RE: Aircraft Loads

RE: Aircraft Loads (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding

Message

traskott -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/5/2012 5:01:05 PM)
quote: Actually, if you use filter 0, you will have 2 x 800 on every mission, in addition to what you specify for the specific mission since filter 0 is default load (at least I think this is right). So even if you specify a torpedo load 2, with 2 x 800 set at filter 0, you'd end up with a naval load of 1 torpedo AND 2 x 800. Thank you Shark7.

US87891 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/5/2012 7:13:15 PM)
@Treespider @ LargeSlowTarget Oh poop doodle. Read farther in Jaremy's spreadsheet and found the notes on mission profiles. Systems Command calculated normal max combat at 10000lb loads and max load at 12800lbs, but cautioned against anything greater than 8000lb for a B-17G. The reduction in range was extreme. Noted that the nominal combat load for both the B-17 and B-24 was 4-5000 lbs of bombs. The graphs make it very clear. The standard mission profile was a ‘long range power’ approach at 10,000 feet, a ‘normal power’ climb to 25,000 feet to stabilize in time for a 15 minute ‘max power’ bomb run, then a return to base at 25,000 feet and landing with 5 to 10% reserve fuel. Seems loaded bombers have issues with specific fuel consumption at higher altitudes. Using the standard mission profile gets an 870 mile radius for 10000lb military load and 1010 miles with 8000lb. The high altitude profile (a 25,000 feet approach) drops the radius 10% from 870 to 790 miles. A “max bomb” profile (12800lbs) drops the radius 20% from 870 to 690 miles. And a ‘high speed’ profile at normal/military power all the way, drops the radius by 32% from 870 to 690 miles for a standard mission aspect. More bombs and higher altitude makes things worse proportionately. And that’s just for the B-17. The guys sent me the same things for the B-24 and everything else. Looks like the game range and load numbers are very well thought out.

michaelm75au -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/6/2012 5:20:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm If you are going to use filters, then you should cater for all attack missions, else the weapon load will none. Putting a filter 0 on a weapon will mean that it will ALWAYS be included on any mission - as it is now. So, lets take the Ki-30 Ann: Standard load was 3 x 100kg GP bomb internal with an option to carry an additional 150kg of bombs externally on short range missions. So I could set it up like this: 100kg GP bomb 3 internal 00 30kg GP bomb 4 external 08 So that for AF attack, Naval etc it still carries just the 3 internal 100kg GPs, but for ground attack it will carry the extra 4 x 30kg bombs. Or that is how I understand it. Yep That is how the code should work.

oldman45 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/6/2012 6:22:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: US87891 @ Treespider @ LargeSlowTarget Hi. Just got these in the email and thought you might be interested. These are from the MIL-C-5011 SAC&Ps of B-17G, B-24J and B-25J (without and with a BB fuel tank). Lists the numbers of bombs of different types that can physically fit in the respective bomb bays. Yeah, noticed the B17 can fit more 1600lb AP and 1000lb AP than 1000lb GP. Probably because diameter of 1000lb GP is 40-50% fatter than 1600lb and 1000lb AP (19” vs 14” and 12”). Hope this formats out right. Bomb/Type - - - - B17-B24-B25-B25* 2000/AN-M66 GP - 02 - 04 - 01 -n/a 1600/AN-Mk1 AP - 08 - 08 - 02 - 02 1000/AN-M65 GP - 06 - 08 - 03 - 02 1000/AN-M33 AP - 10 - 12 - 04 - 04 500/AN-M64 GP - 12 - 12 - 06 - 04 250/AN-M57 GP - 16 - 16 - 08 - 04 100/AN-M30 GP - 24 - 24 - 24 - 12 * is B25 with 215 gal BB tank installed Thanks for the data. I don't see a way to have a bomb load for overloaded short range missions. Wishful thinking on my part. [8D]

oldman45 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/6/2012 6:23:57 AM)
Can somebody post their take on what a air dropped DC would look like in the editor?

