RE: Production rates

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Production rates

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> RE: Production rates

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Production rates - 4/20/2006 11:21:11 PM

daveballmh

Posts: 11
Joined: 1/3/2006
Status: offline

If I might add to the Spitofre debate...

Spitfire VIII enetered service in the Med in Aug 43 with 145 squadron in Italy. Most VIIIs went to the far east but 253 Sq of the Balkan Air force also used it.

After the IXs came

XII 41 & 91 sqadrons from spring 43 in home defence - 100 built
XIV first entered service Jan 1 44 with 610 squadron - 957 built - 527 as F XIV and 430 as FRXIV
XVIII (100 FXVIII 200 FRXVIII ) but only arrived after end of war in Europe
XXI (always refered to as 21 - never used the Roman numerals- first unit re-equipped just after the end of the war in Europe - 122 built
22 - post war 278 built
24 - post war 54 built

Might want to consider the Supermarine Spiteful

Enetring production in 1945 with the somehwat bizarre designation as Spiteful XIV!!!
8 were flown but they were all broken up.

Hawket Tempest VI- variation of the V - too late for service but 142 built

(in reply to fochinell)

Post #: 31

RE: Production rates - 4/24/2006 7:39:19 PM

fochinell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: daveballmh

If I might add to the Spitfire debate...

Spitfire VIII enetered service in the Med in Aug 43 with 145 squadron in Italy. Most VIIIs went to the far east but 253 Sq of the Balkan Air force also used it.

After the IXs came

XXI (always refered to as 21 - never used the Roman numerals- first unit re-equipped just after the end of the war in Europe -

The VIII's began to be shipped to North Africa in November 1942, mostly via a new reinforcement route that started at Casablanca and supplied the Algerian/Tunisian front. They were generally mixed in with MK IXs and each Spitfire wing in Med Air Command had a complement of 24 VIII's and IX's by the time of the invasion of Sicily. VIIIs were being flown by 81, 92, 145, 152, 185 and 307th and 308th FS interchangeably with the Mk IX by August 17th 1943.

The F.21 equipped 91 and 1 Sqn before V-E day, and 91 Sqn did use them on offensive patrols over Holland in April & May 1945.

(in reply to daveballmh)

Post #: 32

RE: Production rates - 4/24/2006 7:52:37 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

ahhh
I would have to relook up my notes, but I believe I found at least 11 Squadrons that were Using the VIII in the Med as there main plane, and then there were a number of others that had them on hand

which, yes, I seen that a number of squadrons used a mix, hassle in our game, it is all or nothing

so overall, squadrons that were listed as having at least half of there numbers being VIII's got that as there plane of choice

_____________________________

(in reply to fochinell)

Post #: 33

RE: Production rates - 5/16/2006 1:01:47 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Okay
I got away from the Spits for a while as I was working on other things

but want to get back to the Spits now that I got the time for it

XIV
the XIVC is that the 2 20mm, 4 303 ?

then change to XIVE which for weapons will have 2 20mm and 2 50 cals, and a bigger internal fuel tank, bobbletop

IX (letters, prefixs as is) planes as is

IXE, 2 20mm, 2 50 cals, bigger internal fuel tank, bobbletop

would there be a single type of the 3 I have, that went to the E model ?

be confusing to try and make a HF.IXE, F.IXE and a LF.IXE

Spit 21, Tempest II, I could make a small production run on these, players I believe would have to make the unit upgrade, I don't want to tell a planetype to upgrade to them

PR models I can work with

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 34

RE: Production rates - 5/16/2006 2:00:20 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

ahh crudwell

we made a change to the data base editor, and made a mess of my production lists and upgrade paths (it was worth it, and it was needed, but now I trying to go back over my notes and make sure I got everything the way we wanted it)(upgrades, work by plane type, not unit, so type will upgrade to type, also, since it is a path, if the next type is not enough, but the following type is, that can be upgraded to, so, if path is A,B,C,D,E and A goes to upgrade and not enough of type B or C, but is enough D, it will upgrade to D)

so over all

Spit LF.VB flys out of England, Production of 2-0-0, upgrades to the Spit IXC

Spit LF.VC flys out of the MED, Production of 1-0-0, upgrades to the VIII

Spit LF.VIII flys out of the MED, Production of 3-1-0, upgrades to the XIVC

Spit F.IX flys out of the MED, Productions of 2-1-0, upgrades to the IXE

Spit LF.IXC flys out of England, Production of 4-4-0, upgrades to the XIVC

Spit HF.IX, flys out of England, ADGB, Production of 1-1-0, Upgrades Mustang III

Spit LF.IXE, flys out of England, Production of 0-4-4

Spit XIVC (havn't worked out if it should be a LF or F), flys with who ever gets it ?, Production of 0-1-0, upgrades to XIVE

Spit XIVE, again, who ever gets it, Production of 0-1-2

Mustang I, flys out of England, Production of 2-0-0, upgrade touchy right now, as it is suppost to be a Tac Recon model

