calculating aircraft endurance

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

calculating aircraft endurance

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> calculating aircraft endurance

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

calculating aircraft endurance - 7/12/2005 10:19:45 PM

trojan58

Posts: 266
Joined: 8/8/2004
From: bendigo, Victoria, Australia
Status: offline

Does anyone have an idiot's guide to calculating arcraft range/endurance, preferably using words of one sylable or less. I've tried following the instructions in the editor manual but the figures I get don't add up.

Ta

_____________________________

There are two types of ships in the world

Submarines and Targets

D.B.F

Post #: 1

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/12/2005 10:36:54 PM

Herrbear

Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: trojan

Does anyone have an idiot's guide to calculating arcraft range/endurance, preferably using words of one sylable or less. I've tried following the instructions in the editor manual but the figures I get don't add up.

Ta

Cruise speed X Endurance / 60 = Max Range in Miles.
Cruise speed X Endurance / 3600 = Max Range in Hexes.

Normal Range is 1/4 of Max Range
Extended Range is 1/3 of Max Range

(in reply to trojan58)

Post #: 2

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/12/2005 10:51:28 PM

Subchaser

Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline

Order this book from Amazon... extremely helpful stuff there

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to trojan58)

Post #: 3

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/17/2005 8:31:07 AM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

God i wish i had that book. There was no bigger headache for me than
calculating range.

I probably have still pissed people off.. all I can say is yikes, it was insane.
As it is Zeroes can now not reach Lunga from Rabaul.
Part of the problem is i have differing sources giving distance... I am going to have to GPS it to get an exact number, and in real life Japan's zeroes mostly staged through or were based at Buka to raid Lunga. Or, in some of the early battles when they flew from Rabaul the pilots were told they did not have enough fuel so they were told to ditch on the way back!

I cannot represent these ideas in the game so you are going to have to live with it until someone makes the 'CHS fix Mike's screwups mod'.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Subchaser)

Post #: 4

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/17/2005 11:28:43 AM

doktorblood

Posts: 648
Joined: 2/14/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: trojan

Does anyone have an idiot's guide to calculating arcraft range/endurance, preferably using words of one sylable or less. I've tried following the instructions in the editor manual but the figures I get don't add up.

Ta

I'm assuming that you desire a particular aircraft to have a certain range in the game.

I've found that the easiest way is to...

Start with your desired max range .............example 1200

Multiply by 60............................................. 1200 x 60 = 72000

Divide by cruise speed.............................. ...example 72000/200 = 360

The quotient is the number you put into the endurance box ... in this case 360 to have a 200 cruise speed airplane with a 1200 mile max range.

_____________________________

(in reply to trojan58)

Post #: 5

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/18/2005 12:15:24 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

God i wish i had that book. There was no bigger headache for me than
calculating range.

I probably have still pissed people off.. all I can say is yikes, it was insane.
As it is Zeroes can now not reach Lunga from Rabaul.
Part of the problem is i have differing sources giving distance... I am going to have to GPS it to get an exact number, and in real life Japan's zeroes mostly staged through or were based at Buka to raid Lunga. Or, in some of the early battles when they flew from Rabaul the pilots were told they did not have enough fuel so they were told to ditch on the way back!

I cannot represent these ideas in the game so you are going to have to live with it until someone makes the 'CHS fix Mike's screwups mod'.

Mike

Lemurs I see no problems with the zeros reaching lunga from rabaul using andrew browns map....

works for me....

_____________________________

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 6

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/18/2005 1:20:30 AM

Subchaser

Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Lemurs I see no problems with the zeros reaching lunga from rabaul using andrew browns map....

works for me....

Are you sure? It must be some other scenario, not CHS...

Honestly I don't feel it's right... they should be able to reach Lunga.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 7

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/18/2005 1:25:28 AM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
Lemurs I see no problems with the zeros reaching lunga from rabaul using andrew browns map....works for me....

I think the database for scn.50 has it set to range 8/11, scn. 154 & 155 to 7/10.

