Author Topic: Triple Buffs Should GO  (Read 9491 times)

Offline blkmgc

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 940
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #90 on: March 19, 2007, 08:11:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by zorstorer
Climb up off the deck...the speed will be at least 250+ up high ;)


Nope, never happen.All of the missions I've flown are at altitude. Can provide a TS server and some ingame time so you can prove this 250+ speed claim if you'd like .
Debdenboys.comAdministrator

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #91 on: March 19, 2007, 08:29:25 PM »
Dammit! Typed this whole thing up and lost it. Retyping it now.


I spent a couple of hours testing the 10x fuel burn rate offline.

I chose a B-17 because a B-24 does everything a b17 does, only better and faster and with more gas. If a 17 can do it, a 24 can do it. A lanc has even more range than a 17 as well and should do the same as well.



Yellow is my flight path. Blue is coasting down, 2 engines below max cruise to help descent in auto-speed. Ended up with plenty of speed and made a rather hot landing without any engines running, but still quite safe.

I chose a target 2 sectors away, so I'd be 2 sectors in, 2 sectors out (about 100 miles). Only, when I as 14k over the target I still had so much flight time left I picked an even further target!.

[EDIT: "when I was over the target" -- I wasn't 14k at this time, but over 10k]

I was screwing around with the gun turrets, firing off the rounds, and wasted 5+ minutes just firing the rounds -- more later on this -- which might have helped me get home better. I as able to come around and make another pass with ease.

I took off on full throttle, and as soon as I could pull my flaps all the way up and engage autopilot (this took a couple of minutes) I reduced to "normal power," or 2300 RPM and 38" MAP. I took this all the way up during climb.

The climb rate was almost a steady 500fpm. It remained steady because as I climbed, the fuel burned off. It actually improved at higher altitudes because the aircraft was considerably lighter. In my second test, done at full throttle, I was climbing somewhat better above 10k

First test: At 15 minutes I was 8k and halfway to the target. I was about 10k at the 20 minute mark, but please note I didn't take off at zero on the clock, I had to change the fuel burn settings and choose an aircraft, a runway, a direction, a target, etc... At 25 minutes on the clock I was at 13k, and leveled off at 14k (26 minutes). At this point I had 14 minutes still remaining at "normal power". I reduced to "max cruise" after leveling out. That gave me about 20 minutes of flight time, and my target was only about 10 miles out. More than enough time to get to alt and hit a target.

On the first bomb pass I noted the max speeds on max cruise. It was 134 IAS, 167 TAS with doors open and 6 bombs on board. I dropped 3 to simulate a bombing run (missed, wasn't paying attention), and extended to turn around. I wasted a lot of time wondering if it would get lighter if I fired off some ammo, to simulate defending the bombers. Cruising speed with bombs gone was about 165 IAS.

side note

Go, Go, Gadget thruster jets!

Get in level flight. Open E6B. Get in tail gun. Fire all guns so you get as many firing as possible. Fire straight back. Note E6B. Get in nose gun. Fire ahead. Note E6B. The guns can add speed to your bomber (I am NOT making this up!!!!!). In fact, as I was gliding down, to decrease the descent rate to a gentle -200fpm, I fired my rear guns as much as I could. By this time I'd already fired off most of them playing around with this speed boost thing, but it helped while I had ammo left!!!

end side note

So At 38 minutes on the clock I'd made 2 lengthly passes over a very distant target at a semi-safe altitude of 14k (I didn't want to get higher but I could have), at a target 3 bases behind enemy lines, and was egressing. I still had enough alt to glide down on 2 engines to save gas, and landed safely. At 43 minutes I shut down eng 1 and 4 to reduce gas consumption. When I was about 2 miles from the end of the runway my last engines conked out due to lack of fuel. I glided down easily.

Judging by the route on the map (image above) I flew 125 miles (5 sectors) at a relatively safe alt. Now if you wanted to go higher you could, it would just take more time. Perhaps if I took off East and then turned back West so I wasn't so close to my primary target I'd have hit it instead of going to the next target.

I did another test with full throttle. FYI: Full throttle gives you 30 minutes, "normal power" about 42 minutes, and "max cruise" about 50 minutes of engine running time. You can use this to your advantage. I climbed full throttle, doing about 750fpm at first, and then up to 800+ fpm later as I burned off the fuel. I leveled out at 14k again. It took much less time to get up to 15k. It took only 15 minutes to get to 15k, roughly. At that alt, I leveled out and checked the time I had at "normal power" and "cruise". I had about 12 minutes max throttle, 16 minutes normal power, and 23 minutes max cruise, and had already covered almost 2 sectors.