inqistor -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/6/2012 9:16:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm If you are going to use filters, then you should cater for all attack missions, else the weapon load will none. Putting a filter 0 on a weapon will mean that it will ALWAYS be included on any mission - as it is now. So, lets take the Ki-30 Ann: Standard load was 3 x 100kg GP bomb internal with an option to carry an additional 150kg of bombs externally on short range missions. So I could set it up like this: 100kg GP bomb 3 internal 00 30kg GP bomb 4 external 08 So that for AF attack, Naval etc it still carries just the 3 internal 100kg GPs, but for ground attack it will carry the extra 4 x 30kg bombs. Or that is how I understand it. Well, literally translation would be: Cut normal range to listed "short range", and put all bombs in that mode. Add Drop Tanks, implement current normal range, as DT normal range, and exchange extra 30kg bombs for Drop Tanks.

treespider -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/6/2012 2:49:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: US87891 @ Treespider @ LargeSlowTarget Hi. Just got these in the email and thought you might be interested. These are from the MIL-C-5011 SAC&Ps of B-17G, B-24J and B-25J (without and with a BB fuel tank). Lists the numbers of bombs of different types that can physically fit in the respective bomb bays. Yeah, noticed the B17 can fit more 1600lb AP and 1000lb AP than 1000lb GP. Probably because diameter of 1000lb GP is 40-50% fatter than 1600lb and 1000lb AP (19” vs 14” and 12”). Hope this formats out right. Bomb/Type - - - - B17-B24-B25-B25* 2000/AN-M66 GP - 02 - 04 - 01 -n/a 1600/AN-Mk1 AP - 08 - 08 - 02 - 02 1000/AN-M65 GP - 06 - 08 - 03 - 02 1000/AN-M33 AP - 10 - 12 - 04 - 04 500/AN-M64 GP - 12 - 12 - 06 - 04 250/AN-M57 GP - 16 - 16 - 08 - 04 100/AN-M30 GP - 24 - 24 - 24 - 12 * is B25 with 215 gal BB tank installed quote: ORIGINAL: US87891 @Treespider @ LargeSlowTarget Oh poop doodle. Read farther in Jaremy's spreadsheet and found the notes on mission profiles. Systems Command calculated normal max combat at 10000lb loads and max load at 12800lbs, but cautioned against anything greater than 8000lb for a B-17G. The reduction in range was extreme. Noted that the nominal combat load for both the B-17 and B-24 was 4-5000 lbs of bombs. The graphs make it very clear. The standard mission profile was a ‘long range power’ approach at 10,000 feet, a ‘normal power’ climb to 25,000 feet to stabilize in time for a 15 minute ‘max power’ bomb run, then a return to base at 25,000 feet and landing with 5 to 10% reserve fuel. Seems loaded bombers have issues with specific fuel consumption at higher altitudes. Using the standard mission profile gets an 870 mile radius for 10000lb military load and 1010 miles with 8000lb. The high altitude profile (a 25,000 feet approach) drops the radius 10% from 870 to 790 miles. A “max bomb” profile (12800lbs) drops the radius 20% from 870 to 690 miles. And a ‘high speed’ profile at normal/military power all the way, drops the radius by 32% from 870 to 690 miles for a standard mission aspect. More bombs and higher altitude makes things worse proportionately. And that’s just for the B-17. The guys sent me the same things for the B-24 and everything else. Looks like the game range and load numbers are very well thought out. Thanks for the info...Mr. Thomas did an excellent job with ranges he arrived at for the base scenario and an "averaged" aircraft. For those who are interested here is the bombload diagram and for a B-17...Obviously load would be contingent on mission & range. Hope the scan came through clear enough to read. [image]local://upfiles/15342/60A3239569EC4B1393E8F34F8BAC1DEB.jpg[/image]

Shark7 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/6/2012 5:19:51 PM)
Do we have a defined city attack filter? Would be most useful for the 4Es obviously, but every plane can do the city attack mission.

michaelm75au -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/7/2012 2:43:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 Do we have a defined city attack filter? Would be most useful for the 4Es obviously, but every plane can do the city attack mission. City attack is lumped under "Land". When I set up the filters I actually forgot about City Attack.

michaelm75au -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/7/2012 3:15:28 AM)
Actually I do have a spare setting - '1'

PaxMondo -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/7/2012 3:31:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm Actually I do have a spare setting - '1' [:D][:D][:D]

michaelm75au -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/7/2012 1:43:34 PM)
City attack filter is included in 1118e

PaxMondo -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/7/2012 1:54:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm City attack filter is included in 1118e [&o][&o][&o]