I've been fiddling around with the editor a bit lately and is just beginning to appreciate the headache Mike and the rest of the CHS team has taken on with regards to aircraft. First of all it's seeming impossible to find two sources agreeing on the spefications of an aircraft. Then there's the issue of choosing which version(-s) of a given aircraft to model. Then there's the problem of translating whatever aircraft specifications you've dug up into WitP terms. And I can understand why Mike feels that range is headache numero uno. At least you can define the number of guns on such-and-such aircraft and that's that, but range is different. Maximum range probably relates to reality in about the same way a McDonald's commercial relates to a Big Mac. Looking at the operational record will show examples of very considerable range of so-and-so, but WitP's too crude to model the complicated relationship between bombload and range. So what's the average operational range? How will that translate into ferry-range? And how about fighters? Using escort range as the point of departure overstates their fighter-bomber range and visa-versa. Etc etc...

< Message edited by timtom -- 7/18/2005 1:52:45 AM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 8

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/18/2005 1:59:08 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Lemurs I see no problems with the zeros reaching lunga from rabaul using andrew browns map....

works for me....

Are you sure? It must be some other scenario, not CHS...

Honestly I don't feel it's right... they should be able to reach Lunga.

hmm well i was using andrews south pacific map scenario but i thought it was based on chs...

maybe not...

_____________________________

(in reply to Subchaser)

Post #: 9

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/18/2005 2:29:09 AM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

hmm well i was using andrews south pacific map scenario but i thought it was based on chs...

maybe not...

No, my scenarios are not based on CHS.

_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 10

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/18/2005 7:50:57 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

yea you guys are right...

distance of 11 hexes with standard game stats

10 with CHS...

no more trips to Lunga...

_____________________________

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 11

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/18/2005 7:58:38 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

God i wish i had that book. There was no bigger headache for me than
calculating range.

I probably have still pissed people off.. all I can say is yikes, it was insane.
As it is Zeroes can now not reach Lunga from Rabaul.
Part of the problem is i have differing sources giving distance... I am going to have to GPS it to get an exact number, and in real life Japan's zeroes mostly staged through or were based at Buka to raid Lunga. Or, in some of the early battles when they flew from Rabaul the pilots were told they did not have enough fuel so they were told to ditch on the way back!
I cannot represent these ideas in the game so you are going to have to live with it until someone makes the 'CHS fix Mike's screwups mod'.

Mike

Actually they were told they MAY not have enough fuel to make it back. Depended on how much fuel they spent dogfighting...Some did make it all the way back. Some did have to ditch. Its one of those too close to call things....

I would agree with Subchaser though...It should be able to be done at the very tip of the Zeros radius...

_____________________________

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 12

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/18/2005 8:28:20 AM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

I don't know... the pilots that flew direct to Lunga and did not yet have Buka to stage back to were all super elite pilots with about a bazillion hours in the air.
Joe and i feel it was a special circumstance and we can not extend range IN GENERAL for every special circumstance.

I am unsure still.

I suspect pilots and crew chiefs knew how to 'read' range numbers
and come up with something useful. I hate to say it but i do not.

Does range mean with an average bomb load or max? Single flight or more than one aircraft? I subtract close to 25% of an aircrafts range for form up time, which is why i am not increasing the range on the Devestator as a recent poster wanted.

Did you know that when more than one plane is in the air a wingman will use 20% more fuel than the flightleader? Is that taken account of in range settings?

I suspect that 11 hex range is Japans idea of 'you probably won't make it back but your Japanese so you will do it anyway'.
There are no rules in WITP to account for flying beyond standard range.

Andrew states the answer in the aircraft post; it is 647 miles between Lunga and Rabaul. The best an A6M2 could do in an organized combat flight with very experienced pilots was 600 miles.

I think the range will stand as is and you will all have a reason to build up Buka or Buin.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 13

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/18/2005 9:31:34 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

Tinian air wing was tasked to fly both of the air missions which warrant "extra range" for A6m2 ... Clark field and Lunga.

When Clark mission was first proposed to Tinian Air Wing - they chuckled - saying - this mission is beyond the specifications of the aircraft. They were asked to study this mission to allow the carriers the freedom to perform "other missions" !!!

But with practice ( prior to the start of the war ), the Tinian Air Wing pilots determined that they could fly very slowly - virtually gliding through the air - and conserve enough fuel to perform the mission. In other words, with extreme planning and training - they could operate outside the design specs.

When an even longer ranged mission was asked of them in Aug '42 .. they ( the same Tinian Air Wing !!! ) requested that only the best pilots fly a smaller mission ( 18 planes ) ... this was agreed to. While the mission might not be judged a success by all standards, it was flown and greater than zero/zero pilots survived ( which means it was a success for at least the survivors !!! ).

