Author Topic: Bomber Engine Use (Read 745 times)

mussie · « **on:** October 17, 2006, 09:51:54 PM »

Many ppl have said that Buffs in WWII never flew at Max Power continuously.

Is this statement true and If it is what is the reason, of corse you need to keep formation, we had to hold back on the throttle in BOB but we kept formation pretty good and we were running pretty close to max military most of the time.

So ignoring the fact that you need to keep in formation the only reason I can see is because of the effect on range for the aircraft.

Looking at Soda's data for the B-24 we can see that there is a massive difference in range between Cruise, Normal and Max Military power, was this the only reason why Buff in WWII did not use Max Military power.

I know if I was in a B-17 flying over Germany in WWII, I sure as hell would want to get in and out as quickly as possible so you would not have seen me running at cruise or normal power unless I had no other choice.

From Soda's Aircraft Pages

B-24J
Engine/Range Info
Fuel Tankage:
698 gallons 1/4
1397 gallons 1/2
2095 gallons 3/4
2793 gallons full

Engine Settings:
Military: 2700rpm/48.5 1340 gall/hr
Normal: 2550rpm/46mp 1143gall/hr
Max Cruise: 2325rpm/35.5mp 691gall/hr

Calculated Ranges (Internal Fuel Only):
Military: 487 miles
Normal: 571 miles
Max Cruise: 945 miles

Wolfala · « **Reply #1 on:** October 17, 2006, 10:15:11 PM »

You will never see any military aircraft flown at MAX power for more then a few minutes at a time - even today. You might need the power to get up in the air, but then you have a cruise climb power setting, and a cruise setting, and then a combat setting when Murphy shows up.

There is no sense in burning up all of your fuel on the way to the target to have 5 minutes station time while being completely useless to yourself and anyone else around you.

Why do you think we miss the F-14 so much? 8 hour loiter times, lotta station time and ord bringback capability.

Overlag · « **Reply #2 on:** October 17, 2006, 10:16:22 PM »

the point i constantly throw up to these guys trying to pork bombers even more is that

1: Fighters never run at constant high/max power EITHER. If they want us to have limited engine use, so should they.

2: exactly what you said, one of the only reasons speeds was slow was:
a: formations
b: fuel savings
c: to aid bomb aiming (like the old AHI site was hard to use)

in AH we dont need fuel savings because fuel porking was stopped, and all fields have 125% fuel, and theres also a fuel modifier.

LePaul · « **Reply #3 on:** October 17, 2006, 10:28:20 PM »

Well said, Overlag

With these small maps, Ive seldom taking more than 25% fuel, the exception being the Ar-234.

hubsonfire · « **Reply #4 on:** October 17, 2006, 10:49:06 PM »

It seems that in the real world, **** breaks when you run it WFO all the time. Just my observations.

Kermit de frog · « **Reply #5 on:** October 17, 2006, 11:41:22 PM »

I remember on the larger maps, I'd need to take 75% fuel in B17's. Those were fun sorties.

Edit: And I'd still need to throttle back at the end just to make it back.

Krusty · « **Reply #6 on:** October 17, 2006, 11:47:05 PM »

Overlag, fighters were designed for higher performance than bombers. Bombers were just designed to FLY, and get the bombs on target. They were not ever built for speed or performance, whereas fighter engines were.

Fighters could and did run at higher engine settings regularly. Even so, a fighter on "cruise" is going about 350mph, while a bomber on "cruise" is going 175 or so.

So even if the players were forced to cruise across the board, it would be more realistic for fighters because they'd have the historical speed advantage over their prey.

mussie · « **Reply #7 on:** October 18, 2006, 12:03:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hubsonfire
It seems that in the real world, **** breaks when you run it WFO all the time. Just my observations.

I read somewhere here on the BBS that the a corsair motor was run at full WEP for 96 hours straight....

I would assume that buff engines were designed to keep running to........

mussie · « **Reply #8 on:** October 18, 2006, 12:08:40 AM »

And just to clarify...

I dont like the fact that we run at full throttle 99.9% of the time (fighters and Buffs).

I also dont like the way wep is modeled (just my opinion HTC not saying you guys did it wrong).... IE: some fighters used NO2 (they should run out if they dont rearm) some used water injection to retard detonation (they also should run out if they dont rearm) and some just upped the throttle...
But, its a game and we must make concessions.... So it is the way it is and I accept that.......

I just wanted to know what the resoning behind the "buffs did not run WFO all the time" comments.....

hubsonfire · « **Reply #9 on:** October 18, 2006, 12:39:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by mussie
I read somewhere here on the BBS that the a corsair motor was run at full WEP for 96 hours straight....

I would assume that buff engines were designed to keep running to........

I once drove a brand new truck (a truck which was to be exported to Canada, and was stickered for ~$36,000 Canadian), which ran absolutely flawlessly, until mile 4, when the engine blew. I imagine that it was designed to run much longer than that, yet it did not. Why didn't it?

