Author Topic: FSO: Pacific Pinsalamanders (Read 2300 times)

Krusty · « **Reply #30 on:** May 01, 2007, 12:19:58 PM »

You've not provided any that say bombers had the best engines that rivaled fighters...

You've not provided any that say fighters engaged in combat activities on max cruise fuel settings...

You've not provided any that say fighters and bombers had the same specifications and powerplant requirements, and as such flew their engines in identical manners...

You first.

Kermit de frog · « **Reply #31 on:** May 01, 2007, 01:45:05 PM »

I agree with Krusty on this one.

AKDogg · « **Reply #32 on:** May 01, 2007, 03:07:59 PM »

Well to be honest, the allied planes are gonna dominate this entire FSO. A6M2 can't stay with any of the allied planes except maybe the sbd or tbm if that. Its ammo load will be used up on 1 bomber. All allied planes in this FSO have much better guns along with ammo load. Only advantage the zekes have is the turn fight. Other then that, it all allied advantage. Zekes will barely be able to stay with the ju88's for escort, lol. Axis need another fighter for this planeset. Ki61 (with limited numbers) or ki84 (limited numbers) or even give us a 109E. I know the ki61 and ki84 are 1944 planes but really, this is gonna be a slaughter fest.

ghostdancer · « **Reply #33 on:** May 01, 2007, 03:57:55 PM »

Actually ran a very similar one before. Same plane set and the Axis held there own. They actually won the FSO .. 3163 to 3049.

So I tend to disagree that it is inherently a slaughter fest.

Drop out the JU88 and basically this planeset is what was being used in 1942 and historically the IJN did very well with it. So it really comes down to strategy and tactics.

A Ki84 would shred the F4F and P40E. I would actually prefer or would love to have P39, P400, Bufallo, Boomerang, etc. but we don't.

Also here is a performance comparison of the planes.

http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=f4f4&p2=p40e&p3=a6m2

Now if the P40E, even restricted proves to be unbalancing I will drop the allies land forces back to the older P40B will a small number of P40E available.

Krusty · « **Reply #34 on:** May 01, 2007, 03:59:57 PM »

Ki61 is a '42/'43 plane. Ki84 was a late'44 or early '45 plane, and in NO WAY would fit with this scenario (it's uber, trust me)

Agree that the P40E will probably be dominating.

What about just giving both sides Boston IIIs?

TracerX · « **Reply #35 on:** May 01, 2007, 05:29:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty

What about just giving both sides Boston IIIs?

Hadn't thought of that Krusty. That might be fair, but I guess it is a cross country steriotype that blocks some choices out. I think it would be generally disliked however for the same reason subbing Ju-88's for B-25's is also not very popular. Every time these types of discussions come up, I am reminded of how big some of the plane holes we still have.

Sketch · « **Reply #36 on:** May 01, 2007, 07:09:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Agree that the P40E will probably be dominating.

Not the one that I ram....

Dantoo · « **Reply #37 on:** May 01, 2007, 11:57:12 PM »

Quote

You've not provided any that say bombers had the best engines that rivaled fighters...

You've not provided any that say fighters engaged in combat activities on max cruise fuel settings...

You've not provided any that say fighters and bombers had the same specifications and powerplant requirements, and as such flew their engines in identical manners...

LOLOL Krusty. Ok here ya go:
I didn't make the first claim, or the second claim and wait, not the third claim you've put on me but since you seem to genuinely be interested:

Quote

After two years of this the Merlin had matured into one of the most reliable aero engines in the world, and could be run at full power for entire eight-hour bombing missions with no problems.

From here Answers.com

The same info is repeated on other sites. But instead of throwing a bunch of Googling at you and a bibliography I just picked up the phone and spoke to the "source".

Peter Pring-Shambler is the Chief Engineer at Temora Aviation and was happy to help out. They run quite a few "living" warbirds including a Spit 8 and a Spit 16. Give him a call.

His information:

Maximum Power (100%) for these types available for 5 minutes.
Maximum Continuous Power (80-85%) available continously (by definition).
Climb Power 70%
Cruise Power 50% (some variations here but a good figure)
Economic Cruise 45%.

We focussed on the Spits but all figures are accurate within a percent or two across the board for the types and engines they run. The Operating Manuals have the specific figures but I didn't trouble him to dig them out for the sake of this BBS. The problem is overheating.

I queried him quickly on bomber types and this is where I nearly got the giggles. The requirements for lifting heavier and heavier loads brought on the fitting of extra cooling for bomber engines. They had the extra room and could carry the extra weight I presume (yes that's my assumption there). Bomber engines with the extra cooling measures could be run at maximum power settings for much longer that fighter engines. In some cases apparently it was necessary to run at 100% for long periods until enough fuel had burnt off allowing you to ease back.

There was a margin of safety in that multi engine aircraft could lose an engine and return to base after dumping the bomb load. Single engine fighters lack that option.