I think 10x fuel burn will make bombers slow down but still allow them to push into enemy front lines over a hundred miles. And if they wish to run FFT all the time, they will do so for very short durations.

EDIT: And if 10x is a bit too much, then 8x.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2007, 08:38:24 PM by Krusty »

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #92 on: March 19, 2007, 08:30:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by blkmgc
Nope, never happen.All of the missions I've flown are at altitude. Can provide a TS server and some ingame time so you can prove this 250+ speed claim if you'd like .



Apparently you don't ever hunt bombers. 99.9999% of bombers are nearly 280mph when I check the film after the fact. They're in the 270 range most of the time. It doesn't take that long to get to this speed after leveling off, once at alt.

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #93 on: March 19, 2007, 08:54:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by blkmgc
Nope, never happen.All of the missions I've flown are at altitude. Can provide a TS server and some ingame time so you can prove this 250+ speed claim if you'd like .


I've seen 280 TAS at altitude in B-17's.  B-24's almost as fast.   TAS increases with altitude, while IAS decreases.  Regardless, any P-47 or P-51, TA-152, can do 400+ True at the same altitudes.  That's still 120 mph rate of closure if you're coming in from behind them.  That means you'll gain 2 miles a minute on them, or you can catch them from a sector away in 12 minutes.  

And, Krusty, IMHO, a bomber in this game ought to be able to climb to 20K+ if that's their perogative.  14K is not safe, its a sitting duck.  You raise the fuel burn to a level that prevents them from climbing up to a historically accurate altitude before they cross into bad-guy territory, you're hamstringing them.  Take away the formations and slaved guns if you like, but don't up the fuel burn.  Its cut the legs out from under a number of planes in the game already, especially those that climb slow and have radial engines, but I'm not naming any names...[cough] JUG [cough] :)

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #94 on: March 19, 2007, 09:11:25 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Lusche
You want to change buffs from being easy targets back to completely helpless?
Quoting this from the beginning of the thread, because after reading the 4+ pages here, this appears to be what it boils down to.

For some reason, a lot of people believe bombers should be helpless.

I disagree.  They are fine the way they are.  As it is, they have a half a chance against a fighter.  Most of the suggestions here would reduce it to a snowballs chance in you know where.

Bombers do not have the luxury of maneuvering out of the way of an incoming figther.  Their firepower and the formation are their only chance of survival.  Why take it away?  Hurt your ego too much to get shot down by one or three?
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline Wolf14

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #95 on: March 19, 2007, 09:27:32 PM »
Leave 'em alone.

:)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #96 on: March 19, 2007, 09:34:29 PM »
Stoney, as-is they climb way way faster than they ever did historically, because they almost never take more than 25% fuel. They climb and accelerate 4x faster than they ever did in real life, because in real life they always had 100% fuel.

EDIT: okay, not 4x, but much better. I typed it quickly and was thinking 100% is 4x that of 25%, but that's not counting the existing airframe weights etc.

I only climbed to 14k in my tests. You can still climb higher if you wish. Getting up to 20k should take a long time, as you are in a heavy 4-engined bomber, not a single-engined fighter. You will be able to get to 20k with 100% fuel, you just need to give yourself more time because you're heavier. You also need to conserve fuel on the way up, so that once you're up there, you don't run out before getting to target.

I think the fuel burn for 4-engined bombers should be 10, personally. I'd say 8 at least. Even increasing it to as little as 5 or 6x fuel burn would greatly help the situation, but folks would still run FFT, at speeds far superior to those achieved in combat, with such a low fuel burn rate.

Keep in mind, that you say the best of the high-alt fighters would have 120mph closure rate. That's IF they are already at that alititude, and IF they're already at full speed. Realistically, these aircraft would have closure rates of 250+mph (attacking at 400+ mph on a 150mph target), so by the bombers flying 2x their historic speeds, it puts all fighters in a bad position.

Offline 999000

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #97 on: March 19, 2007, 09:56:21 PM »
Can somebody check the kill to death of bombers verses fighters in Aces High please.......I'm not good at finding that kind of information.....After these facts are found .........lets ask a new series of questions.
999000

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #98 on: March 19, 2007, 10:21:13 PM »
Yeah, it's a bit annoying to be maneuvering for position to make a run on the formation, then suddenly have the guy pull a hard diving turn to 300+ mph without losing ONE of his drones.