Shark7 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/7/2012 4:15:32 PM)
Now all I need to figure out is how to accurately model incendiaries. [:)] I'm thinking if I give them a low penetration/anti-armor, but high effect/soft attack it might do the trick, what would you guys suggest?

oldman45 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/7/2012 4:55:38 PM)
One thing at a time, lets think about air dropped depth charges [;)]

PaxMondo -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/7/2012 5:12:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 Now all I need to figure out is how to accurately model incendiaries. [:)] +1 quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 I'm thinking if I give them a low penetration/anti-armor, but high effect/soft attack it might do the trick, what would you guys suggest? Maybe, worth a testbed check to see.

inqistor -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/7/2012 5:33:33 PM)
Now, it seems all works perfectly. My take on historical KATE bombload: Naval/port - torpedo (there was newer type introduced in early 1942, with brass parts exchanged for steel, so it carries 2 types, but only one is active), exchanged sometimes for 800 kg bomb (that is automatic) against port, or 2x250 kg SAP bombs (now, I am not sure Japan began war with ANY SAP bomb - except 800kg), when no torpedo is available 1x250kg+6x60kg bombs for ground/airfield attacks 2x250kg GP bombs (they have better effect, and there are no armor on submarines) for ASW warfare. TMJ SRT S-24 mentions, that KATEs used normal bombs during ASW duty. All slots taken. quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 Can somebody post their take on what a air dropped DC would look like in the editor? It seems the main difference between bomb, and ASW device is RANGE, which represent maximum depth, where charge can explode. So changing any bomb into ASW type, and adding some range should be enough (if air ASW even uses depth). I have somewhere specification for Allied air DC - it had weight of 350 lb, and 70% of it was explosive. quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 Now all I need to figure out is how to accurately model incendiaries. [:)] I'm thinking if I give them a low penetration/anti-armor, but high effect/soft attack it might do the trick, what would you guys suggest? Since it can be used only against cities, secondary parameters are not important, as this attack do not target anything else (although port attack sometimes target city instead). I was thinking more about increasing number of bombs, to achieve more hits, although I am not sure if bomb size is not more important for creating fires. Maybe putting 2000-4000 lb there? [image]local://upfiles/35065/03E40BA1188D4E28ADE458C3537C9117.jpg[/image]

Shark7 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/7/2012 6:54:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 One thing at a time, lets think about air dropped depth charges [;)] I did find some info on DCs. OK, USN: AN Mk-17 344lbs Depth Bomb 344lbs weight 243lbs charge 70' max depth AN-Mk 47 350lbs Depth Bomb 350lb weight (160kg) 215lb charge (98kg) 125' Max Depth An-Mk 29 650lbs Depth Bomb 650lb weight (295kg) 464lb charge (211kg) 125' max depth Sorry, no sink rates (accuracy) on these British/Soviet: (Soviets used British Air dropped DCs) Mk VIII Depth Charge 256lbs (112kg) 170lb (77kg) Charge 25' depth setting 8.2'/sec Max Sink Rate Max Drop limit: 750' 173knts MK VII Airborne DC 420lbs (191kg) 290lbs (130kg) charge 25' Depth Setting 9.9'/sec sink rate Drop Limits: 150' and 150 knts France: I have to assume Free French units would use either British or US made Depth Charges Japan: They had a 60kg Depth Charge, but I can find no specifications for it anywhere. If it comes down to it and we can't find any info on it from any source, I'd say model it with a 70lb charge and 25'-50' max depth.

