Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (Full Version)

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



Message

mind_messing -> Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/10/2019 1:32:21 PM)

The Judy dive bomber does not have drop-tanks in Scen 1 & 2, while it does in some other scenarios (Marianas, for example). All the non-DB versions of the Judy (NF & Recon) have droptanks in the database.

My question is: is this a deliberate design decision or a database oversight?





GetAssista -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/10/2019 2:01:01 PM)

Having droptank on a dive bomber and still functioning as a DB is a database mistake, there can be no way around it. How would one even imagine the thing given the central hardpoint for the bomb?
Recons and other non-bomb-carrying airframes are ok.



RangerJoe -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/10/2019 2:24:00 PM)

They could have hard points for under the wings for small bombs and such. It was not unheard of for aircraft to be so equipped . . .



mind_messing -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/10/2019 2:33:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

Having droptank on a dive bomber and still functioning as a DB is a database mistake, there can be no way around it. How would one even imagine the thing given the central hardpoint for the bomb?
Recons and other non-bomb-carrying airframes are ok.


Makes sense.



Yaab -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/10/2019 2:47:38 PM)

Night recon versions were quite popular too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B-BXMO8zI4



Dili -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/10/2019 5:02:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

Having droptank on a dive bomber and still functioning as a DB is a database mistake, there can be no way around it. How would one even imagine the thing given the central hardpoint for the bomb?
Recons and other non-bomb-carrying airframes are ok.


Ju 87 R was an upgrade of Stuka specifically to be able to get 2 drop tanks in wings.



RangerJoe -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/10/2019 5:20:35 PM)

Take a look at the skyraider which was a dive bomber:

https://vietnamwar.fandom.com/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider

It could even carry 4 torpedoes. It had to carry 2 under the wings. It could carry more weight in armaments that what the plane weighted.



Alfred -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/10/2019 5:45:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The Judy dive bomber does not have drop-tanks in Scen 1 & 2, while it does in some other scenarios (Marianas, for example). All the non-DB versions of the Judy (NF & Recon) have droptanks in the database.

My question is: is this a deliberate design decision or a database oversight?





It is a database decision. Patch #5 removed the drop tanks from the various Judy models. Database focus is always on the grand campaigns as the short scenarios were the responsibility of individual devs.

Alfred



Trugrit -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/10/2019 5:49:57 PM)

I don’t know the answer. Tracker shows that they have the drop tanks the editor does not.
Looks like an error to me or maybe the designers used a different variant.

Historically they should have the drop tank option. The game adds that in other scenarios.

Combined Fleet:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/d4y.htm
If you look at the different models in the chart the range moves around sometimes dropping.

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MLPMFIj4Zs

Anyway, this ground has been covered before in the forum; this Thread from 2010:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2631884

You can use the editor to add the tanks back into Scenario 1 and 2
Look what happens to the range max slot. ???


[image]local://upfiles/49386/46C270D7D6774AA1883BBCA698F633AE.jpg[/image]



GetAssista -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/10/2019 6:40:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit
Historically they should have the drop tank option. The game adds that in other scenarios.

Combined Fleet:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/d4y.htm
If you look at the different models in the chart the range moves around sometimes dropping.

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MLPMFIj4Zs

Note that video model does not have any visible hardpoint for the bomb. I believe it is a recon outfit with DTs.
Also combined fleet cites 2x330 litre DTs, which fits perfectly as a replacement for max bombload of 560kg.



Trugrit -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/10/2019 7:59:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit
Historically they should have the drop tank option. The game adds that in other scenarios.

Combined Fleet:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/d4y.htm
If you look at the different models in the chart the range moves around sometimes dropping.

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MLPMFIj4Zs

Note that video model does not have any visible hardpoint for the bomb. I believe it is a recon outfit with DTs.
Also combined fleet cites 2x330 litre DTs, which fits perfectly as a replacement for max bombload of 560kg.


I think if you look closer you can see the hardpoints.
Small bombs in this picture



[image]local://upfiles/49386/74BBB53759D44D0E99FAFC42852A07EA.jpg[/image]



GetAssista -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/10/2019 10:55:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit
I think if you look closer you can see the hardpoints.
Small bombs in this picture

That's a model. And a modeller surely can make that kind of a mistake.
Yeah, wing hardpoints are also visible on the video of the real plane. Would make no sense to dismantle them. Bombs aren't there though.



mind_messing -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/11/2019 9:16:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The Judy dive bomber does not have drop-tanks in Scen 1 & 2, while it does in some other scenarios (Marianas, for example). All the non-DB versions of the Judy (NF & Recon) have droptanks in the database.

