RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS

RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (Full Version)

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

Message

Big B -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 3:27:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi Here is loss from other PBEm game. Notice not all games of WITP are slaughter fests. This game is in Aug 1943 these are totals for entire war. (Both games are non PDU and so A6M is main Japanese fighter in all areas. ) I would suspect with the numbers you posted for one day losses in Aug 43, that those squadrons are not experience 75 and over (or perhaps a whole lot of rookies in good squadrons were hit[8\|]). What I am beginning to lean towards is going back to the notion of across the board reduction in starting experience (which I tried once in an experiment - and it worked quite well and evenly) I am loath to muck with aircraft data, not knowing for certain how 2x3 arrived at their all the ratings - I can only assume that it was done evenly and uniformly - I have seen lots of evidence of that in ships and devices. B

mogami -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 3:49:29 AM)
Hi, The reason the daitai are not 75 exp in 1943 is they did not achive 3-1 kill ratios in 1942. I do not employ any of the training practices other then setting a group to train and then flying training missions. (I don't use the isolated enemy base method or flying supply to your own airfield)

dtravel -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 4:03:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Big B What I am beginning to lean towards is going back to the notion of across the board reduction in starting experience (which I tried once in an experiment - and it worked quite well and evenly) And what kind of knock-on effects did you see? Reducing all pilots experience might make A2A less bloody, but what else does it affect? Skip bombing, which was historically a good tactic by all accounts, suddenly becomes useless. And how do you stop the various superspeed training methods from invalidating the whole thing in a real game? Patrol aircraft, from reports, need to be at least 80 experience before they will even start to attack subs. Subs as it is already don't fear aircraft enough. I'm sure there are a lot of other things that would be affected. The game was pretty obviously designed with lots of high experience pilots in mind and probably stops performing as intended if they aren't there. said the guy in a cranky mood for no reason

m10bob -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 4:31:02 AM)
Big B sez: quote: Weren't allied planes capable of 'Over boost' for short periods of time(W.E.P.)? then the F4F could be given a speed closer to the A6M (say 330mph) - which would change the kill ratio. To the best of my knowledge, "Overboost" was used only on planes furnished with superchargers, and it was accomplished by a short, quick injection of glycol and alcohol into the cylinder head, which acted on combustion and compression like nitro in fuel dragsters..It could not be done for longer periods as it would burn out the engine. I believe I first learned of it by reading Grp Cpt Johnny Johnsons' excellent book"Wing Leader".....

Drongo -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 10:02:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl BTW, Sakai never was in theater on a mission against a P-39 base. His opinion on the matter is worth about as much as a propaganda poster. quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl Yes, but he (well, his unit anyhow) was withdrawn (IIRC) to Rabaul before the first P-39s (which were, technically speaking, P-400s, but the differences were small) were sent to Moresby. What have you been googling? Sakai (and his unit) arrived at Lae in April '42 and operated there until the start of August '42. They had flown missions against Port Moresby (including the surrounding Allied airbases) up to and including July '42. Units of the 8th FG equipped with P-39s had been based out of airfields in the Port Moresby area since late April '42. After the withdrawl of the RAAF fighters in May, the 8th FG became the only fighter defence for the area. In June they were relieved by units of the 35th FG flying a mix of P-39s and P-400s. Further US units equipped with P-39s/P-400s arrived in July. Cheers

mogami -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 10:24:49 AM)
Hi, 8-Apr Saburo Sakai's squadron arrives at Lae, joining two other squadrons that had landed a few days earlier. 11-Apr Sakai's first combat over Port Moresby. 9 Zeros fly over; attack P-39s. 4 P-39s shot down (2 by Sakai). 8-May Battle of the Coral Sea, Day 2 Fighter sweep over Moresby. Sakai shoots down a P-39. 12-May 15 Zeros near Port Moreseby. Lt. Sasai (Commander of Sakai's Chutai) shoots down three P-39s flying in a column. 17-May Maximum effort fighter sweep: 18 Zeros over port Moresby. 3 "enemy fighter formations" (usually 12 each) clashed with over the air field. 6 P-39s downed. Ota, Sakai, and Nishizawa perform loops over the field at the end of the attack. 20-May 15 Zeros over Port Moresby at 30,000 ft. met head on by 10 new version P-39s, with working oxygen. 2 P-39s shot down, but the margin of performance quite narrow at that altitude. 16-Jun 21 Zeros catch 3 groups of 12 fighters (newer model P-39s) separated. 19 P-39s shot down. As they return, they catch 10 B-26s raiding Lae (vs. 19 defenders), followed by 10 P-39s strafing. 1 P-39 shot down. 26-Jul Sakai's last mission to Port Moresby, after a running chase of 5 B-26s ( 2 were shot down).

