No BoB without He-111

[Anaxogoras]

Well, krusty gets points for consistency!

I still maintain that there were a lot of real-world limitations on fighters that aren't modeled in AH, so the cruise speed issue doesn't bother me because it seems like a fair trade-off.

[Krusty]

Fencer's idea of "reduced throttle" in the DGS example is a few inches of manifold. They were still hauling arse faster than normal cruise speeds.

Oh, and Anaxo, bombers didn't fly at full power in WW2. They didn't do anything at full power except take off. Immediately after taking off they reduced power to climb settings and then when level even more to max cruise settings.

Quoted from somebody that flew the Collins Foundation B-17 and B-24:

"B-24 and B-17 both climb way to well in WB. When I was flying the Collings airplanes the B-17 would climb at around 800fpm, the B-24 6-700fpm. We never, I say again, NEVER saw climb rates over 1000fpm as you see quite often in WB. And with the airplanes I was flying we weren't hauling bombs and neither airplane was capable of hauling a wartime fuel load."

It's a WarBirds related comment but the real world example can also be held up to Aces High.

Max speed for the B-17G at 25,000 feet is 287, but cruising is 182. B-24J max is 290 at 25,000 ft and cruising is 215. That's TAS.

Fuel was life. Fuel was important. Fuel was more important than anything else because it kept the engines running (which kept the plane in the air). Any other issues could be overcome. With no engine you bailed, crashed, or died.

You think bombers crossed continents on full throttle? They'd never make it to the target, let alone back, with that kind of fuel consumption.

EDIT: The point is that fighters performed at full power almost every sortie. Bombers never did. The same issues (engine limitations) are lacking from both, but only yield totally unhistoric performance values in bombers in this game, so it only really affects bombers overall.

[Fencer51]

Fencer's idea of "reduced throttle" in the DGS example is a few inches of manifold. They were still hauling arse faster than normal cruise speeds.

Max speed for the B-17G at 25,000 feet is 287, but cruising is 182. B-24J max is 290 at 25,000 ft and cruising is 215. That's TAS.

The DGS B-17s ran at about 215 to 220.  The B-24s ran at about 240.  WAY below maximum power.  Alot more than "a few inches of manifold".

[Krusty]

A nice example I've stumbled upon which illustrates real limitations vs AH limitations:

>According to the linked docs it took the Lib over an hour to reach 20,000 feet. Average ROC 317 fpm.

Good point. Checking the B-29 manual, a fully combat-loaded Superfortress required about an hour to get to 20000 ft, too, and extrapolating the graph, it might have needed another hour to get to 25000 ft.

and the reply:

Maybe even longer than that

The linked test report says something about them not attempting to test at higher altitudes because just getting to 20k used up the total allowed continuous max power operating time. If they'd wanted to go higher they would have had to reduce power and give the engines a breather. That would have either required some period of cruising at 20k until the engines could be safely taken to max power again or resulted in an even lower climb rate at the reduced power. They decided it wasn't worth the effort and didn't try to conduct any higher altitude tests.

[Anaxogoras]

Ok, but do you or don't you have a primary or secondary source that says the cruising speed for Luftwaffe bombers in the BoB was 180mph?

Fwiw, I tested the Ju88 with a full bombload at 10k ft, 50% fuel, and set the manifold and rpm's to the cruise settings according to e6b.  Level speed topped out at around 212mph TAS.  After dropping bombs level speed went to 246mph TAS with cruise settings.

Add another 5k ft and the level speed would be greater.

--------------

I will say that I'm with you in your quest for greater realism.  I have always made it clear that I would like to see high fidelity engine controls and modeling, but the majority are scared of it.

[Krusty]

180 was taking the B17 as an average. It was also taking into account how early the Ju88 is and how slow many early bombers were historically speaking, so it's an estimate. Many bombers from the Ju88s time were slower than this. The Ju52's top speed is in the 150s I think ("top", not "cruising"), so I figured it probably wasn't much faster than the later-era B-17.

[bongaroo]

I will say that I'm with you in your quest for greater realism.  I have always made it clear that I would like to see high fidelity engine controls and modeling, but the majority are scared of it.

I don't play this game to fiddle with engine controls, I play for the fight.

[Delirium]

Having flown both sides of BoB, I'd say the speed of the buff formations are the least of the worries in the event.

In the first BoB, I lead a squadron of Spitfires and dogfights were happening at 38k+. Without an alt cap of some kind imposed, I feel it will limit not only the historical accuracy but also the joy in the event.

In the second BoB I participated in, I decided to fly a 110 for something that resembled my beloved P38 more than a 109E. If flown properly, a squadron of 110 can easily clean the clocks of any groups doubling their formation size. Apart from forcing them all to fly in EG210 and having eggs, I don't know how they could be reigned in.

[RTHolmes]

BoB is the first of the Sunday Euro Events starting soon so I've been thinking about the 88 problem. I assume its possible to set the fuel % available at a field, so how about limiting available fuel for fields used by bombers. That way they are forced to use reduced throttle settings to have enough fuel to get to target and back again?

[Krusty]

I've read a number of accounts from the RAF perspective. Most of the time the Spitfires barely had time to get up to the LW before being engaged (often bounced). They knew a raid was there, but with the time it took to figure out where it was going, which squadron would be best to intercept it, etc, the spitfires were only just getting up to 20-25k.

However, the Battle of Britain was a time of alt wars. It was the war to see who could fight the highest, so the 38k battles you mention aren't unheard of... okay they're really not likely but there is a historical context.

I'd personally like to remove all that 50k junk from the scenarios. It detracts from the point most of the time. We just have to do what we can to get things working in an acceptable manner.

[bongaroo]

100mph downdraft at 25k and go from there?

[Krusty]

Down drafts usually just make both sides hover at the limit.

BOB fighter sweeps regularly broke 30k, though.

[Anaxogoras]

I don't play this game to fiddle with engine controls, I play for the fight.

Right, but you're fighting in a flight simulation.  We could make your landing gear go up and down automatically because you don't want to be bothered with it, you want to play for the fight, but we know that would be super gamey.  Same thing goes for high fidelity engine controls.

[Anaxogoras]

Down drafts usually just make both sides hover at the limit.

BOB fighter sweeps regularly broke 30k, though.

Yup, that's exactly how it is in the Dogs of War FSO right now.  Everyone flies at the max of 24k when they can. 

[Delirium]

However, the Battle of Britain was a time of alt wars. It was the war to see who could fight the highest, so the 38k battles you mention aren't unheard of... okay they're really not likely but there is a historical context.

Context? Are you kidding? Give me proof of one fight in the historical BoB that happened above 34k. Heck, we had Spitfires hovering at 40k during that event...

Scenarios are there to recreate history and, more often than not, rewrite the events and the outcome. Do not re-write the event before the players even log in.