Mustang IA, flys out of England, Production of 1-0-0, again Tac Recon

Mustang III, flys with who ever gets it, Production of 3-3-0, upgrades to Mustang IV

Mustang IV, again, Production of 0-2-3

Tempest V, again, Production of 0-2-3

( I got some tricks added, I can start and stop production when I want it, so, like the Stang, you will not be getting 5 a month of the two models (got a 1 month overlap) but will get 3 III this month, and then 2 IVs the next month, same with the E models, they take over production from the earlier models, so Production of the XIVC stops and the XIVE starts)

Hmmm

so that is V-3, VIII-3, IX-7 in 43
V-0, VIII-1, IX-7, XIV-1 in 44
V-0, VIII-0, IX-4, XIV-2 in 45

?????????

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 35

RE: Production rates - 5/16/2006 3:18:36 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

okay add into the Spit

Spitfire PR.IV, 1-0-0
Spitfire PR.XI, 1-1-0 (ends in 4-44)
Spitfire PR.XIX 0-1-1 (starts in 4-44)

Spitfire FR.XIVE 0-1-1 (starts in 6-44)

also (just final names)

Spitfire F.XIV 0-1-0 (starts 1-44, ends 6-44)
Spitfire F.XIVE 0-1-2 (starts 6-44)

Just in case
the Mustang I and IA should be seen as Tac Recon, they can fight and they can take photos
the FR will become the later war Tac Recon
the PR are unarmed photo birds

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 36

RE: Production rates - 6/4/2006 10:33:48 PM

fochinell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline

but want to get back to the Spits now that I got the time for it
the XIVC is that the 2 20mm, 4 303 ?

Yes.

then change to XIVE which for weapons will have 2 20mm and 2 50 cals, and a bigger internal fuel tank, bobbletop

Excellent.

IXE, 2 20mm, 2 50 cals, bigger internal fuel tank, bobbletop
would there be a single type of the 3 I have, that went to the E model ?
be confusing to try and make a HF.IXE, F.IXE and a LF.IXE

Most (but not all) late-war IXE's and all the XVIE's (the Packard Merlin IX variant) used the Merlin 66 or equivalent Packard Merlin 266 - so I say make them all LF.IXE's. I'm not a fan of the HF/F/LF split on the IX's myself, but fair play to you for trying it. The LF.VB had a radically different full-throttle height compared to the marginal difference between the HF-LF VIII and IXs, and I think it deserves different treatment.

Spit 21, Tempest II, I could make a small production run on these, players I believe would have to make the unit upgrade, I don't want to tell a planetype to upgrade to them

Fair enough, although I'd argue for the XII upgrading to the XIVC and the XIVE upgrading to the F.21. The timing of their production starts and a small daily production rate should keep them in minority use if your planned upgrade path behaviour is correct.

Spitfire PR.IV, 1-0-0
Spitfire PR.XI, 1-1-0 (ends in 4-44)
Spitfire PR.XIX 0-1-1 (starts in 4-44)
Spitfire FR.XIVE 0-1-1 (starts in 6-44)

Excellent again. Although given the AI's use and losses of PR aircraft, I think there's a case for continuing PR.XI a bit longer to provide sufficient overlap. But you'll know best from game testing on that.

Spitfire F.XIV 0-1-0 (starts 1-44, ends 6-44)
Spitfire F.XIVE 0-1-2 (starts 6-44)

I'd seriously argue for more, partly for historical reasons (XIVC's were in production into '45) and for replacing AI attrition. How about 0-2-0 F.XIVC and 0-0-3 or 4 for the F.XIVE? I really feel the E variants should be pushed further back into the post-Overlord period. They weren't common until September '44 for the IX/XVIE and early '45 for the XIVE, and I've reseached the original histories of both 125 Wing which was the main XIV unit in 2nd TAF and the TacR squadrons which transited from Mustang I/II's to Spit FR.XIV's in late '44. All mortal earthlings must bow down before me... (did I say that out loud? Sorry...)

Just in case
the Mustang I and IA should be seen as Tac Recon, they can fight and they can take photos
the FR will become the later war Tac Recon
the PR are unarmed photo birds

Excellent again. The Mustang I/II in Tac R units should upgrade to the FR.XIVE. Some actually used Typhoon's for a short time, and FR.IX's, but the numbers were too small to bother with in game terms, at least in my opinion.

Spit LF.VB flys out of England, Production of 2-0-0, upgrades to the Spit IXC
Spit LF.VC flys out of the MED, Production of 1-0-0, upgrades to the VIII

More good stuff. No disagreement here.

Spit LF.VIII flys out of the MED, Production of 3-1-0, upgrades to the XIVC

Actually, no units in the MTO converted to the XIVC. They seem to have stayed on the VIII or converted to the IX if necessary. There's no reason in game terms why they shouldn't upgrade to the XIV, but I'd vote for them going to the IX first.