However, these extremely long ranged missions should not necessarily be daily occurances in the game. If we make this so - then the B24 missions from Biak/Nemfoor against Balipapan in late '44 must also be accounted for .. and this would mean extending the range for B24s to 23 hexes, thus making these missions a daily occurence !!!

The B24 missions against Balikpapan required reductions in bomb load, weapons, ammunition, armor and personel ... all of these being "exceptional" relative to the intended mission profile - so, should 23 hex missions be the norm ????

Given special planning and training ... exceptional missions could be flown by both sides ... however, we have chosen to represent ranges at a likely averages rather than having the "extreme" become the norm. But this comes at the sacrifice of the "exceptional" missions ... on both sides.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 14

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/18/2005 1:32:48 PM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

Chance A6M2 endurance to 574 is you don't like it...

Does patches and CHS ovrewrite the existing files and and personal edits you might have done or are they more discerning?

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 15

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/18/2005 4:08:24 PM

Subchaser

Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

I don't know... the pilots that flew direct to Lunga and did not yet have Buka to stage back to were all super elite pilots with about a bazillion hours in the air.
Joe and i feel it was a special circumstance and we can not extend range IN GENERAL for every special circumstance.

The entire war was the chain of special circumstances for Japanese, Clark field raid, Guadalcanal hassle� home defense duties. I think extended range should be 11. Western sources say combat radius was nearly 600 statute miles, while Japanese historians (like Masatsui) say it was almost 650 statute miles with 20 minutes reserve for a fight.

A6M2 was capable to reach Lunga from Rabaul, fight there for 15-20 minutes and return back home. Sakae engine in the combat modes did not consume so much fuel as many authors insist. 80% of rookies that did not return from Lunga missions simply were extremely bad navigators, their aircraft had enough fuel to bring them home. Remember that famous Saburo Sakai flight (when he was badly wounded), his route back to Rabaul on the map looked like weird zigzag, nevertheless, after flight to Lunga, heavy fighting there and the hard way back he had enough fuel to land. Of course Sakai was Zero master, but in that flight he was acting like an average pilot in Tainan Kokutai. Newbies were instructed how to maintain low fuel consumption, they knew about right altitudes, speeds, wind directions� there was even special manual for Zero pilots issued by Koku Hombu in september �42, so they knew all the factors but often had no idea where they were at the moment, bad navigation and extreme weather were the main reasons of high operational losses in tropics� Zero�s endurance was not the main problem here. A6M2 should be able to reach Lunga� no matter what. Extended range operations and low experience cause high op.losses, so we have the penalty here.

just a fact... carrier borne Zeros had much shorter combat radius, 300-350 statute miles. There were serious problems with radios and homing beacon systems. If carrier was too far away, it was very hard to return back with enough fuel to land... special circumstances?!

< Message edited by Subchaser -- 7/18/2005 6:58:15 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 16

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/18/2005 8:14:28 PM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

Yea, i knew the carrier zeroes were heavier and had less range, that is one reason i am not going to increase the range across the board.

Subchaser, i respect your opinion more than almost anyone here, but i think on this i am going to follow Joe and Andrew and stick with 600 miles.

This model has to represent the average model with radio and navalized because i do not have two A6M2s in the database.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Subchaser)

Post #: 17

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/19/2005 12:55:41 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Yea, i knew the carrier zeroes were heavier and had less range, that is one reason i am not going to increase the range across the board.

Subchaser, i respect your opinion more than almost anyone here, but i think on this i am going to follow Joe and Andrew and stick with 600 miles.

This model has to represent the average model with radio and navalized because i do not have two A6M2s in the database.

Mike

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

After considerable debate we have decided to increase the endurance of the TBD Devastator in CHS.

We will increase endurance to 336, based on the calculations in my post higher in this thread (which also has displays the resultant aircraft ranges).

Note the increase in endurance does NOT result in an increase of Normal range. However both extended and Maximum range will be increased.

I believe this is a very reasonable compromise considering the disparate data and supporting evidence posted on this thread. Like all compromises it will fully satisfy no one but, hopefully, be acceptable to everyone.

Thanks to all for your input. I am continually impressed with the knowledge and data sources of posters on this forum.

Don

How about giving us the same compromise you gave the TBD's....???

_____________________________

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 18

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/19/2005 1:29:50 AM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

Just for you Tanaka, i will make the Zeros combat range 601 miles!
Don't say i never gave you anything!