I look forward to the day in fso when bombers are required to operate at 100% and fighters are required to operate at 85%

Silly .... Yes! Of course it is in a computer game. I'm sure we will see the same stuff poured out again and again in the future.

Have a nice day!

Krusty · « **Reply #38 on:** May 02, 2007, 10:04:37 AM »

First, in Aces High, "full throttle" (no WEP) is max. continuous in real life. WEP is 100%. It's just implemented differently.

As for comparing spitfires to lancasters -- not so easily done.

You say "I didn't say those" -- but you directly imply them by saying that a fighter engine is identical to a bomber engine in every way, and would be run the same way. It isn't the same and it wouldn't be run the same. I'm sorry to burst your bubble.

An engine is NOT an engine is NOT an engine. Problems with fighters include overheating, problems with bombers rarely include overheating.

Your man with the spitfires is talking about spit8s and spit16s with way higher boost, way way higher horespower, and a lot more heat problems.

In contrast, the Spit LF Mk.VIII has Merlin 66 engine with over 1700 hp at its command. It ran at boosts up to +25 (or higher!). Check the boost levels on the Merlin XX-powered Lancaster we have in this game. How high do they go?

Like I said, it was NEVER about overheating. Bombers don't have the same raw power as fighters, and as such don't have to worry about heat. Never about heat. It's about cruise.

As an aside: Lancaster Mk.I and Mk.IIIs (the I had Merlin XXs, the III had US Packard built clones, but were identical) had 1250 hp engines. That's barely more than the Spit Mk.I.

Bombers, of most nations, cruised at all times. *

I don't buy your quote "ran full throttle til they burned off enough fuel" -- enough for what? Why? The Lancaster has a range well over 2000 miles.... How long are you going to run at full throttle before you're... what? out of gas? Light enough to do immelmans like in Aces High? I don't buy that quote without more info and context, and I don't buy your argument.

*= Soviets were nuts... They often ran full throttle, but only had to go 100 miles or less.

Dantoo · « **Reply #39 on:** May 02, 2007, 06:09:37 PM »

Krusty stop now - you are making things up and it's embarrassing.

Krusty · « **Reply #40 on:** May 03, 2007, 08:50:42 AM »

I'm sorry Dantoo, I don't think I'm the one making huge leaps.

I'm not going to pursue it further in here (don't want to disrupt things) but I think you're very wrong on the matter.

Squire · « **Reply #41 on:** May 05, 2007, 09:54:35 AM »

The B-25C does 285 mph at 15,000 ft.

Thats going to be @ 250mph at sea level I would think, almost 60 mph slower than a Boston III at most alts.

We desperately need this a/c for 1942 PAC setups, which is why im glad we are getting it.

The A6M2 cannot catch a Boston III. The speed difference is insane. When you do catch it in a powerdive, you have 60 cannon rounds to shoot off at a formation of 3, and usually its not enough to bring it down.

Even a Ki-61 has a chase on its hands with a Boston III, but at least it can dive well and has 120 rpg for its cannons.

A6M5? forget it, its not going to catch it either, the only advantage it does have is that in a powerdive, you can close and have enough ammo to down a few.

As for the Ki-67, you need Hellcats, F4Us and/or P-38s in the mix, anything less is a joke. Its too fast and too well armed. 1943 setups at the absolute earliest.

Just my 2 cents.

AKDogg · « **Reply #42 on:** May 05, 2007, 12:55:12 PM »

Axis got crushed. 122 pilots , 57 kills, 76 deaths.

allied 137 pilots, 111 kills, only 42 deaths.

Zekes were mainly on the defense this frame. At least for us.

RSLQK186 · « **Reply #43 on:** May 05, 2007, 01:48:37 PM »

Quote

Zekes were mainly on the defense this frame. At least for us

Yes, I attacked the AKs with my tail at every turn. But then I'm not the best fighter pilot by far. The ones in my squad that are had a rough time with y'all and the 65th, if that's any concilation. You had the alt. We wound up about even money fighter to fighter AFAIK. Don't know about the rest of the arena though.
Our objective was to pull you away from the bomber and take that alt from you (hard to get a second chance on Bostons in an A6M2). We did and consider it a postumis success. But it was far from fun.

Stoney74 · « **Reply #44 on:** May 05, 2007, 03:15:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
You've not provided any that say bombers had the best engines that rivaled fighters...
You first.

Certainly not the "best" fighters but frontline at the time...but when it was introduced, the B-17 had the P&W R1820 which was the same engine on the SBD and early F4F's. Only difference was the B-17's was turbo-charged, vice super-charged. The B-24 shared the P&W R1830 with the F4F-4. The R2800 was also shared by both fighters (P-47, F6F, etc.) and some bombers/transport aircraft. A lot of post-war airliners used the R-2800 as well.

And also, full throttle in AH is full throttle in real life. WEP is WEP. The manifold pressure readings correspond with the book values for those same settings for the engines.