Spit F.IX flys out of the MED, Productions of 2-1-0, upgrades to the IXE
Spit LF.IXC flys out of England, Production of 4-4-0, upgrades to the XIVC
Spit HF.IX, flys out of England, ADGB, Production of 1-1-0, Upgrades Mustang III
Spit LF.IXE, flys out of England, Production of 0-4-4

Too many IX variants for my taste, although it may work out in game terms. I like the HF.IX being upgradable to the Mustang III for the ADGB units if the existing available escort selection policy is being continued (e.g. FC. 9th AF and 2nd TAF unable to be selected for escorting 8th AF raids). However, I think it would be easier to standardise on the LF.IXC and HF.IXC for two variants.

Spit XIVC (havn't worked out if it should be a LF or F), flys with who ever gets it ?, Production of 0-1-0, upgrades to XIVE

The XIVC and XIVE both used the Griffon 65, with the same full-throttle height; so no need for any HF/LF distinction. They were generally restricted to one wing in 2nd TAF used for home defence (versus high-level Luftwaffe PR before Overlord) and then offensive operations. The war ended before they got to the MTO, although they did begin to appear in Burma in the summer of '45 and did re-equip some VIII squadrons before V-J Day.

Mustang I, flys out of England, Production of 2-0-0, upgrade touchy right now, as it is suppost to be a Tac Recon model
Mustang IA, flys out of England, Production of 1-0-0, again Tac Recon
Mustang III, flys with who ever gets it, Production of 3-3-0, upgrades to Mustang IV

Sounds fine to me, although production rates may be a little high; Allison Mustang production had essentially ended by August '43, with a small number of Mustang II's produced in early '43 being the last off the line.

Mustang IV, again, Production of 0-2-3
Tempest V, again, Production of 0-2-3

Sounds fine to me, provided they start around May '44 for the Tempest and August '44 for the Mustang IV.

( I got some tricks added, I can start and stop production when I want it, so, like the Stang, you will not be getting 5 a month of the two models (got a 1 month overlap) but will get 3 III this month, and then 2 IVs the next month, same with the E models, they take over production from the earlier models, so Production of the XIVC stops and the XIVE starts)

Spitfire production was a little messier than that, but in game terms it makes sense. It makes excellent sense for the P-47 and should allow you to get all the D variants you originally planned in, and at high production levels which eliminates my original criticism. Good one.

so that is V-3, VIII-3, IX-7 in 43
V-0, VIII-1, IX-7, XIV-1 in 44
V-0, VIII-0, IX-4, XIV-2 in 45

The '44 production looks a little low for my taste, with the number of IX or XIV actually dropping compared to '43. The same problem arises in '45. I'd argue for something like this -

VIII-1, LF.IXC-6, HF.IXC - 1, LF.IXE-2 (Sep), F.XIVC-2 in '44.
LF.IXC-2, LF.IXE-6, 4 F.XIVE, 1 F.21 (Feb) in '45.

Anyway, these are mostly petty issues: most of this sounds pretty much on the money for me. Excelleurrnt....

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 37

RE: Production rates - 6/4/2006 10:46:39 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Thanks :)

I will look it over in the morning after work and see what I can do

_____________________________

(in reply to fochinell)

Post #: 38

RE: Production rates - 6/5/2006 7:08:53 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

okay, lets see, I get

F.IX 2-2-0 ends in Sept 44 (end of month)
LF.IXC 4-6-0 ends in Sept 44
HF.IX 1-1-0 ends in Dec 44
LF.IXE 0-4-6 starts June 44
F.XIV 0-2-0 Ends Oct 44
F.XIVE 0-1-4 Starts July 44

Kittyhawk upgrades to Stang III

sorry to be a pain, but I still need better info on the F.21 and the Tempest II, we got stats that match how the game sets up ? most of the stuff I have found has too many gaps, I don't really want to just make guesses

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 39

RE: Production rates - 6/5/2006 8:43:04 PM

fochinell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline

okay, lets see, I get

F.IX 2-2-0 ends in Sept 44 (end of month)
LF.IXC 4-6-0 ends in Sept 44
HF.IX 1-1-0 ends in Dec 44
LF.IXE 0-4-6 starts June 44
F.XIV 0-2-0 Ends Oct 44
F.XIVE 0-1-4 Starts July 44

I hate to be the only feedback you're getting on this; but this looks like (if my maths is up to scratch, which is not a certainty) 11 F.IX/XIV variants per day up to May '44, rising to 15 in June and then 16 in July and August, before reducing to 10 in September, then 8 in October and then 6 in November and December. To me this seems like too high a peak and too low a slump in production at the end of the year (even factoring in the 1 Mk VIII per day in '44). Overall production was something like 10-12 per day throughout the period, and I think something similar is needed in game terms.

