-36..

..?

Fred
-----

_____________________________

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)

Post #: 23

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 4/1/2020 11:58:59 AM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

Would that 1200 HP P-36 be somehow the equivalent to the CW-21?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss-Wright_CW-21

they were not well armed, or at least not in view of "western" customers. USA and UK pilots prioritized well armed planes, even at the cost of making them heavy, less maneuverable

_____________________________

(in reply to Leandros)

Post #: 24

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 4/1/2020 1:05:30 PM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Would that 1200 HP P-36 be somehow the equivalent to the CW-21?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss-Wright_CW-21

they were not well armed, or at least not in view of "western" customers. USA and UK pilots prioritized well armed planes, even at the cost of making them heavy, less maneuverable

I believe that it would be the Mohawk, Hawk 75M, or something like that. Unfortunately, I can not seem to get to wikipedia for some reason.

< Message edited by RangerJoe -- 4/1/2020 1:07:40 PM >

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

�Illegitemus non carborundum est (�Don�t let the bastards grind you down�).�
― Julia Child

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 25

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 4/1/2020 1:08:53 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

yes I am talking performance wise, CW-21 was a different plane, built by a different company

_____________________________

(in reply to RangerJoe)

Post #: 26

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 4/1/2020 1:27:21 PM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

If you have an editable scenario in use, aircraft type and ship class type edits will 'take'.

So, chazz, it depends if you used a standard or modded scenario. If the latter, yes you can change the monthly rate and end dates.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 27

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 4/1/2020 5:54:22 PM

inqistor

Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

Talking about the P-36, everybody playing the allied side in WITP should insist on having its performance upgraded in the game. It was the only allied fighter that could actually turn and climb with the Zero. I am talking about the US 1941 version with the 1.200 hp. engine and standard 1941 equipment. That engine was the same engine as the 1.050 hp version, only adjusted for the use of 100 octane fuel (as used in the P-40's Allison engine). Most P-36 performance figures I have seen are quoted for the 1.050 hp. engine, even if the latest engine as such is rated at 1.200 hp.

The P-36 had about equal wing loading and better power/weight ratio and roll ratio than the Zero. While I believe it is generally acknowledged that the Zero's high-speed handling qualities were less than optimal, the P-36's were excellent.

The 100 octane fuel made a marked difference in performance as the British also experienced in the Fall of 1940 with the Spitfire, particularly in the climb. P-36 MTOW time to 15.000 was less than five minutes - 10 minutes to 22.000! Would the US pilots in the Philippines have loved that in December 1941!

Planes without armor were considered in US, unfit for front-line duty. That's why they were never sent to front, but there should be almost 200 available for defense of West Coast. If KB would decided to attack HOLLYWOOD, every Wild Bill Kelso should be ready to defend the skies.
And game gets P-36 armament wrong. 0.30 and 0.50 cal were factory settings, but Army planes had additional four 0.30 cal in wings.

(in reply to Leandros)

Post #: 28

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 4/1/2020 8:27:40 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

I bet they didn't "roll like a Zero" with 4 additional 30 cals

_____________________________

(in reply to inqistor)

Post #: 29

RE: But I LIKE that plane!! - 4/2/2020 9:33:24 AM

Buckrock

Posts: 578
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor
Planes without armor were considered in US, unfit for front-line duty. That's why they were never sent to front, but there should be almost 200 available for defense of West Coast. If KB would decided to attack HOLLYWOOD, every Wild Bill Kelso should be ready to defend the skies.

The P-36 also had the issue of an engine optimized for combat at 10-12000ft. By 1941 the USAAC were following the European lessons that favored heavier armament, armor and the need for good fighter performance at medium-high altitudes. By that standard the P-36 was now considered obsolete.

Based on the AAF records for 1941, there were around 120 P-36s (P-36As and P-36Cs) available on the continent, spread from Alaska down to Panama. It's likely after several years of abuse in training up the expanding air force that not all of these would have been flyable and would probably have been cannibalized to keep the majority flying in case of a "HOLLYWOOD" style emergency.

quote:

And game gets P-36 armament wrong. 0.30 and 0.50 cal were factory settings, but Army planes had additional four 0.30 cal in wings.

The USAAC's P-36A at the time of the Pacific War only appears to have been equipped in service with the two cowl mounted MGs, as in the game. The USAAC's two dozen P-36Cs (IIRC, not in the game) were equipped with the same cowl guns but had also had changes to their wings to allow a .30 cal MG to be installed (one in each wing). There were also more heavily armed versions of the P-36 but these all appear to have been single examples of modified aircraft used to test different engines and armament layouts.

Joe Baugher's website gives a good coverage of the P-36 models here - http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p36.html

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to inqistor)

Post #: 30