Edit:

WTF?! I was at the end of the thread and the topic was about formation speed/maneuvering silliness. I post and suddenly it gains almost a full page.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2007, 10:23:19 PM by Saxman »
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline hubsonfire

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8658
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #99 on: March 19, 2007, 10:26:21 PM »
Before we get too carried away with wild fuel burn, or K/D, let's give a little bit of thought to the initial point Zanth was making.

Quote
Formation of 3 bombers was added to allow for inaccuracy of new bomb site.


Point being, the bombers were given a huge advantage to offset a change to the game that was made and rapidly undone. Is this not the case?
mook
++Blue Knights++

Proper punctuation and capitalization go a long way towards people paying attention to your posts.  -Stoney
I was wondering why I get ignored so often.  -Hitech

Offline Kermit de frog

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3686
      • LGM Films
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #100 on: March 19, 2007, 10:28:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by blkmgc
What game are you playing? The most we do in level flight is around 200, and thats empty. Fully loaded, we are more like 165-170. 300 is quite an exageration.


I think you are talking about IAS and the rest are talking about ground speed.
Time's fun when you're having flies.

Offline Tango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1421
      • http://www.simpilots.org/
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #101 on: March 19, 2007, 10:28:31 PM »
Its a waste of time talking about this since they aren't gonna do anything about it. Remember that little thing called Combat Tour? I'm sure they aren't gonna do anything until AFTER it gets done. That is IF they did.

I think bombers are just fine the way they are. When we do the HARM missions we usually have 30-40% loss ratio and that with us flying in tight formations WITH gunners and escorts. Theres nothing wrong with bombers.
Tango78
78th Razorbacks
Historical Air Combat Group

Offline 1Boner

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #102 on: March 19, 2007, 10:31:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
Apparently you don't ever hunt bombers. 99.9999% of bombers are nearly 280mph when I check the film after the fact. They're in the 270 range most of the time. It doesn't take that long to get to this speed after leveling off, once at alt.


and????

thats the speed they,re supposed to fly at !!!!!!

i never seem to be able to get em up to that speed but --if you say so

i believe it!!  just haven,t seen it.

the stats i posted earlier only attest to the fact that you are right!!

they are indeed going 270--280 or so.

thats what they,re supposed to do ---historically speaking.

so if a lanc can do 286 mph according to stats

whats your point????????????

we should slow them down because-----------------?

and yes---i hunt bombers--

and yes sometimes they.re a biotch to catch----at alt.

and?
"Life is just as deadly as it looks"  Richard Thompson

"So umm.... just to make sure I have this right.  What you are asking is for the bombers carrying bombs, to stop dropping bombs on the bombs, so the bombers can carry bombs to bomb things with?"  AKP

Offline zorstorer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #103 on: March 19, 2007, 10:43:48 PM »
If anything I would like to see an option for bomber fuel burn vs. fighter fuel burn.  

I doubt it would be used in the MA's but it would be rather useful in scenarios.

In the last BoB (Battle of Britain) the Ju88's were so fast that the Hurris had only 1 chance to engage them then the 88's just walked away with a closer rate of about 5mph ;)

That or give us the Do17 and He111 :D

Offline Wolf14

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #104 on: March 19, 2007, 10:50:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
Stoney, as-is they climb way way faster than they ever did historically, because they almost never take more than 25% fuel. They climb and accelerate 4x faster than they ever did in real life, because in real life they always had 100% fuel......


Krusty I know you said "almost never", but please keep in mind that when I do my bombing runs, I take off from the highest base my side has at the time and to climb to 30k-ish, transit to target, drop load, and return home to a safe base takes more than 25% for me. I usualy take 100%. I hate running out of gas. By the time I get home I have less than 10 minutes of fuel left. So please leave the fuel burn where its at.

I'd like to think there are others who fly their bombers that way as well, but I doubt it.

Somebody also said that a B-24 out performs a B-17. I agree to a point. I have found that at about 28k a B-24 doesnt climb very well. A B-17 on the other hand has about a 300fpm climb to 32k. I know the stats will say what they say, but these are my observations between the two from personal experience flying them in game at those alts. I have also had both over 300tas at those alts as well. B-17 gets faster the higher it goes.

Been awhile since I have been up that high, but I'll try to do a few runs this weekend and post some picks.