I'd suggest holding the LF.IXE's back to September, which would reduce the daily rate to 11 or 12 in June-August, and maybe keeping the F.IX's going until December at 2 per day which should keep the daily rate at about 8 F.IX/XIVs in November and December.

sorry to be a pain,

Heh, that's my line....

but I still need better info on the F.21 and the Tempest II, we got stats that match how the game sets up ? most of the stuff I have found has too many gaps, I don't really want to just make guesses

I'll dig out the F.21 stats from Price later on, I think some relevant Tempest II stats have been posted already, and I only have my notes of the AFDU comparison between it and the Tempest V and P-47. The F.21 can be ignored without too much hassle, but then it's part of the fun of the game to have the minor types (e.g. P-47M) included. And it did actually see action, which is more than can be said for the Tempest II....

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 40

RE: Production rates - 6/8/2006 1:17:09 PM

fochinell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline

More on the F.21 - Price quotes the following performance figures for PP139 which was a single experimental airframe tested at the end of 1943 with a Griffon 61 engine.

390 mph @ 4,000ft
412 mph @ 8,000 ft
434 mph @ 12,000 ft
431 mph @ 20,000 ft
457 mph @ 25,800 ft (max speed at full-throttle height in FS supercharger gear). No climb figures available.

These figures are a little higher than a stock F.21 should be to my mind, possibly because PP139 had a special curved windscreen, no mirror and no IFF aerials. Later test pilots commented that it was 10 mph faster than LA187, the first production example - which itself was in poor external condition after being flogged in extensive tests when the comparison was made. LA197 managed 446 mph @ 21,800 ft, which is a couple of thousand feet lower than it should have peaked with a Griffon 61, but which is probably closer to what could have been expected from an operational F.21. Later testing of an F.22 (a Griffon 61-engined F.21 with a bubble-canopy) got 449 mph @ 25,000 ft, and that's probably a better figure to use for a stock F.21.

Differences between the F.21 and F.XIVC were a redesigned tail and wing, increased internal fuel capacity (120 vs 110 imperial gallons) and and armament of 4 x 20mm cannon. In game terms, I suggest the F.21 should be fractionally faster than the XIV (using the F.22 speed figures), and slightly less manoevrable (heavier, no tear-drop canopy compared to the F.XIVE). Production began in the second half of 1944 at slow rate pending the resolution of aerodynamic problems. 91 and 1 squadrons were the only units to be equipped with it before the end of the war.

(in reply to fochinell)

Post #: 41

RE: Production rates - 6/20/2006 2:42:15 PM

fochinell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline

OK, a change from the usual broken record on Spits - this time I'm arguing for a late-war update for the Typhoon. This is another case for a mid-1944 performance improvement along the lines of the P-47/Spitfire model, as it started to get the bubble canopy and four-bladed prop in the summer of '44. I don't think engine performance was increased, but I think there's a case for improving maneuvrabilty. On the same subject, the '44 replacement rate really needs to be increased from 1 to at least 2 per day. Anybody else?

(in reply to fochinell)

Post #: 42

RE: Production rates - 6/20/2006 3:02:39 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Grumble, Grumble

Spit IXE begins 8-44

Spit F.IX ends 11-44

????

I have Tiffies being 3 in 43 and 3 in 44 ?

I am a little confused on the TIffie, I get the early IA model had the normal cockpit, but was soon replaced with the sliding Bubble cockpit ?

need more details ????

_____________________________

(in reply to fochinell)

Post #: 43

RE: Production rates - 6/20/2006 8:48:20 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

I have the Tiffie IA as a 12 mg version, about 105 made due to a shortage if cannon feed mechanisms. Also had 2100hp Sabre I engine. These would have been the early fighter role a/c and could be ignored I think. .
2180 hp Sabre IIa engine and usual 4 cannon then fitted to be the Typhoon IB. Successive upgrades to 2200 Sabre IIb, and then 2260 IIc. 3315 total prod until Nov 1945.

BTW I think the IA also had a bubble canopy, but wasn't one piece. Th change over to one piece took place dring IB prod (I have seen IB pictures with framing)

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 44

RE: Production rates - 6/21/2006 4:13:03 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Right
the 1A early had the frame, but what I am going for is, pretty much we got a
1A and a 1B

is there a improved model that comes out around 6-44 that we can replace the 1B with ?

_____________________________

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 45

RE: Production rates - 6/21/2006 2:57:06 PM

fochinell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline

Right the 1A early had the frame, but what I am going for is, pretty much we got a
1A and a 1B

Strictly speaking, the other voices in your head in this thread are right - the 1A was the 12 x .303 MG version which began production in '41, the B (all Typhoons produced from 1942 onwards) got the 4 x 20mm cannon.

is there a improved model that comes out around 6-44 that we can replace the 1B with ?

Not in conventional naming terms. I don't even think the late '44 production Typhoon 1B's got seperated into "series" sub-variants, like the Tempest V srs i, or various Halifax V's. But as Supreme God and Emperor of BTR I don't see why you can't give your own sub-variant designation.

Forgot your new 3-3 Typhoon replacement rate; my bad. How does the P-47 replacement schedule look now you can stop & start production whenever you want?

