quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Except for the case of multiple engines along the center axis (very rare), multi-engine planes in WWII have their engines on/in the wings. Because the engines are heavy, this means that they have a lot more inertia to overcome when they try to roll. It's basically the physics concept of angular momentum.

This is one big difference between single and multi-engine planes in WWII.

I understand about the concept of angular momentum. But I am only discussing max speed and rate of climb. I don't think that angular momentum plays a part in this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Except for the case of multiple engines along the center axis (very rare), multi-engine planes in WWII have their engines on/in the wings. Because the engines are heavy, this means that they have a lot more inertia to overcome when they try to roll. It's basically the physics concept of angular momentum.

This is one big difference between single and multi-engine planes in WWII.

I understand about the concept of angular momentum. But I am only discussing max speed and rate of climb. I don't think that angular momentum plays a part in this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Something I just thought of concerning the dividing by the number of engines. Now that Wing Loading and Power Loading is taken into account do you penalize multi engine planes for speed and ROC. Wouldn't all planes, in theory, be consistent for those two factors. For example, shouldn't a 2-engine plane with 1000 hp engines with a ROC of 3000 and weight of 10,000 lbs work the same as a 1-engine plane with a 2000 hp engine also with a ROC of 3000 and a weight of 10,000 lbs.

Why would the 2-engine plane be penalized in those factors?

The multi engine penalty - it is not just for twin engine planes - but all of them - is meant to address the problem of conservation of angular momentum. It is meant to say that it is a severe restriction on maneuverability. It is a nice part of the function - whatever the number of engines - it goes there. There is, however, this caviet: multiple engines on one axis count as one engine. This can occur in 3 ways (and does NOT occur in WITP so far).

1) Two engines coupled to act as one.
2) Two engines with a common shaft - driving counter rotating screws on the same hub.
3) Two engines on a single axis - one driving a tractor and one a pusher.

Anyway - the number of engines is in the deonominator because that is the right place for it to be. It divides what otherwise would be the maneuverability value - a composite function - by N. It is not meant to say any particular element of that function is so divided.

Sid -- I understand why the penalty is used as it impacts wing loading and power loading. But does the "problem of conservation of angular momentum" have any impact on max speed or ROC. If it doesn't, why penalize those factors?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

What are you using for gross weight. Loaded or Max?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

So, with all of this being said are we actually ending up with any major changes in the aircraft manoeuvrability scales?


Question: I note the Ki-21 Sally doesn't have any armour in RHS EOS 4.46 ... Is this correct?

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

First of all, we have a superior rating system to what was previously available.

It keeps heavy bombers (and similar 4 engine transports and flying boats) anchored about 4 (3 to 5); it lets high performance planes get rated way up in the sky; and it spreads twin engine planes way out - almost down to big plane levels if dogs and better than some single engine types.

Second, we have a data exchange problem: I don't have the Japanese data (done first) - and cannot use it until I do - so there will be no 5.10 today.

Third, Houston - we have a problem:

RHS tried to do several things at the same time re aircraft - including address operational attrition - AAA attrition and air combat attrition. Two of these - the first two - required we use a lower range for durability. The third is hurt by lower durability - but we compensated for that by weapons changes AND BY a lower maneuverability scale. I set the limits as "3 or 4 at the low end and just over 30 at the high end" because - at 36 - planes become excessively lethal in our system.

The present - vastly improved - scale has planes in the 40s - up to 47 I have seen (for the P-80), 42 (F4U-1D), etc.
We probably will make "uber cap" worse than ever it was if we let such ratings in.

The solution is some kind of data compression of the range. Normally I would use a K factor - but to get 47 to below 36 is way too big a correction to apply to many cases.

Seeking ideas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Herrbear,

Yes... and also vs AAA and in terms of ops losses.


Why not apply a K factor? It preserves relative manoeuvrabilities thus fulfilling the goal of internal consistency. I don't see how any non-K solution is going to keep the relationship of the manoeuvrabilities of planes to the same ratio as currently pertains.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Actually Sid, on the topic of pilot experience....

In RHS EOS the Japanese get pilots of relatively high experience ( Army - 60, Navy - 70) while the Allies get low quality pilots ( 40s and 50s). This may be OK in 41 and 42 but  it certainly isn't in 43,44 and 45 when the Allied pilot quality should be, at least, in the 60s up to about 70 also.

Have you given this any thought? It must be possible to change pilot quality since the stock scenarios have it changing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Replacement groups come with free pilots that average what the experience level set for that group in the airgroup editor

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Replacement groups come with free pilots that average what the experience level set for that group in the airgroup editor

Any idea if that applies to the initial pilot complement only or to all pilots, incl later replacements, drawn for the sqd - ei is the XP set in editor an absolute override?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Cid. Hi there. Just wanted to ask if you were thinking of drastically reducing the pilot experience levels in your mods, including the named pilots ratings? I've done so in my experimental CHS test bed game and the results are extremely positive. As one can expect, pilots with more average ratings are not racking up quadruple ace status in a few weeks.

Well worth trying in yours given all the changes and massive effort you have put into it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Actually Sid, on the topic of pilot experience....

In RHS EOS the Japanese get pilots of relatively high experience ( Army - 60, Navy - 70) while the Allies get low quality pilots ( 40s and 50s). This may be OK in 41 and 42 but  it certainly isn't in 43,44 and 45 when the Allied pilot quality should be, at least, in the 60s up to about 70 also.

Have you given this any thought? It must be possible to change pilot quality since the stock scenarios have it changing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Actually Sid, on the topic of pilot experience....

In RHS EOS the Japanese get pilots of relatively high experience ( Army - 60, Navy - 70) while the Allies get low quality pilots ( 40s and 50s). This may be OK in 41 and 42 but  it certainly isn't in 43,44 and 45 when the Allied pilot quality should be, at least, in the 60s up to about 70 also.

Have you given this any thought? It must be possible to change pilot quality since the stock scenarios have it changing.

Not sure but I think the experience levels rise relative to the base replacement experience level. Eg, if one reduced the pilot exp accross the board by 25, the yearly increase will show a 25 relative reduction. Then again, nothing is documented so this is a reasonable guess only.