Big B -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 6:52:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Big B sez: quote: Weren't allied planes capable of 'Over boost' for short periods of time(W.E.P.)? then the F4F could be given a speed closer to the A6M (say 330mph) - which would change the kill ratio. To the best of my knowledge, "Overboost" was used only on planes furnished with superchargers, and it was accomplished by a short, quick injection of glycol and alcohol into the cylinder head, which acted on combustion and compression like nitro in fuel dragsters..It could not be done for longer periods as it would burn out the engine. I believe I first learned of it by reading Grp Cpt Johnny Johnsons' excellent book"Wing Leader"..... I believe that is what is known in USAF/USN circles as "War Emergency Power, or W.E.P. . The F4F also was the first American Fighter to be equipped with a Two-Stage Two-Speed Supercharger. That really was my original question in this thread. The often quoted 318 MPH rating -is that under Full Military Power or War Emergency Power? That makes quite a diference, and I have never seen under which condition that speed was arrived at. That would make the same speed diference as the Zero having full speed at 316mph, but brief 'overboost' up to 332-345.

worr -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 6:57:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Big B Here's the conundrum, The A6M2/3 is accepted to be more agile, a better climber, and faster than a Wildcat. However, in real combat the Wildcat and it's pilots consistently held their own, and prevailed. Team work was the edge they used. Also the heavier US planes would dive better so there was an escape route afford to them if the fight began at altitude. There are many variables to dog fighting...and no computer system is going to get it right with all those variables. Worr, out

worr -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 7:00:02 PM)
Not all WEP was afforded by injection water or nitro. Often times it was simply more throttle or boost, in the case of a turbo charger, which allowed better performance for about 5 minutes. But this then demanded a scheduled overhaul of the engine. Worr, out

mdiehl -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 7:00:59 PM)
@Drongo - It was an IIRC. Last night I double checked and found IDNRC. [;)] @Mo Those are claimed kills. Not worth a penny to a dollar for knowing how many enemy a.c. he shot down. In any case, Sakai was never in a position to know what the top speed of a P-39 was. And that is after all what the subject was (max level airspeeds of a.c. in flight). The fact that Sakai may have been able to shoot one down does not logically lead to the conclusion that at low altitude an A6M2 was as fast as a P-39. I think at least for max level airspeed we can assume that the 332 mph given by the Zero's manufacturer (achieved at 15K feet) is accurate and that the 368 mph given by Bell (achieved at 12K feet) is accurate. Like all of these "a vs b" a.c. discussions there were windows in which each was at its best, so the "oh yay a zero was as fast as a P.39" shtick does as usual ignore both the general facts and the complexity of the analaysis. This claim: quote: This compilation of reports indicates the Zero was either equal to or close to the P-39 in speed at the altitudes of the various encounters. Is accurate but the contextual use of it "it was as fast as the P-39" isn't worth a toss. With this comparison, altitude matters alot. In any case judging combat effectiveness I'd bet the sustained kill ratio of the P-39 vs A6M in direct ftf encounters is roughly 1:1.

rtrapasso -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 7:03:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: worr quote: ORIGINAL: Big B Here's the conundrum, The A6M2/3 is accepted to be more agile, a better climber, and faster than a Wildcat. However, in real combat the Wildcat and it's pilots consistently held their own, and prevailed. Team work was the edge they used. Also the heavier US planes would dive better so there was an escape route afford to them if the fight began at altitude. There are many variables to dog fighting...and no computer system is going to get it right with all those variables. Worr, out Dunno about that - there is at least one program* that CLAIMS to get it right - and you can rent it for about a zillion dollars per year... Maybe in 10 years it will come down to a reasonable price. (*name of which i disremember right now...)