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 46

RE: Production rates - 6/21/2006 7:04:32 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

hmmmm

47's

D-6, 7 a day ending in 11-43
D-15, 18 a day, beginning 11-43, ending 3-44
D-20, 18 a day, beginning in 3-44, ending 6-44
D-25, 18 a day, beginning in 6-44, ending 12-45
M, 4 a day, beginning in 12-44, ending 12-44 (may want to think on that, that is if we only want to add what was made in real life, maybe go with 1 a day in 45 ????)
Ultrabolt, 1 a day, beginning in 3-45, ending 12-45

_____________________________

(in reply to fochinell)

Post #: 47

RE: Production rates - 6/21/2006 8:46:40 PM

fochinell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline

On the Jug: good stuff. No quibbling from me.

M, 4 a day, beginning in 12-44, ending 12-44 (may want to think on that, that is if we only want to add what was made in real life, maybe go with 1 a day in 45 ????)

I like the 1 per day - enough to maintain 1 group on operations without encouraging the AI to upgrade too many units; assuming it has an upgrade path.

Ultrabolt, 1 a day, beginning in 3-45, ending 12-45

XP-72/P-47J? Fair enough; but how about the '47N at something like 3 per day from 3-45 or something like that as well?

Back on Spits:
The change to the production end dates helps the problem, but it still means a steady 12 per day in the first half of '44 declining to 9 and then 8 in the last two months of the year. Why not switch LF.IXC production at 6 per day directly to 6 LF.IXE in August '44 and keep the numbers static? The phasing out of the F.IX and HF.IX can then be balanced by the increase in F.XIVE production in '45. And is the F.21 included at all for'45?

Finally, how about including the XII, used by 41 and 91 Sqns, and upgrading to the F.XIVC?

I've got to admit that the new production plans look good, no matter how much I enjoy going on about the minor details. Keep it going, dude....

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 48

RE: Production rates - 6/22/2006 5:26:42 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

I am still very leary about the XII (or VII too) most of what I read, they had no range at all, had to use a drop tank, just to be able to get to there combat Alt

which they did fly on missions across the channel, but in game terms, that would mean hitting the coast and heading home again

we really don't have the mission need for those two planes

for the Spits in late 44, I was thinking the Tempys and Stangs would be replaceing the lost numbers ?

one that is bad for playbalance side of things, is having me doing the thinking, what I need or would need is not what most others will need, besides trying to keep real world production in mind

take a look at the numbers again, and think about the Tempest and Mustangs coming in, and let me know if you still think the Spit numbers will be too low

Still debateing what to do with the P47 N

_____________________________

(in reply to fochinell)

Post #: 49

RE: Production rates - 6/22/2006 7:24:27 PM

fochinell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline

I am still very leary about the XII (or VII too) most of what I read, they had no range at all, had to use a drop tank, just to be able to get to there combat Alt

The VII had an identical internal fuel capacity to the VIII, and the same endurance and range as a consequence; better than a stock Mk IX. The XII did have less endurance, particularly the early ones in the EB-serial range which were converted from Mk V airframes with their 85-imp. gallon internal fuel capacity. But increased cruising speed helped to balance this (stretching range for lower endurance compared to a Mk V), and most of the later production Mk XII's were from the MB-serial range of Mk VIII airframes, and had increased internal fuel capacity as a consequence.

All Spits had short range and needed 30, 45 or 90 gallon drop-tanks to be able to perform escort missions to any depth. The XII and VII are no different in that regard. Nonetheless, they were used on escort operations - examples include the VII to escort heavy bombers for sections of the route on raids to southern France in '44, the XII to escort B-17's coming back from Paris in July '43 (meeting them half-way between Paris and the Seine estuary). The XIV consumed even more fuel than the XII, yet it was used to escort bomber missions from the UK to the German border in September 1944 with 90 gallon drop tanks.

So the range issue is a problem for all Spitfires, and not just the VII and XII, yet they are an important part of the game as they were equally an important part of the air war at the time. If you don't want to add them to the game for other reasons, such as the small numbers involved, that's fair enough. But I honestly don't think range should be an issue; if it was a sufficient rationale to cut the VII and XII, then all Spits should be axed for the same reason.

Of course, at this point you may want to axe them all just to shut me up...

for the Spits in late 44, I was thinking the Tempys and Stangs would be replaceing the lost numbers ?

To some degree, but these were extra production resources; Spitfire production didn't run down simply because better aircraft were starting to finally arrive from different production lines. Tempest production should arrive at the expense of the Hurricane and Typhoon, if anything.

one that is bad for playbalance side of things, is having me doing the thinking, what I need or would need is not what most others will need, besides trying to keep real world production in mind. take a look at the numbers again, and think about the Tempest and Mustangs coming in, and let me know if you still think the Spit numbers will be too low

Fair point. Game play is the most important factor. It may well be that all those numbers simply aren't needed, but then that opens the same question for aircraft like the Jug.