Shark7 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/7/2012 6:59:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: inqistor Now, it seems all works perfectly. My take on historical KATE bombload: Naval/port - torpedo (there was newer type introduced in early 1942, with brass parts exchanged for steel, so it carries 2 types, but only one is active), exchanged sometimes for 800 kg bomb (that is automatic) against port, or 2x250 kg SAP bombs (now, I am not sure Japan began war with ANY SAP bomb - except 800kg), when no torpedo is available 1x250kg+6x60kg bombs for ground/airfield attacks 2x250kg GP bombs (they have better effect, and there are no armor on submarines) for ASW warfare. TMJ SRT S-24 mentions, that KATEs used normal bombs during ASW duty. All slots taken. quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 Can somebody post their take on what a air dropped DC would look like in the editor? It seems the main difference between bomb, and ASW device is RANGE, which represent maximum depth, where charge can explode. So changing any bomb into ASW type, and adding some range should be enough (if air ASW even uses depth). I have somewhere specification for Allied air DC - it had weight of 350 lb, and 70% of it was explosive. quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 Now all I need to figure out is how to accurately model incendiaries. [:)] I'm thinking if I give them a low penetration/anti-armor, but high effect/soft attack it might do the trick, what would you guys suggest? Since it can be used only against cities, secondary parameters are not important, as this attack do not target anything else (although port attack sometimes target city instead). I was thinking more about increasing number of bombs, to achieve more hits, although I am not sure if bomb size is not more important for creating fires. Maybe putting 2000-4000 lb there? [image]local://upfiles/35065/03E40BA1188D4E28ADE458C3537C9117.jpg[/image] Well here is what I've done to start with. Simply modeled the M19 Incendiary Cluster bomb (Each bomb is a 500lb GP bomb case with a pack of 36 M69 Incendiaries) A B-29 could carry 37 of these. Remember, this is just a SWAG as far as stats, but a Napalm type weapon would have a good Anti-soft component (So doubling or tripling the Anti-soft value I have here might even be acceptable). [image]local://upfiles/25927/26E86FEB7A9B4AE2B6980C23FAABD304.jpg[/image]

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/7/2012 10:53:52 PM)
I'm confused - been toying around with the PBY payloads a bit, but can't get torps to work. I have used on normal range: 4x500lb GP filter 52 > Port, Airfield, alternate Naval attack 2 Torps filter 02 > Naval attack Extended range: 4x250lb GP filter 52 > Port, Airfield, alternate Naval attack 4x325lb Depth Bomb filter 64 > ASW Torps and Depth Bombs are in different slots. In the game, I get 4xbombs on Port, Airfield, on Naval Attack "Using Bombs", plus now 4x500lb for normal range search missions (WAD?) resp. 4x250 for ext. as well as 4xDepth Bombs (ext. only) on ASW - so everything ok BUT for Naval Attack with "Using Torpedoes" and torpedos present at the Air HQ in same base > payload still reads 4x500lb (resp. 4x250lb on ext.). Have tried other combinations, but either torps won't show up, or naval search is without bombs, or naval attack usings bombs has only ext load but no normal range payload etc. Could someone help me please with the correct filter setup for: - Normal range Naval attack 4x500lb if "using bombs", 2xTorps if "using torpedoes", 4x250lb only on Naval attack ext - 4x500 resp 4x250lb ext for Port / AF - 4x250lb for Naval search (ASW no problems) [:(]

Dili -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/8/2012 12:31:06 AM)
quote: Naval/port - torpedo (there was newer type introduced in early 1942, with brass parts exchanged for steel, so it carries 2 types, but only one is active), exchanged sometimes for 800 kg bomb (that is automatic) against port, or 2x250 kg SAP bombs (now, I am not sure Japan began war with ANY SAP bomb - except 800kg), when no torpedo is available A Kate with 2x250kg bombs should have more range since it can get almost more 300kg of fuel - in practice would not be 300kg since engine oil needs to be increased for more range. quote: France: I have to assume Free French units would use either British or US made Depth Charges French had 75kg SM depth charge but if their stocks in Indochina are depleted yeah.

oldman45 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/8/2012 1:04:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 One thing at a time, lets think about air dropped depth charges [;)] I did find some info on DCs. OK, USN: AN Mk-17 344lbs Depth Bomb 344lbs weight 243lbs charge 70' max depth AN-Mk 47 350lbs Depth Bomb 350lb weight (160kg) 215lb charge (98kg) 125' Max Depth An-Mk 29 650lbs Depth Bomb 650lb weight (295kg) 464lb charge (211kg) 125' max depth Sorry, no sink rates (accuracy) on these British/Soviet: (Soviets used British Air dropped DCs) Mk VIII Depth Charge 256lbs (112kg) 170lb (77kg) Charge 25' depth setting 8.2'/sec Max Sink Rate Max Drop limit: 750' 173knts MK VII Airborne DC 420lbs (191kg) 290lbs (130kg) charge 25' Depth Setting 9.9'/sec sink rate Drop Limits: 150' and 150 knts France: I have to assume Free French units would use either British or US made Depth Charges Japan: They had a 60kg Depth Charge, but I can find no specifications for it anywhere. If it comes down to it and we can't find any info on it from any source, I'd say model it with a 70lb charge and 25'-50' max depth. I found similar info, thanks so much for what you have. I assume in the editor I set them up like regular DC's except they have much shallower range.