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 19

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/19/2005 1:30:54 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Just for you Tanaka, i will make the Zeros combat range 601 miles!
Don't say i never gave you anything!

Mike

1 more mile! hip hip hooray!!!

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 7/19/2005 1:32:52 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 20

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 7/25/2005 1:16:04 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: trojan

Does anyone have an idiot's guide to calculating arcraft range/endurance, preferably using words of one sylable or less. I've tried following the instructions in the editor manual but the figures I get don't add up.

Ta

The formula I figured out in Excel:
to calculate endurance: endurance = (3600 * (max range/60)) / cruise speed
to calculate max range: max range = ((endurance * cruise speed)/3600) * 60

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to trojan58)

Post #: 21

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 9/10/2005 3:34:02 AM

CobraAus

Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline

quote:

I'm assuming that you desire a particular aircraft to have a certain range in the game.

I've found that the easiest way is to...

Start with your desired max range .............example 1200

Multiply by 60............................................. 1200 x 60 = 72000

Divide by cruise speed.............................. ...example 72000/200 = 360

The quotient is the number you put into the endurance box ... in this case 360 to have a 200 cruise speed airplane with a 1200 mile max range.

is there an equevelant formula for ships

Cobra Aus

< Message edited by CobraAus -- 9/10/2005 3:38:38 AM >

(in reply to doktorblood)

Post #: 22

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 9/10/2005 3:43:09 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: trojan

Does anyone have an idiot's guide to calculating arcraft range/endurance, preferably using words of one sylable or less. I've tried following the instructions in the editor manual but the figures I get don't add up.

Ta

I gave you the formula that I used in another thread:

1) Endurance = (3600*(max range/60))/cruise speed

2) Max Range = ((endurance*cruise speed)/3600)*60

For #1 if you know the max range of the plane you can calculate what the endurance will be.

For #2 if you know the endurance you can calculate what the max range would be.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to trojan58)

Post #: 23

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 9/13/2005 5:21:35 AM

the potemkin

Posts: 9
Joined: 8/27/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

how does droptanks figure in when calculating endurance?

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 24

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 9/13/2005 7:42:09 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

I don't know... the pilots that flew direct to Lunga and did not yet have Buka to stage back to were all super elite pilots with about a bazillion hours in the air.
Joe and i feel it was a special circumstance and we can not extend range IN GENERAL for every special circumstance.

I am unsure still.

I suspect pilots and crew chiefs knew how to 'read' range numbers
and come up with something useful. I hate to say it but i do not.

Does range mean with an average bomb load or max? Single flight or more than one aircraft? I subtract close to 25% of an aircrafts range for form up time, which is why i am not increasing the range on the Devestator as a recent poster wanted.

Did you know that when more than one plane is in the air a wingman will use 20% more fuel than the flightleader? Is that taken account of in range settings?

I suspect that 11 hex range is Japans idea of 'you probably won't make it back but your Japanese so you will do it anyway'.
There are no rules in WITP to account for flying beyond standard range.

Andrew states the answer in the aircraft post; it is 647 miles between Lunga and Rabaul. The best an A6M2 could do in an organized combat flight with very experienced pilots was 600 miles.

I think the range will stand as is and you will all have a reason to build up Buka or Buin.

Mike

In Saburo Sakai's book, he talked about flying from Rabaul to Guadalcanal. He commented that only the most experienced pilots could do it by reducing the fuel:air ratio.

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 25

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 9/13/2005 8:07:21 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

In Saburo Sakai's book, he talked about flying from Rabaul to Guadalcanal. He commented that only the most experienced pilots could do it by reducing the fuel:air ratio.

I think the point Lemurs was trying to make was that not every pilot is the most experienced pilot.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 26

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 9/13/2005 8:40:16 PM

the potemkin

Posts: 9
Joined: 8/27/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

I think it was the units with A6M3 32 (Hap/Hamp/Zeke32) that lost planes; it had about 20% shorter range than the A6M2

It was those losses that made them make changes to the A6M3, resulting in the the A6M3 22 with additional fuel tanks in the wings and folding wing tips, restoring the range to that of the A6M2.

The A6M2 had a range of ~1200 st.miles without droptanks, and ~1950 st.miles with.

< Message edited by the potemkin -- 9/13/2005 10:19:00 PM >

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 27

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 9/13/2005 9:57:47 PM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: the potemkin

how does droptanks figure in when calculating endurance?

Anybody know??