Still debateing what to do with the P47 N

You know it makes sense! Can I start on the P-38 now? (sounds of automatic gunfire from HS)

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 50

RE: Production rates - 6/23/2006 3:14:40 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Double check the Stats

I think the End is too high for a few of these

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to fochinell)

Post #: 51

RE: Production rates - 6/23/2006 3:21:44 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

I must of gotten a bigger Drop tank added to the VII and XII then I thought, that is a lot higher End then I had planned on

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 52

RE: Production rates - 6/23/2006 4:05:58 PM

fochinell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline

HS,

Yup, the endurance is significantly higher than it was historically, assuming that you're using the internal capacity for the endurance figure. It should be (off the top of my head) something like 95 mins for the Spit V, 85 mins for the IX, 110 mins for the VIII, 90 for the XIVC and maybe 80 for the XII (assuming 85 galls internal capacity). This should increase to 130 for the XIVE and 150 for the XVIE with their increased internal tankage.

However, I remember JC increasing the Vb endurance to make it a better fighter, as the stock combat routine penalised the shorter-legged fighters when they broke off combat to return to base. Without that sort of tweaking, they might end up getting slaughtered in gameplay.

Personally, I think the endurance should be reduced, providing it doesn't incur a disproportionate penalty in combat losses. The Spits should all be effective and dangerous fighters within their operational range, but even with external tanks this should be *short* to reflect the historical reality. If the Allied player was restricted to using them within their historical radius, they'd be praying for the longer-ranged escorts to arrive, which is how it should be (in my opinion).

With shorter range comes the related issue of moving to forward bases to refuel to increase that range. I think that might be worth looking at (maybe measuring endurance from the departure point on missions rather than from home bases to reflect temporary positioning flights to the most advanced refueling position). But I think that this definitely needs less of my opinion and some hard results from gameplay. My vote is that you reduce the endurance figures and see how it affects combat, gameplay and balance. Let me know what you think.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 53

RE: Production rates - 6/23/2006 5:24:47 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

okay, one thing to remember is that the End for that shot, is showing the Drop tank added in also

I will go and look over what tanks I have added in

(my lastest book, I just got, had more info on the different Spit models, so I gave in :)

(end numbers based on fuel, remember the Griffen burned fuel at lot faster then the Merlins did, I have seen between 25-40% faster)

Please Check on the other stats, so we can make sure we on the same page for Climb, Alt, speed and cruise

(we got to watch climb, most tell beginning climb which is a lot higher the what we want)

(I lowered the Speed of the XII down some, as it is going to be a low level monster, and at low level it was not as fast as it would be at higher levels, or like it's brothers)

(131 and 124 start game with VII's upgrade to Mustang III's, production of 1 a day, till end of oct)
(41 and 91 start the game with XII's, upgrade to XIV, production of 1 a day, till end of Sept)
(616 is held back so it can be the Meteor Squadron)

_____________________________

(in reply to fochinell)

Post #: 54

RE: Production rates - 6/23/2006 5:32:26 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

If you can, look for mileage, or radius

I can work with these numbers and come close

to be honest, some of my End numbers are going to look very high, but it was the only way to get the plane to fly to ranges that it was known they could fly to

(the P-51 could not fly to Berlin in out starting game)

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 55

RE: Production rates - 6/23/2006 7:10:51 PM

fochinell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline

okay, one thing to remember is that the End for that shot, is showing the Drop tank added in also

Bugger. I hadn't thought of that.

(end numbers based on fuel, remember the Griffen burned fuel at lot faster then the Merlins did, I have seen between 25-40% faster)

25% is the figure I recall. I can't find my copy of the Pilot's Notes for the F/FR.XVIII which had consumption figures for the Griffon 65, but I have them for the V.B and VIII.

Please Check on the other stats, so we can make sure we on the same page for Climb, Alt, speed and cruise

That's gonna be tough, given the diverse source material needed

And it gets worse if you're trying to establish objective and comparable figures for different aircraft from different nationalities...

(we got to watch climb, most tell beginning climb which is a lot higher the what we want)

Agreed. I'd argue for an average RoC taken from time from take-off to 20,000ft. The good zoom-climbers (109K, Tempest or P-47) might have a case for a bonus of some kind, otherwise they'll lose out excessively to the sustained-climbers (the Spit, etc). But you should have the call on that without dispute.

(I lowered the Speed of the XII down some, as it is going to be a low level monster, and at low level it was not as fast as it would be at higher levels, or like it's brothers)

Fair enough, depending on how much (!). Even more important to my mind would be having a P-38H, P-40 or Mustang I-equivalent manuevrability penalty at altitudes over 20,000ft. This shouldn't be too bad for the Spit XII, but the LF.VB should really suffer above that kind of altitude.

(131 and 124 start game with VII's upgrade to Mustang III's, production of 1 a day, till end of oct)
(41 and 91 start the game with XII's, upgrade to XIV, production of 1 a day, till end of Sept)
(616 is held back so it can be the Meteor Squadron)

Fine by me. Cheers for that.