Shark7 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/8/2012 1:26:10 AM)
Pretty much. The following seem to be how it is done. load cost = total weight Effect = charge weight Accuracy = sink rate range = max depth

michaelm75au -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/8/2012 2:09:34 PM)
quote: Naval/port - torpedo (there was newer type introduced in early 1942, with brass parts exchanged for steel, so it carries 2 types, but only one is active), exchanged sometimes for 800 kg bomb (that is automatic) against port, or 2x250 kg SAP bombs (now, I am not sure Japan began war with ANY SAP bomb - except 800kg), when no torpedo is available It might be possible to have the device upgrade rather than use up 2 slots. Currently a/c devices don't upgrade, but they could. The upgrade would be checked whenever weapons were loaded on plane.

inqistor -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/10/2012 11:10:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm quote: Naval/port - torpedo (there was newer type introduced in early 1942, with brass parts exchanged for steel, so it carries 2 types, but only one is active), exchanged sometimes for 800 kg bomb (that is automatic) against port, or 2x250 kg SAP bombs (now, I am not sure Japan began war with ANY SAP bomb - except 800kg), when no torpedo is available It might be possible to have the device upgrade rather than use up 2 slots. Currently a/c devices don't upgrade, but they could. The upgrade would be checked whenever weapons were loaded on plane. That would be great! I could also use similar upgrade for naval weapons, to better simulate new ammunition/targeting systems, although it can be harder to implement, because upgrade should only happen in bigger ports. Anyway, some food for thoughts. This is from US brochure from April 1942: [image]local://upfiles/35065/3286FF54B056442089B5C153D65350CA.jpg[/image]

inqistor -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/30/2012 5:34:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 Japan: They had a 60kg Depth Charge, but I can find no specifications for it anywhere. If it comes down to it and we can't find any info on it from any source, I'd say model it with a 70lb charge and 25'-50' max depth. It seems, that report JAPANESE BOMBS (O-23) from December 1945 (pages 26-29) have short description of this armament. There are two pre-war bombs: TYPE 99 - weight 63.6-67.9 kg TYPE 1 - weight 266 kg and there was EXPERIMENTAL 19, with some electronics detection - weight 180 kg. I am guessing this model was carried by LILY, because it is shown as armed with 4x250 kg, which is far too much for this plane type (especially, since ASW bomb weights 266 kg) [image]local://upfiles/35065/37011D95851B43D3ADA061C64DC0F97E.jpg[/image]

oldman45 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/30/2012 8:22:09 PM)
Thanks Shark.

oldman45 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (10/31/2012 1:41:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm quote: Naval/port - torpedo (there was newer type introduced in early 1942, with brass parts exchanged for steel, so it carries 2 types, but only one is active), exchanged sometimes for 800 kg bomb (that is automatic) against port, or 2x250 kg SAP bombs (now, I am not sure Japan began war with ANY SAP bomb - except 800kg), when no torpedo is available It might be possible to have the device upgrade rather than use up 2 slots. Currently a/c devices don't upgrade, but they could. The upgrade would be checked whenever weapons were loaded on plane. It might be easier to have the plane upgrade and change the ordinance.

dwg -> RE: Aircraft Loads (11/1/2012 12:09:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm I have updated the beta installer (1118c) to address some issues with displaying the filtered a/c weapon list, and handling multiple filters together (was wiping out the filter on first incorrect weapon choice). Are the betas publicly available (and if so where), or internal to the development team?

witpqs -> RE: Aircraft Loads (11/1/2012 3:36:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dwg quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm I have updated the beta installer (1118c) to address some issues with displaying the filtered a/c weapon list, and handling multiple filters together (was wiping out the filter on first incorrect weapon choice). Are the betas publicly available (and if so where), or internal to the development team? Look in the Tech Support forum - it's a public Beta process!

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.108398