Big B -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 7:07:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dtravel quote: ORIGINAL: Big B What I am beginning to lean towards is going back to the notion of across the board reduction in starting experience (which I tried once in an experiment - and it worked quite well and evenly) And what kind of knock-on effects did you see? Reducing all pilots experience might make A2A less bloody, but what else does it affect? Skip bombing, which was historically a good tactic by all accounts, suddenly becomes useless. And how do you stop the various superspeed training methods from invalidating the whole thing in a real game? Patrol aircraft, from reports, need to be at least 80 experience before they will even start to attack subs. Subs as it is already don't fear aircraft enough. I'm sure there are a lot of other things that would be affected. The game was pretty obviously designed with lots of high experience pilots in mind and probably stops performing as intended if they aren't there. said the guy in a cranky mood for no reason Well, since you asked, The only difference I noted was that instead of air battles frequently killing off 90% of one sides planes (in a recent PBEM, I had (80)P40Bs attacking (90)A6M2s - I lost 70 P40s for about 5 Zeros - typical of almost every encounter in that game) no matter how large the air battles became (well over 100 aircraft per side) the loss rates were down to no more than 30-40%% for a particularly big & bloody encounter. The smaller encounters were less bloody (usually 10% losses - occasionally no losses). CAP still shot down escorted bombers, bombers still bombed and torpedoed ships - but everything was down a notch. To some it up, everything still worked fine, but one-sided massacres really didn't happen, and losses were just in proportion to numbers involved. (if you are outnumbered 3:1, you might expect to lose at about 3:1)

worr -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 7:13:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Dunno about that - there is at least one program* that CLAIMS to get it right Can they simulate fear? I usually have a cup of coffee while I play a game. ;) Worr, out

rtrapasso -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 7:20:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: worr quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Dunno about that - there is at least one program* that CLAIMS to get it right Can they simulate fear? [:D] Not sure the sim does, but some research team actually tried programming a robot (a little guy, sorta like a Roomba, i think) to have emotions. After a week or so, it tried to escape!! [X(] [:D] (true story!! [8D])

ChezDaJez -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 7:20:56 PM)
quote: That really was my original question in this thread. The often quoted 318 MPH rating -is that under Full Military Power or War Emergency Power? That would be without WEP. WEP was of very short duration and ws designed to give an aircraft an extra boost to get out of a fight or to achieve an attack position. As it was time limited and had very harmful effects on an engine if used to much, most pilots didn't use it for more than absolutely necessary. It was used much the same way afterburner is used on fighters today. They seldom used it to achieve top speed except when on emergency intercept or getting out of a fight. As the F4F was quite the dog in the acceleration department, the WEP was normally nearly all used up by the time the aircraft achieved top WEP speed. Where they did use it a lot was for the extra acceleration needed to achieve a firing position or avoid being fired on. Most maneuvering air to air combats were fought at less than 250 kts and needed acceleration more than top speed. A smart pilot used it very judiciously. Chez

Big B -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 7:34:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: That really was my original question in this thread. The often quoted 318 MPH rating -is that under Full Military Power or War Emergency Power? That would be without WEP. WEP was of very short duration and ws designed to give an aircraft an extra boost to get out of a fight or to achieve an attack position. As it was time limited and had very harmful effects on an engine if used to much, most pilots didn't use it for more than absolutely necessary. It was used much the same way afterburner is used on fighters today. They seldom used it to achieve top speed except when on emergency intercept or getting out of a fight. As the F4F was quite the dog in the acceleration department, the WEP was normally nearly all used up by the time the aircraft achieved top WEP speed. Where they did use it a lot was for the extra acceleration needed to achieve a firing position or avoid being fired on. Most maneuvering air to air combats were fought at less than 250 kts and needed acceleration more than top speed. A smart pilot used it very judiciously. Chez Then maybe, since the game engine is limited, giving the F4F a speed of about 330mph would be justifiable considering the Zero speed is based on short duration overboost as well. That would still leave the Zero a faster and more maneuverable plane - the margins just wouldn't be as large, and the results in game would be more of a match between the two aircraft (as history proved out). Note: I am only referring to the mod I am working on - I am not proposing an official change. B