[bIf you can, look for mileage, or radius
I can work with these numbers and come close

I can actually quote some contemporary RAF planning figures for the range on operations of the IX, VIII and XIV. The only problem is that, according to Squadron and Wing ORB's I've read, the RAF routinely seems to have violated them when actually planning operations, or at least let squadron and wing leaders ignore them at their own discretion.

The bottom line has to be the cruising range - but before I start quoting gallons per hour consumed by the Griffon IV and Merlin 61 or 63 and take-off and combat reserves, the external drop-tank size needs to be decided. My understanding is that the RAF was using the 90-gallon tank extensively by this point (they specifically didn't test the XIV with any other drop tank to start with, and it was being used to escort B-17 raids and provide fighter cover over Salerno from Sicily), but the 45 gallon tank was still in use, and even the 30 gallon tank in some cases (incredibly enough including the Spit XII wing, who needed the biggest tanks possible in my opinion). My rule of thumb would be to assume 10 gallons of fuel in the drop tank = 10 minutes of extra endurance for the Mk V, 9 for the VIII/IX and 7 for the XII/XIV. Beyond that, I'd give the endurance figures I've already posted, which I admit are impressionistic, but do reflect some degree of historical reality.

to be honest, some of my End numbers are going to look very high, but it was the only way to get the plane to fly to ranges that it was known they could fly to (the P-51 could not fly to Berlin in out starting game)

Totally justified. If you need to tinker with the stats to make it more realistic or balance gameplay, then you've got an absolute right to do that. I just don't think we should be able to get Spit IX's to escort across the Rhine from East Anglia (maybe VIII's with 90 gallon tanks... but you know what I mean).

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 56

RE: Production rates - 6/23/2006 7:47:13 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Please Check on the other stats, so we can make sure we on the same page for Climb, Alt, speed and cruise
That's gonna be tough, given the diverse source material needed And it gets worse if you're trying to establish objective and comparable figures for different aircraft from different nationalities...

Well now you see where I am haveing trouble, it is not that I disagree, but I got a number of sourse, that all want to say something different, odd, the one saying the VII was a gas hog, and needed a drop tank just to climb to alt, is also saying it should have a range of 660

(LOL, the Spit did come armed with 4 20mm, but it was not liked, as if one of the guns jammed, the others being fired would make the plane start to yaw and make it uncontrolable in the attack, but then tells how the following models all went with the 4 gun set up ?)

(I lowered the Speed of the XII down some, as it is going to be a low level monster, and at low level it was not as fast as it would be at higher levels, or like it's brothers)
Fair enough, depending on how much (!). Even more important to my mind would be having a P-38H, P-40 or Mustang I-equivalent manuevrability penalty at altitudes over 20,000ft. This shouldn't be too bad for the Spit XII, but the LF.VB should really suffer above that kind of altitude.

yes, all are rated for low level, about 18-20 they will start to be hurting, the 38, send out a raid at 15000 and the 38's at 19000 and they just with in there normal zone

so, the XII is going to be a monster at low, very low level (going to be the best low level fighter !!!!) the VII is one of the better high alt ones

some others, A-36, P-39, FW 190

which works the other way for the High Alt stuff, 47s, 51s, HF Spits, 109 H, FW 190 D, TA 152, down low they will hurt some, but up high they will shine

I been looking at the slipper tanks, and thinking about adding them, but never found any info on how many were made or how common they were, but I could work in a 90 gallon slipper tank if you know they were used in numbers

(okay inside workings)
numbers are not great, and if need be I can work with them, they do not really seems balanced

100 Litre =15 (should add 15 minutes of End)
300 =25 (number is lower then it looks like it should be, but a reason for it)
44 gallon=20
50 gallon=24
75 gallon=35
110 gallon=50
150 gallon=70
200 gallon=90 (really shouldn't be used)
300 gallon=140

so in the long run, what we should be looking at, does the game see a gallon of fuel as a minute in the air

hassle being, Merlins can stay in the air for a long time on little gas, the PW needed lots and lots of gas to stay in the air for a little time

(some of the combat tricks, a long slow climb, saves gas, in the climb, but burns gas faster because your at low alt, a fast sharp climb, burns more gas to get to alt, but you burn less gas once you reach alt and head on your way)

Griffins lost Fuel space, as the tank in front of the cockpit had to be removed, but smaller tanks were added to the leading edge of the wings, but a Griffen gave you a better forward gun view (the engine hung lower)

sorry, long night, starting to ramble

_____________________________

(in reply to fochinell)

Post #: 57

RE: Production rates - 6/24/2006 2:24:05 AM

harley

Posts: 1700
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fochinell
My rule of thumb would be to assume 10 gallons of fuel in the drop tank = 10 minutes of extra endurance for the Mk V, 9 for the VIII/IX and 7 for the XII/XIV.