My question is: is this a deliberate design decision or a database oversight?





It is a database decision. Patch #5 removed the drop tanks from the various Judy models. Database focus is always on the grand campaigns as the short scenarios were the responsibility of individual devs.

Alfred


Cheers, suspected as much. Was going to PM you about this but I suppose it's better now that it's in the public domain for the record.



Trugrit -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/11/2019 10:38:54 AM)


Here is a better picture.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/50393882@N00/16618125461/in/photostream/

One of the best looking planes of the war.

Text says there are only two that still exist.




Alpha77 -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/11/2019 1:22:32 PM)

Allied DBs like SBD5s can use droptanks AND bombs. Japanese can not (at least not the Val or Judy)..

The Judy RECON version oth can use drop tanks.

Same goes for torpedo bombers, Jill has no DT option.

Perhaps these should have an option for transfer flights to use DTs.. but not if carrying a bomb on combat missions.



RangerJoe -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/11/2019 2:40:08 PM)

quote:

Perhaps these should have an option for transfer flights to use DTs.. but not if carrying a bomb on combat missions.


Maybe this is the reason for long transfer ranges but the aircraft has to have the equipment to get the fuel out of the extra tanks.



Trugrit -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/11/2019 3:43:41 PM)


The Judy could carry drop tanks and the lighter 30 kg bombs under both wings.
The lighter bombs are credited with USS Princeton attack.
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_D4Y

The documentation is scarce on the internet unless you can read Japanese which I can’t.
I guess you need the book and a Japanese girlfriend to go with it.
https://rarebooksjapan.com/?p=12922

The book’s English description says it’s a torpedo bomber so maybe they can’t read Japanese either.

The 30 kg bombs are not modeled in the game for the Judy.
The game, in some scenarios, compromises and lets you carry the drop tanks and a center line bomb.
I don’t know if that was possible but it seems reasonable in the game.

Two 30 kg bombs don’t add up to one 500 kg or one 250 kg bomb but it is a game after all.


[image]local://upfiles/49386/C69B12FC4EE84C7AAA56C32D39933F89.jpg[/image]



RangerJoe -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/11/2019 4:02:26 PM)

If I had a nice, pretty Japanese girlfriend, I would not be concerned with her reading a Japanese book about the Judy to me . . . [:'(]



BBfanboy -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/11/2019 4:40:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If I had a nice, pretty Japanese girlfriend, I would not be concerned with her reading a Japanese book about the Judy to me . . . [:'(]

+1.
The other book on that page about modeling the Kako and Furutaka looked like a much better read! Is that what you had in mind RJ?



RangerJoe -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/11/2019 6:24:44 PM)

I was thinking that if I had someone like this, reading a book would not be my primary interest:

instagram keiko kitagawa

For some reason, I can't post a picture.



Fishbed -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/12/2019 3:42:48 AM)

quote:

Note that video model does not have any visible hardpoint for the bomb. I believe it is a recon outfit with DTs.
Also combined fleet cites 2x330 litre DTs, which fits perfectly as a replacement for max bombload of 560kg.

I care to disagree here [;)]

I don't quite understand what the debate is about, maybe I have misread. Here's my take on it.

Knowing the Judy was specifically designed with a bomb bay for her main load, I don't see how carrying wing drop tanks would prevent her from operating at all. Naturally, the existence of the bomb bay precludes us from making sure that she carried a centerline bomb on pictures [:D] but sometimes something can be clearly seen being carried in addition to the 330l fuel tanks. Here's an example (D4Y1C - Model 11 from Bunrin Dou n°69, p.24) not carrying two, but three (!) 330L tanks supposedly on a long ferry mission :

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48516595872_4bce5c13c2_o.png[/img]

Another one here, Bunrin Dou n°69, p.56 in New Guinea returning from his flight (drop tanks were precious and not considered expandable outside of combat in these latitudes, according to the legend)

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48516725047_3817934930_o.png[/img]