mdiehl -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 7:36:06 PM)
WEP gave about a 15% power increase. Not sure what one may conclude about that vis increased speed or acceleration. That is, I would not bet the bank on the relationship between power output and these other characteristics being linear. WEP's duration was dependent on the source of the WEP. If it was a water or methanol boost about 3 minutes. If it was merely air forcing, it could be used substantially longer, but the ground mechanics would be pissed and you'd wear out your engine quite rapidly. The local F-16 group uses afterburners all the time in taking off and sometimes in landing approaches. I doubt that WW2 pilots routinely used WEP during take-offs or landing approaches. IIRC afterburner just increases fuel consumption, not wear and tear on moving parts.

worr -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 7:43:35 PM)
Afterburning isn't really comparible to WEP. It is just a way of flushing more tax dollars through the engine. :)

mdiehl -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 7:51:39 PM)
quote: It is just a way of flushing more tax dollars through the engine. So that's the "great sucking sound" of a deficit spending government? [:D]

worr -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 7:57:04 PM)
Increase tax and inscrease spend, rinse, and repeat.

Big B -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 8:07:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl WEP gave about a 15% power increase. Not sure what one may conclude about that vis increased speed or acceleration. That is, I would not bet the bank on the relationship between power output and these other characteristics being linear. WEP's duration was dependent on the source of the WEP. If it was a water or methanol boost about 3 minutes. If it was merely air forcing, it could be used substantially longer, but the ground mechanics would be pissed and you'd wear out your engine quite rapidly. The local F-16 group uses afterburners all the time in taking off and sometimes in landing approaches. I doubt that WW2 pilots routinely used WEP during take-offs or landing approaches. IIRC afterburner just increases fuel consumption, not wear and tear on moving parts. You are quite correct that there is NO linear increase in speed with adding HP - I worked on enough hot rods in my youth to know that[;)] But in this case a 15% increase in HP relates to only a 3% increase in top speed - that's in the realm of feasibility. I have no desire to 'gimp' the Zero, I just want to allow the F4F to be more competitive in relation to the Zero, so it may perform in game at the level it performed ITRW. B

dtravel -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 8:16:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Big B I have no desire to 'gimp' the Zero, I just want to allow the F4F to be more competitive in relation to the Zero, so it may perform in game at the level it performed ITRW. Around here, that IS "gimping" the Zero. [;)] ("Gimping the Zero". I like the sound of that, got to find some way to include that in my sig.)

mlees -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 8:27:31 PM)
Another thing to bear in mind, as Mog touched on, was that the raw historical numbers only tell part of the story. Why did plane type "x" acheive "y" kills over plane foe "z"? Those raw numbers dont tell the tactical story, usually. For example: the Battle of Britain. Radar helped the Brits to better vector intercepts, without having to maintain standing CAP over the Home Isle. This leads to reduced wear and tear on the planes and pilots. Also, it allows the defence to pick and choose where their numbers will do the most good vs. the attacker (i.e. hopefully where the defenders can locally outnumber the attackers). Once the radar operators (and flight leaders) got more experienced, they were able to vector the aircraft to more advantageous approaches for the crucial initial meeting phase. This leads to higher kill rates than before. None of those doctrinal/support aspects changed the mechanical capabilities of the planes involved. What does all that have to do with the game? Only in that, by trying to use historical kill ratios as a target goal for the game engine to achieve, we should be carefull what we choose to tweak to force the formula to "balance" against our perceived expectations... Do you lose too many aircraft versus historical results? Is that because the A2A model is broke, or because your throwing your forces in piece-meal (i.e. outnumbered)?