We are stuck with the 1 point of Endurance per minute, so the DT's are adding endurance at the rate of 1 minute per 2 Gallons (give or take)

I've also used the 1 for 1 rule of thumb, but applied it generally. With your estimates the XII and XIV would have a fuel-flow of 1.4 gallons per minute.

Looking at it a different way, how fast can a Spit VIII fly on a fuel-flow of one gallon per minute? Set that as the Cruise Speed, the end as the actual tankage and then everyone lines up... It's not perfect, but it's reasonable. The main reason it hasn't been done like this is lack of accurate data on performance...

It's fine to have the range, and the estimated cruise, but that means calculating the end from extrapolated data...

There's also the time factor - HS has so much to do on his end, then get it tested. Sometimes it's just easier to make things feel right.

And then there's the guzzlers - anything that needed more than 1 Gal per minute just to get to the fight, let alone in it... They'd be hard to handle under my model, or very, very slow at cruise...

(in reply to fochinell)

Post #: 58

RE: Production rates - 6/24/2006 2:34:24 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Harley, is there anything written in stone about and the size of the tanks ?

pretty much it sort of looks like a 2 for 1 deal, just because the device says it is a 110 gallong tank, don't mean we got to keep it at 50 ? (unless the code does something with it)

_____________________________

(in reply to harley)

Post #: 59

RE: Production rates - 6/24/2006 3:19:46 PM

fochinell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline

[ me: ... trying to establish objective and comparable figures for different aircraft from different nationalities...]

Well now you see where I am haveing trouble, it is not that I disagree, but I got a number of sourse, that all want to say something different, odd, the one saying the VII was a gas hog, and needed a drop tank just to climb to alt, is also saying it should have a range of 660

I see the problem, and to be fair it is a killer. Even in the depths of my insanity, I know you and your code slaves have more important things to deal with. Nonetheless, I think people (and not just me) should be conducting some sort of informed debate about the stats, and you should be free to pick and chose the figures which are a) historically correct, b) come from a relevant context, and c) most importantly, work with the gameplay best.

On the other hand, take it from me that the VII definitely was not a gas guzzler; it was identical to the VIII (except for a pressurised cockpit and extended wing-tips which were usually removed, just as they were for the VIII), and almost identical to the IX. Using the same engine and an identical airframe means that their engine performance and related speed were identical. The Griffon Spits definitely used more fuel, but as test reports commented at the time, the increase in speed associated with the higher power output and fuel consumption increased the range to balance the loss of endurance.

LOL, the Spit did come armed with 4 20mm, but it was not liked, as if one of the guns jammed, the others being fired would make the plane start to yaw and make it uncontrolable in the attack, but then tells how the following models all went with the 4 gun set up ?)

The Spit yawed when one cannon failed even with a dual cannon armament. The official rationale for not using four cannons in the VC seems to have been gun heating, although Malta command didn't like the increased weight reducing climb rate. They also couldn't afford to use too many Hispanos given the shortage of spares. 2 SAAF sqn did actually use the four-cannon armament in the MTO, as did one or two other units. But it was a capability that really wasn't being used operationally on the type until the F.21 turned up.

[snip altitood modifiers - good stuff)

I been looking at the slipper tanks, and thinking about adding them, but never found any info on how many were made or how common they were, but I could work in a 90 gallon slipper tank if you know they were used in numbers

They certainly were. The 30-gall tank was *extremely* common on offensive operations from 1942-45, and the 90 gall tank was regularly being used, both for (relatively) deep escort oprations from the UK and in the MTO and Far East.

so in the long run, what we should be looking at, does the game see a gallon of fuel as a minute in the air

Killer point. This was indeed the rule of thumb for the Spit V, although in fact they averaged slightly better than that operationally.

hassle being, Merlins can stay in the air for a long time on little gas, the PW needed lots and lots of gas to stay in the air for a little time

That's the key issue in a nutshell. I'm afraid this is down to you and the code slaves to make the call.

Griffins lost Fuel space, as the tank in front of the cockpit had to be removed, but smaller tanks were added to the leading edge of the wings, but a Griffen gave you a better forward gun view (the engine hung lower)

The Griffon Spits used the Mk VIII airframe, which had both enlarged forward fuselage tanks (96 instead of 85 gallons) between the pilot and the two forward wing tanks (25 gallons or so, together). The extra size of the Griffon seems to have pushed the XII and XIV back to the 85 gallon tanks between the cockpit and engine, while retaining the wing tanks. Hence the VII and VIII had an internal capacity of just over 120 gallons, while the XII and XIV had about 110 gallons. This changes with the rear-fuselage tanks arriving in late '44 which added 75 gallons (66 for the bubbble canopy version) internal capacity to the late production IX, XIV and the XVI.

sorry, long night, starting to ramble

No worries. The endurance/performance issue is complex, and I think you're justified if you do chose to simplify it. Just shoving some ideas around at this end. More beer needed....

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 60