One fuel tank having a nominal capacity of 330L, 1 liter of kerozene weighing approximately 800g (thank you Google), that puts each fuel tank at a maximum weight of 264kg, which fits perfectly the weight of your average Japanese 250kg bomb. As such, carrying a centerline bomb-bay 250kg AP bomb was probably feasible, although numbers (as you might see below) say that's you'd have to compromise somewhat for the D4Y1C. According to the legend coming with this picture though, if it is carrying a 250kg bomb (model n°25 bomb, aka a 250kg unit I s'ppose, whether it's a HE or AP) it would put that version of the Judy at its absolute maximum take off weight (again, if my automatic Japanese translation is to be trusted [:D] - Bunrin Dou n°69, p.53)

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48516525701_59bceac2e2_o.png[/img]

It seems to compute with the data provided in the performance ratings.
About the D4Y1-C (Model 11) bomber variant ratings, which are as follows in Bunrin Dou n°69, p.18:

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48516700751_3a10b95084_o.png[/img]

As you can see, a Max weight of 4,361kg and a Full weight of 3,650kg leaves a margin of 711kg. 2*330L = 528kg, 1*model 25 bomb = 250kg, 528 + 250 = 778kg ; 3 * 330L = 792kg. As such it seems questionable that a D4Y1C would be capable of carrying a bomb and two drop tanks, except if it doesn't fill the said drop tanks beyond a certain limit.

D4Y2 data shows a plane with much more margin in terms of loadout, BUT without the ability to equip the 330L tanks - although they are shown on the technical drawing that follows, so either way it is a questionable assertion. Considering the previous model could, I see no reason why this one wouldn't. On the other hand, the D4Y3 (model 33) appears to be able to do all of this more comfortably, with a margin of 900kg between its full and max weight.

Anyway. Late bomber variants are routinely photographed carrying the drop tanks (there are many more shots like that in the publication), there's no reason to believe they were always on a patrol or a transfer.

Here's also a technical drawing showing the wing bomb emplacements, but it doesn't make clear that it allows for carrying the fuel tank AND the bomb at the same time. No picture of it, but it is still plausible, especially coming from Trugrit's Japanese reference. Apparently it came with its own rail while the droptank emplacements were wet and hardwired into the wing, so it's totally possible. It is a model 12 (D4Y2)

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48516422286_d9d75cebb2_o.png[/img]
Bunrin Dou n°69, p.3-4


Finally, the little I can understand from the performance table is that the 800kg bombload was specific to the D4Y4, so it shouldn't be taken as a reference for the earlier variants.

Cheers [8D]



GetAssista -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/12/2019 8:50:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed
quote:

Note that video model does not have any visible hardpoint for the bomb. I believe it is a recon outfit with DTs.
Also combined fleet cites 2x330 litre DTs, which fits perfectly as a replacement for max bombload of 560kg.

I care to disagree here [;)]
..


Finally, the little I can understand from the performance table is that the 800kg bombload was specific to the D4Y4, so it shouldn't be taken as a reference for the earlier variants.
Cheers [8D]

Cheers! Thanks for the extensive reference, it is convincing enough. I would expect DTs to have been used for patrol/ASW with a whichever (rather small) bombload fit the takeoff weight. Not for strike missions.

Also, that 800kg bomb of D4Y4 is a much more serious "database error" compared to the drop tanks issue, being that only kamikaze variant of D4Y4 used it, and as a non-detachable bomb. But I vaguely recall it was left in the game as a concession to the Japanese players.[:)]



Fishbed -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/12/2019 9:56:56 AM)

My pleasure. Although I could ask my ex-girlfriend (who happens to be a teacher in Japanese) to translate this whole Japanese reference thing, and she would do it, question is do I and do we really deserve this [:D][;)]

I guess DTs would be important in hit & run scenarios from fields that wouldn't be able to operate these planes otherwise. If you remember Okumiya's words in Caidin's Zero (I mean, ok, it's Caidin, but I suppose it happened - we do that all the time in PBEM don't we!) he mentioned planes coming from Rabaul spending the night in New Georgia, flying a mission and flying back. Of course New Georgia fields by then had no ordinance or fuel, but in a scenario like that, a Judy with that sort of additional fuel tanks could easily bring the fuel it needed to get home and a bomb along with it.

Interestingly, a lot of the shots taken in the above-mentioned Japanese publication are from the Marianas - which are quite far away from anything anyway, which made the long-range transit options offered by these fuel tanks quite handy I suppose.



Yaab -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/12/2019 11:09:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed
quote:

Note that video model does not have any visible hardpoint for the bomb. I believe it is a recon outfit with DTs.
Also combined fleet cites 2x330 litre DTs, which fits perfectly as a replacement for max bombload of 560kg.

I care to disagree here [;)]
..


