Bomber Relative Speeds At Altitude

[Stoney74]

Brought this discussion over from the other Bomber formation thread.

Krusty, sir, please wail away and we'll go into point/counter-point.  

[Stoney74]

Krusty said in another thread:

"Stoney, your problem is you're trying to find a way to discredit me. You look hard enough you'll find anything. Have you ever just taken a bomber up from sea level, climbed to 20k, and then set the cruise settings listed in the E6B? These are taken directly from flight manuals, if I'm correct. HTC isn't in the habit of making sh** up just for giggles. Note the speed after a sector's flight on max cruise. That's about what the speed would be of the real thing. Say what you will about games vs real life, but HTC and crew seem to have gotten the speeds correct on most things in this game. Max cruise at 15k gives you 134 IAS, 167 TAS. And you come in here saying that really they would be just 10 mph shy of their top speed. Sure.. right... Their max cruise would be just shy of their max speed. I don't think the laws of physics apply in that theory, Stoney.

Like I said this isn't the place to get into it."

Ok, this is the place to get into it.  I'm not trying to discredit you Krusty.  This is not personal, although you apparently take it that way.

Yes, I've done the climb to 20K and used the cruise settings.  Matter of fact, you can't hold altitude at 25K using the max cruise settings, loaded.  Remember, the original altitude we started discussing this was 25K, not 15K.  There's a huge difference in TAS over that 10,000 foot difference.  At standard conditions 134 IAS at 25,000 feet is 201 TAS.  The max cruise setting that HTC posts on the E6B is a setting that is the max cruise setting at a certain altitude and weight.  I can tell you that I can go farther in a P-47 by using a different setting than the one HTC has posted on the clipboard.  I can also show charts that show best climb speeds for planes change with altitude as well.  HTC uses those settings as a practical necessity, as there are too many variables, and not enough room on the clipboard for all of the different settings for each specific condition.  I'm not saying they're wrong.  What I'm trying to explain to you is that a 30 ton B-17 cannot maintain those slow speeds you state due to simple aeronautical principles, and that yes, they do fly faster than 180 TAS at 25K because they weren't in the habit of flying at IAS landing approach speeds on WWII strategic bombing missions.  

Don't take this the wrong way, but you do understand the difference between IAS and how it affects performance and TAS, right?

Last, just post something, a book, reference, chart, video or something that explains what speeds they used.  Personally, I've had a hard time finding what I've used to support my argument already--I've exhausted almost every web resource I know of trying to find something--anything--that you would at least acknowledge as a credible source of information, and yet, I've apparently still failed.  So, if I can't convince you, maybe you could convince me?  Show me some sources, and if I'm wrong, I'll appologize for giving you such a hard time over this.

Sincerely,

[Krusty]

First, when you start saying things like:


"Or am I, and the rest of the forum going to have to suffer through this every single time you post in a bomber thread?"

and

"While you pay absolutely no regard to that which I post, I promise I'll give yours due deference"

and

"Sorry Hubs, but I'm tired of seeing it every single time. I was going to go after it in the FSO thread last weekend after the "B-24 outran my 262" post, but waved off."


in between direct insults from hubs, wolf, in what is clearly a thread hostile to my comments (despite them almost being in agreement with hubsonfire's), you make it personal. I will do my best to separate you from "that lot" but in all honesty, what was I supposed to think?

*********************

I know that a B-17G can't hold level flight at 25k with 100% fuel. However it would never GET to 25k with 100% fuel onboard. Also, even WITH 100% fuel, a B-24 can hold level flight while using the E6B max cruise settings. As can, if I recall properly, a Lancaster, but I admit it's been a long long time since I tested one at that alt.

I do understand that certain speeds will change as the alt is increased. I know you pulled out some webpage that gave you different RPM settings. Only, the main reason I don't buy your argument is that you said the cruise speed would be up to 270mph, when all bombers' top speeds are in the low 280s. Even using the normal power as a high cruise you're going to be much slower than this nearly-maxed-speed.


Do we agree that the very point of cruise settings is to sacrifice speed for endurance? I assume so, as I continue.

Full throttle: A B-17G fully loaded at 25k will fly at an IAS between 166 and 170mph. TAS listed as 250.

Note that even at full throttle its climb speed is very close to its max speed. Your say they wouldn't be flying "barely at climb speed" (sorry, can't recall the exact quote), but in fact they would be forced to. For endurance (range) they would have to reduce this speed. Even throttling back to "normal power" -- which I admit may not be the best at this altitude, but would be rated higher than max cruise -- we see:

"Normal Power" (2300rpm, 38"): A Fully loaded B17G at 25k will fly at under 140mph IAS (139 and slowly dropping) and 209mph TAS. That's not even the most economical speed.