Terminus -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 8:31:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dtravel quote: ORIGINAL: Big B I have no desire to 'gimp' the Zero, I just want to allow the F4F to be more competitive in relation to the Zero, so it may perform in game at the level it performed ITRW. Around here, that IS "gimping" the Zero. [;)] ("Gimping the Zero". I like the sound of that, got to find some way to include that in my sig.) "Zero Gimpers R Us"?

dtravel -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 8:39:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: dtravel quote: ORIGINAL: Big B I have no desire to 'gimp' the Zero, I just want to allow the F4F to be more competitive in relation to the Zero, so it may perform in game at the level it performed ITRW. Around here, that IS "gimping" the Zero. [;)] ("Gimping the Zero". I like the sound of that, got to find some way to include that in my sig.) "Zero Gimpers R Us"? I was thinking something more direct, like "Gimping the Zero Fanboy" or some such.

Big B -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 8:47:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees Another thing to bear in mind, as Mog touched on, was that the raw historical numbers only tell part of the story. Why did plane type "x" acheive "y" kills over plane foe "z"? Those raw numbers dont tell the tactical story, usually. For example: the Battle of Britain. Radar helped the Brits to better vector intercepts, without having to maintain standing CAP over the Home Isle. This leads to reduced wear and tear on the planes and pilots. Also, it allows the defence to pick and choose where their numbers will do the most good vs. the attacker (i.e. hopefully where the defenders can locally outnumber the attackers). Once the radar operators (and flight leaders) got more experienced, they were able to vector the aircraft to more advantageous approaches for the crucial initial meeting phase. This leads to higher kill rates than before. None of those doctrinal/support aspects changed the mechanical capabilities of the planes involved. What does all that have to do with the game? Only in that, by trying to use historical kill ratios as a target goal for the game engine to achieve, we should be carefull what we choose to tweak to force the formula to "balance" against our perceived expectations... Do you lose too many aircraft versus historical results? Is that because the A2A model is broke, or because your throwing your forces in piece-meal (i.e. outnumbered)? In PBEMs, I have always used good tactics of never using piece-meal attacks - only go with rested pilots from well supplied bases with an Air HQ - and always throw the 'kitchen sink' at them (no such thing as a fair fight). Through 1942 (mid August now) always get my head handed to me in the air battles. Ouch. When it has come to testing the game engine I have always given both sides complete equality in airbase size, numbers, supply level and support - and arranging equal encounters. The whole ideas has been to see what happens under equal conditions, so no one is handicapped (anyone can prevail when they hold all the cards - that won't tell you much). Then run literally thousands of repeat sorties to get a wide variety of results so I can see averages and trends. For the record - the game engine Is Not Broken. In fact, because of all the testing of it that I have done - I have gained an entirely new respect for it. I just think there are a few things they didn't get quite right.[;)]

mlees -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 8:55:53 PM)
quote: In PBEMs, I have always used good tactics of never using piece-meal attacks - only go with rested pilots from well supplied bases with an Air HQ - and always throw the 'kitchen sink' at them (no such thing as a fair fight). Through 1942 (mid August now) always get my head handed to me in the air battles. Ouch. I hear you. I didn't mean to imply that you are a careless or poor player. I lack good communicating skills. What I meant to say was: Is the Real Life F4F vs A6M kill ratio because of the performance characteristics of the planes, or how they were used tactically/doctrinally? The favorable historical kill ratio has many things included in the reasons. The game engine has a slightly less complicated matrix (compared to RL). While I realise you have to work with what you are given, I was wondering if changing the values of the aircraft database the right approach (as it would only affect the aircraft you modify). What other aspects of the game are available to tweak that might be more accurate overall?