I'm sure things have improved with regards to all powerplants, be it for aviation or civilian vehicles, but I can't believe that engines designed for aircraft are immune to the same issues that plague automobile engines, when they're all assembled by monkeys with components made by other monkeys. Maybe fuel burn is the biggest concern of the pilots, but I would imagine that longevity and maintenance concerns would be big issues with others. Just sayin'.

mussie · « **Reply #10 on:** October 18, 2006, 12:59:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hubsonfire
I once drove a brand new truck (a truck which was to be exported to Canada, and was stickered for ~$36,000 Canadian), which ran absolutely flawlessly, until mile 4, when the engine blew. I imagine that it was designed to run much longer than that, yet it did not. Why didn't it?

I'm sure things have improved with regards to all powerplants, be it for aviation or civilian vehicles, but I can't believe that engines designed for aircraft are immune to the same issues that plague automobile engines, when they're all assembled by monkeys with components made by other monkeys. Maybe fuel burn is the biggest concern of the pilots, but I would imagine that longevity and maintenance concerns would be big issues with others. Just sayin'.

Bet ya that was a bit of a shock...

The reason I mentioned the 96 hours is because the thread was talking about random problems with the aircraft...

Someone posted the 96 hour comment in reply to it...

But I think HT's opinion is along the lines of:
Do you want to have fun, or do you want to spend 25 minutes preping the plane for take off only to crash cause you forgot to unlock the contol surfaces....

Now when you consider the 96 hour WEP run It sounds gamey to have random failures when pushing the engines of our aircraft....

But there are a lot of things that you could consider gamey
- Auto takeoff (ppl complained about ground loops ect)

- Easy Bombsite (ppl said they could not calibrate on dialup... Strange that, I am in AUS on dialup and managed to calibrate in BOB 2006 and can do it in FSO)

- Stall limiter

- No wind (HT said ppl complained about not being able to land in a cross wind)
ect

So thats were we are at....

BTW: I am not pro buff or pro furball... I am pro fun.....

Brooke · « **Reply #11 on:** October 18, 2006, 03:58:12 AM »

As far as I can tell, the reasons bombers or fighters were not flown at max power all the time was primarily due to fuel consumption.

As for bombers, here is info on engine settings for B-17's.

http://www.303rdbg.com/sop-engine.html

Note that high rpm and high manifold are OK except that fuel consumption is high.

Also, aircraft engines typically were not designed just for one type of aircraft (say, just fighters or just bombers), with the bomber engines thus being designed to be less capable than fighter engines. Many engines were used on both fighters and bombers (Wright Cyclone, P&W Twin Wasp, Rolls Royce Merlin, P&W Double Wasp).

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #12 on:** October 18, 2006, 04:31:50 AM »

If real world buffs would have been so fast and deadly as they are in this game, buffs would have never needed any escort and still return with several kills under the belt.

Right now in the game a stratocruising buff can outmanouver and outgun a fighter which is a total joke. 1.5k 1 ping deaths not uncommon..

For some reason daytime non-escorted bombings were practically suicide runs in real life.

Overlag · « **Reply #13 on:** October 18, 2006, 06:51:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
If real world buffs would have been so fast and deadly as they are in this game, buffs would have never needed any escort and still return with several kills under the belt.

Right now in the game a stratocruising buff can outmanouver and outgun a fighter which is a total joke. 1.5k 1 ping deaths not uncommon..

For some reason daytime non-escorted bombings were practically suicide runs in real life.

if like "real life" you came in with 2 or 3 buddies PER formation, there wont be any left.

but if you cruise up dead 6 on your own.....

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Overlag, fighters were designed for higher performance than bombers. Bombers were just designed to FLY, and get the bombs on target. They were not ever built for speed or performance, whereas fighter engines were.

Fighters could and did run at higher engine settings regularly. Even so, a fighter on "cruise" is going about 350mph, while a bomber on "cruise" is going 175 or so.

So even if the players were forced to cruise across the board, it would be more realistic for fighters because they'd have the historical speed advantage over their prey.

at max throttle most bombers dont do much over 200either.. And i dont fly any fighters that fly at 350 at WTO, let alone cruise...what planes do that?

Speed55 · « **Reply #14 on:** October 18, 2006, 07:28:35 AM »

I think the most kills i had on a buff run was 6. I think what made it so easy is that the attackers were struggling to keep up with me, or just got impatient. I have gotten impatient myself, and attacked from the 6 or with a minimum speed advantage many times, with me being blown apart as the result.

But if you ever watch footage there are two things i noticed. 1st is that alot of times in the gun cam footage you actually do see an attack from the 6 position and the fighter lingers and hammers away at the bomber until something on the bomber breaks. 2nd is that the fighter 90% of the time, has a very large speed advantage allowing for slashing attacks.

I remember chasing a set of 24's in a p-38 for probably 4 sectors. Ending at 20k, and struggling to keep up with them, my fuel was almost gone. I got in maybe 1 or 2 good slashing attacks before i just gave up and attacked from the 6, running on fumes, and hoping for the best. Ended with me pilot wounded, then losing my left wing and tail as a million laser guided 50 cal's ripped me to shreds.

I'd like to see bomber difficulty increased a little.