To get the most range from these bombers, which they had to do in order to bomb France and later Germany, they would need to fly even slower. The auto climb speed is 135, leaving a scant 5mph margin. Reducing it to whatever the max cruise was would surely slow these aircraft down even more.

It's just logical. If you want to go far, you have to go slow. They even climbed on reduced settings to save fuel. Can you imagine that? I can. Most in this game can't. In this game nobody wants to spend an hour getting to 25k, but if you used up 1 hour out of a 10-hour mission, well historically it didn't matter you had plenty of time.



Disclaimer of sorts: These numbers are for the B-17G. I've no doubt the B-24s fly much faster at this alt, as I have them on film many times pushing 270 at even lower altitudes.

[B@tfinkV]

great thread!

[JB73]

you wanna talk about fast bombers????????????????????????????????


sent this in OVER 2 months ago, not a darn word on "bug" or "anything remotely resembling a response" from this email

header date of email:
    Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:17:29 -0800 (PST)

and I never alluded to anything out of the "norm" other asking politely "is this accurate?"

here's the original text of email (sent Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:17:29 -0800 (PST) )

Don't know if this is a possible bug, or I am missing something here. I chased this lancaster down, and it took quite a long time. while watching the film the lancaster is noted as accelerating most of the "fight" with a top speed of 293 as indicated in the film viewer.

on the web page charts the top speed never nears 300, even at it's best (it seems to top out at around 280 or there abouts)

in the film it shows the lancaster not diving, in fact gaining .1k in altitude during the engagement.


there is a second concern, though a bit embarrassing... I know I am a terrible shot, but I sure thought I put quite a few bullets into that lead lancaster before I ran out of ammo. It didn't seem to take any damage that I could see. what bothers me is I previously engaged the same lancaster with an ME 163 about 20 minutes prior, and hit the lead plane with what I would guess is a minimum of 10 rounds, possibly 20 though I doubt it also, as I ran out of ammo without doing any noticeable damage then. unfortunately I don;t have film of that, it is actually what promoted me to film this sortie to see who it was, and why I could not kill them.

can you tell if there was prior damage to that lead plane in the formation, and why my 10 or so hits in this film did nothing to it either?

thanks. and

293mph lancs @ 4:14 in movie.... AFTER they CLIMBED .1k.

I know climbing .1k is meaningless, but it was NOT a dive.


they rose .1k from the start of the film to the end.


I broke off the attack as I was bingo because I am a horrible shot, and can't kill a lanc 200 in front of me ROFL





hey I can understand if what I sent in was out of the norm, and something to be looked into, but duyamn, 2 months a ZERO response?



guess some players are more important than others, and thats the honest truth. I have seen nasty "griping" posts and emails from "some" members, and polite posts by others, all about the same issues,

[Wolfala]

So...what you are saying is, I need to scan another 150 page Pilot Operating Handbook and dump it into PDF to shut u both up?

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Krusty
in between direct insults from hubs, wolf, in what is clearly a thread hostile to my comments (despite them almost being in agreement with hubsonfire's), you make it personal. I will do my best to separate you from "that lot" but in all honesty, what was I supposed to think?

Fair enough.  I admit I went over the top, but you are a definite broken record about the bomber speed thing.  You seem to interject it into every bomber discussion regardless, and I really think its a misunderstanding on your part about the importance of considering the effect of TAS vs. IAS.  I maybe wrong.  I'll drop it and press...

*********************

I know that a B-17G can't hold level flight at 25k with 100% fuel. However it would never GET to 25k with 100% fuel onboard.

[/b]
 
Agreed, but using the fuel burn rates off the charts I posted, they would burn roughly 2400 lbs of fuel during a 1 hour climb, putting their weight at 25K at around 62,000lbs after a gross takeoff weight of 64K and change.  That's a 6% reduction (if I did my math correctly) in gross weight--I didn't think that was significant given the abbreviated nature of my post.  I should have clarified.

I do understand that certain speeds will change as the alt is increased. I know you pulled out some webpage that gave you different RPM settings. Only, the main reason I don't buy your argument is that you said the cruise speed would be up to 270mph, when all bombers' top speeds are in the low 280s. Even using the normal power as a high cruise you're going to be much slower than this nearly-maxed-speed.

[/b]

I think the charts showed around 240 TAS at 25K at 60K + pound curve.  I think the 270 speed I quoted was during the explanation of closing speeds.  However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and fall back on the 240 TAS displayed on the charts.

Note that even at full throttle its climb speed is very close to its max speed. Your say they wouldn't be flying "barely at climb speed" (sorry, can't recall the exact quote), but in fact they would be forced to.