Big B -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 8:58:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees quote: In PBEMs, I have always used good tactics of never using piece-meal attacks - only go with rested pilots from well supplied bases with an Air HQ - and always throw the 'kitchen sink' at them (no such thing as a fair fight). Through 1942 (mid August now) always get my head handed to me in the air battles. Ouch. I hear you. I didn't mean to imply that you are a careless or poor player. I lack good communicating skills. What I meant to say was: Is the Real Life F4F vs A6M kill ratio because of the performance characteristics of the planes, or how they were used tactically/doctrinally? The favorable historical kill ratio has many things included in the reasons. The game engine has a slightly less complicated matrix (compared to RL). While I realise you have to work with what you are given, I was wondering if changing the values of the aircraft database the right approach (as it would only affect the aircraft you modify). What other aspects of the game are available to tweak that might be more accurate overall? I whole-heartedly agree with you about mucking with the DB, and stated earlier that I was loathe to do so (especially unilaterally). If tactics and doctrine were the key (and I think they were) then the game value that relates to that would be experience level... Just trying to find an acceptable answer.

ChezDaJez -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 10:05:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl WEP gave about a 15% power increase. Not sure what one may conclude about that vis increased speed or acceleration. That is, I would not bet the bank on the relationship between power output and these other characteristics being linear. WEP's duration was dependent on the source of the WEP. If it was a water or methanol boost about 3 minutes. If it was merely air forcing, it could be used substantially longer, but the ground mechanics would be pissed and you'd wear out your engine quite rapidly. The local F-16 group uses afterburners all the time in taking off and sometimes in landing approaches. I doubt that WW2 pilots routinely used WEP during take-offs or landing approaches. IIRC afterburner just increases fuel consumption, not wear and tear on moving parts. Well, think about it a little bit. Depending on the method used, WEP could provide anywhere from a 10% to over 60% boost in HP. The P-51 WEP generated over 600 additional hp, for the Corsair it was around 400hp. The Bf-109 gained about 210hp. These are all significant boosts to hp. Sure it had its drawbacks. Merlin engines had to be overhauled after its use so pilots were very judicious in its use. It wasn't something you used everytime you got into a fight, it was something you used to save your life, that of a wingman or your ship Look at it another way. Take two otherwise identical cars, but one has X amount of horsepower and one has NOS . The one with NOS going to be faster and quicker. WEP does the same thing. In fact the Germans used NOS as one of their methods. And no one said WEP was during takeoff or landing on a routine basis though I wouldn't doubt someone low and slow crossing the ramp is going to reach for all the power he can! Trust you to come up with a statement like that. As for afterburner, its not needed for takeoff or landing except when hauling a lot of weapons or when time is of the essence. Any other time its just a waste of fuel. But it can save your life. It produces gobs of acceleration and very high speed when needed. And yes it uses an extreme amount of fuel but the tactical advantages it can provide are huge when used correctly. In combat, its much better to use it when necessary and be a live pilot with empty tanks than a dead pilot with full tanks. BTW, wasn't it you that said that Sakai never fought against the P-39 in NG? Chez

mdiehl -> RE: HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS (6/15/2006 10:35:32 PM)
@chez quote: Well, think about it a little bit. Depending on the method used, WEP could provide anywhere from a 10% to over 60% boost in HP. 60% sounds high from what I've read but I'd love to see a substantiating link. An additional 600 HP for the P-51 for ex would be about a 30% power boost. quote: And no one said WEP was during takeoff or landing on a routine basis though I wouldn't doubt someone low and slow crossing the ramp is going to reach for all the power he can! Trust you to come up with a statement like that. Yeah, well no one said that you said that anyone would use WEP when taking off or landing, so, trust you to come up with a claim that someone did. You are the one who said that WEP was used in the same way that afterburners are used today... which is dead wrong. quote: As for afterburner, its not needed for takeoff or landing except when hauling a lot of weapons or when time is of the essence. That is true. It is also true, however, that fighters where I live use it frequently. Not in the sense of "oh jeez I gotta do this or crash" but in the let's all lift off really fast. Possibly part of standard operational training (how fast can we scramble to intercept). But that is still completely different from the sense that WEP was used in WW2. quote: BTW, wasn't it you that said that Sakai never fought against the P-39 in NG? Yeah. Rescinded though. I'd recalled that his group was transferred back to Rabaul in May but looked into it more and found out that recollection was wrong. I'm still correct about the validity of the comparison of results from the US CV raid on Buna[sm=sterb029.gif] and the IJN CV raid on Darwin, explosive Dee, and the relative merits of the A6M and F4F. [;)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.695313