(in reply to the potemkin)

Post #: 28

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 9/13/2005 10:28:06 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: the potemkin

how does droptanks figure in when calculating endurance?

Anybody know??

Depends on the drop tanks. SOme drop tanks offer enough capacity to equal roughly double the internal capacity, others much less. I haven't read this thread, just responding to Don's one question here ... but the question of a "formula" for range ... is not a slam dunk ... if it was .. these questions wouldn't be out there ... everyone would know the answer already. Problem is that "it depends" on the flight characteristics of the airplane...at what altitude and what speed does the plane most efficiently use its fuel supply ? And this data is not readily available - it generally has to be pieced together plane by plane from many sources.

But as a simple example, the Nate has 96 gals internal and 2 x 28 gal drop tanks ... range is variously given 1050 miles or 339 miles ( and some other numbers as well ) ... of course "range" is not combat radius. Combat radius usually includes both a combat reserve and a navigation reserve ( 20% and 10% or thereabouts ) ...

Assuming that the roughly 150 gals capacity and the 1050 mile maximum theoretical range are valid .. then we have about 7 miles to the gallon at maximum fuel efficiency. Also as maximum speed is about 280 mph we can assume efficient crusing speed would be around 150 miles per hour ( or lower if possible but this is a convenient number ) ... so we have 7 hours maximum flying time at maximum effficiency.

If we first use up the external tanks ( about 50 gals ) then we have flown 2.3 hours and 350 miles. Now if we fight for 20 minutes a 4x fuel consumption then in this 20 minutes we use 140 minutes of efficient range ... or about 2.3 hours of efficient range ... this leaves us with 2.3 hours of efficient range remaining to return to base with no reserve !!! To gain a reserve, we would have to further limit combat time to maybe 15 minutes.

10, 15, 20 minutes these were fairly typical fighter combat times, so nothing to be alarmed at. But note the above is done without detailed knowledge of the most efficient flying altitude and speed for the Nate. This data, if it were available, could improve and de-improve the flight plan.

Software to calculate flight time and fuel use is available ... but it is available by airplane. There is no scientific means of computing fuel use and range for planes " in general " ( at least not that I've ever found ).

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 29

RE: calculating aircraft endurance - 9/14/2005 6:18:09 PM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: the potemkin

how does droptanks figure in when calculating endurance?

It would depend on each specific plane and whether you can get information about it concerning it's range without a drop tank and then with a droptank.

For instance I have information on the following aircraft:

F6F Hellcat ............ w/out droptank: 1,090 miles ..... with droptank: 1,530 miles
F4U Corsair ........... w/out droptank: 1,015 miles ..... with droptank: 1,562 miles
P-38 Lightning ....... w/out droptank: 475 miles ........ with droptank: 2,260 miles
P-39 Airacobra ...... w/out droptank: 600 miles ........ with droptank: 1,100 miles
P-40 Warhawk ....... w/out droptank: 700 miles ........ with droptank: 1,500 miles
P-47 Thunderbolt ... w/out droptank: 700 miles ........ with droptank: 1,500 miles
P-51 Mustang ........ w/out droptank: 950 miles ........ with droptank: 2,080 miles

A6M Zero ............. w/out droptank: 1,160 miles ..... with droptank: 1,930 miles
N1K1 George ........ w/out droptank: 890 miles ....... with droptank: 1,581 miles
B5N Kate .............. w/out droptank: 634 miles ....... with droptank: 1,238 miles
D4Y2 Judy ............ w/out droptank: 909 miles ....... with droptank: 2,239 miles
B6N Jill ................. w/out droptank: 909 miles ....... with droptank: 2,142 miles
G4M Betty ............ w/out droptank: 3,041 miles ..... with droptank: 3,506 miles
Ki-27 Nate ............ w/out droptank: 390 miles ....... with droptank: 1,060 miles
Ki-45 Nick ............ w/out droptank: 1,243 miles ..... with droptank: 1,404 miles
Ki-61 Tony ........... w/out droptank: 373 miles ........ with droptank: 684 miles
Ki-84 Frank .......... w/out droptank: 1,025 miles ..... with droptank: 1,815 miles
Ki-21 Sally ........... w/out droptank: 932 miles ........ with droptank: 1,680 miles

As you can see, droptanks could more than double the distance (see the P-38 Lightning) or only add a few hundred miles to the distance.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to the potemkin)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> calculating aircraft endurance

Page: [1] 2 next > >>