To get the most range from these bombers, which they had to do in order to bomb France and later Germany, they would need to fly even slower. The auto climb speed is 135, leaving a scant 5mph margin. Reducing it to whatever the max cruise was would surely slow these aircraft down even more.

It's just logical. If you want to go far, you have to go slow. They even climbed on reduced settings to save fuel. Can you imagine that? I can. Most in this game can't. In this game nobody wants to spend an hour getting to 25k, but if you used up 1 hour out of a 10-hour mission, well historically it didn't matter you had plenty of time..

[/b]

Climb speed is set for IAS, not TAS.  At those altitudes, a 15 mph difference in IAS will have an exponentially higher equivalent TAS.  Regardless, my quote was "approach speeds" (meaning the landing approach at around 100-120 IAS which at those altitudes would be between 150-180 TAS).  They used the normal continuous power for climbs according to the training films on Zeno's Warbirds.  I agree, no one wants to climb that slow in the game, but the average ground speed comparison I made is still valid.  Including the form up time and time to climb, they still have to make the round trip in that length of time, and using the Avg. Speed = Distance/Time equation they would have to be turning at least a 200 TAS average to make the mission time these guys put in their log books.  Which means that at some point during the "cruise" portion of the mission, they were flying faster than 200 ground speed to make up for the slower ground speed during forming up and climbing at low altitude.  Assuming a mirrored route and cancelling wind components, they would be flying 200+ TAS during the mission. (And actually, a headwind costs you more time than a tailwind will give you back, but that's another discussion)  My last observation is that according to that table, they had enough gas at a 64K gross takeoff to go 2000+ miles depending on altitude (not counting winds).  I don't know how much they wanted to keep in reserve, but those settings all cross-referenced 200+ True air speeds for the flight.

Personally, I'd love to talk to a B-17 pilot to find out what exactly their entire operational TTP were, but I can't find anything that says they "typically cruised at XXX TAS".  Maybe you can?

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Wolfala
So...what you are saying is, I need to scan another 150 page Pilot Operating Handbook and dump it into PDF to shut u both up?

Please?  

[JB73]

Originally posted by Wolfala
So...what you are saying is, I need to scan another 150 page Pilot Operating Handbook and dump it into PDF to shut u both up?

who's "both"?


You know what? I'd be totally satisfied being treated as an equal on the forums, AND via email as anyone else who pays to play.

My "real life" may be a disaster right now, but I know this game, and have been around in-game long enough to know what's what as far as who posts legit data, and what is discussed on this forum. Some posters "get away" with a "flame" or a comment that is off topic of the thread, and nothign happens, other than a complete thread "hijack" to a possibly "related" topic... though nowhere related to the original.




it sure seems like a common courtesy thing that is non-existent in certain matters, and certain players. I DARE you to point anything out in the email I sent in that is derogatory, inflammatory, or otherwise not respectful enough to warrant a response.

Though there have been similar "incidents" on the forum in the past 6 years, some are treated differently than others. A "sitrep" is a "sitrep" in the grand scheme. Some may not "effect" gameplay in the overall sense, but I assure you IN THE LONG RUN it is a major "issue" dealing with the way any given player "playes" the game (of life in bel-aire )



I chose to NOT post this film, or ANY comments on the board, even though the temptation was "huge"

so here I am, looking at threads about "bomber" speeds, and have to bring this up. I avoided it for so long now I can't be sure of what I am "po'd" about,

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by JB73
who's "both"?

JB73, don't get mad.  He was talking about Krusty and I, not you.

[Krusty]

Here's the thing... you clarified 240TAS, but in my fully-loaded test full throttle netted only 250TAS at 25k. I still fail to believe that max cruise and full throttle are only 10mph apart. It's just not possible to reduce fuel consumption in half without a noticable drop in speed.

I don't need a PDF file to tell me that much.


JB, I hear ya. I have a film of 2 sets of B24s at 23k. One is doing 300 steady, with very little noticable descent. The other is doing 290 with no descent. Had to fly out beyond icon range (film viewer said 7.5k) just to get enough separation to HO them, and by the time I was turned around they were -2.5k and closing very fast.

This isn't just some idle crusade, some taunting thing that "some other" players might do. I bring this up because it keeps happening. It is the norm. Those that ridicule others for pointing out the patterns are one reason things never get "fixed".

[VWE]

Oh pleeease... would ya'll just STFU !

[Krusty]

Uh, dude, go away.

[B@tfinkV]

i hearby classify this thread as ghey mark I grade A tripe.





most of all, who cares about buffs they are just targets in a fighter game.


edit: please dont pwn me stoney/krusty

[Stoney74]

Krusty,

Just so you don't think I forgot ya...

I sent an email to the Air Force University folks at Maxwell AFB to see if they can dig up some information for us.