Finally, the little I can understand from the performance table is that the 800kg bombload was specific to the D4Y4, so it shouldn't be taken as a reference for the earlier variants.
Cheers [8D]

Cheers! Thanks for the extensive reference, it is convincing enough. I would expect DTs to have been used for patrol/ASW with a whichever (rather small) bombload fit the takeoff weight. Not for strike missions.

Also, that 800kg bomb of D4Y4 is a much more serious "database error" compared to the drop tanks issue, being that only kamikaze variant of D4Y4 used it, and as a non-detachable bomb. But I vaguely recall it was left in the game as a concession to the Japanese players.[:)]


I guess they also stripped Wiraaway and Boomerang of their bombs because, err, game balance.



Trugrit -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/12/2019 11:17:22 AM)


Fishbed,

Thanks for the exploded view and analysis. Very well done.

I’ve been looking for better documentation on this plane and it is hard to find on the internet.
I have some sources of my own...Jane’s etc. but I can’t find any info on how the plane was used
operationally.

There is some production history which is interesting. The plane had some problems out of the gate.
It appears to me that it started as a dive bomber and ended as a multi-role plane.

This is a little better specification:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090321052656/http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/yokod4y.html#yokod4y0
Scroll down and look at the overview for the different versions.

This says that the wing bomb hardpoints are rated at 66 Lbs Each. (66 lbs. is 30 Kg.)
The wing hardpoints could not carry a 250Kg. Bomb.

The internal bay was rated at 1,100 Lb.

It also had the ability to carry drop tanks.

So the bomb load would be as stated:
Up to 1,234 lb of disposable stores carried in a lower-fuselage weapons bay rated at 1,100 lb
and on two under wing hardpoints rated at 66 lb each. General disposables load consisted of:

• 1 × 551 lb bomb
• 2 × 66 lb bombs

Nothing about the drop tanks but it seems feasible they would have been able to mix and match.




Fishbed -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/12/2019 11:42:12 AM)

quote:


I guess they also stripped Wiraaway and Boomerang of their bombs because, err, game balance.

We wouldn't want them to turn the tide in the South Pacific too early, would we? This would be gamey! [:'(]

quote:

Fishbed,

Thanks for the exploded view and analysis.

Thank you Trugrit!

I tell you what, I am a bit in the middle of something, but I suppose you could make better use of the data yourself. Here are p.18-19 of the aforementioned publication, which has all the technical details (including on page 19 the production numbers by variant, yummy!). All the little in-text references are at the bottom of p.18 (with things such as "range with a 250kg model 25 bomb", etc...). Can't help much more I am afraid, I am using a picture-base translator myself. If it was Chinese it would be easier, but well... I can understand why 1C goes through hell and back when faced with old Japanese technical manuals for their future PTO planes [;)]

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48518945666_d870593e72_o.jpg[/img]

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48518945446_06e8992dce_o.jpg[/img]

Cheers



RangerJoe -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/12/2019 12:45:57 PM)

I see sort of a problem with this link: https://web.archive.org/web/20090321052656/http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/yokod4y.html#yokod4y0

First Flight (prototype) is listed as December 1945
Operational Service is listed as 1942-1945

There were 5 Judys made by the battle of Midway, two of them were there. At least one was used for recon when the Tone's FP had problems. So I would guess that the first flight would be December 1941.



Fishbed -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/12/2019 12:59:58 PM)

Indeed. That is even earlier than that - the text posted above gives Month 11 of the 15th year of the Showa era which would be... November 1940 (yes, 1940...!) as the date when the first flying prototype was produced. The Judy was a great plane, but she had a few teething problems, to say the least...

Apparently the first flight is said to have occurred in December 1940 (according to R.Francillion et al). That was quite the development hell.[8|] But here in the publication I see something that in Chinese would mean "15th of the same month" on the next line, so it could mean that she actually flew a bit earlier than that.



RangerJoe -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/12/2019 1:04:57 PM)

Just think if they would have just put in a radial engine into the Judy from the beginning. Also the Tony as well.



Fishbed -> RE: Scen 1 Data Error? Judy DB Question (8/12/2019 1:13:30 PM)

Ah well, the obsession with everything German, you know... [:D]
I mean, isn't that terrible in a way - the Germans by 1940 had a rather crap dive bomber with the Stuka but good engines readily available, and the Japanese had a good dive bomber with a crap engine. Such are the fortunes of war. Good for us though!



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625