Flight model abuse / grievance

[Serenity]

widewing, your barbs aside, of the 2 dozen or so planes TRYING to get to the 3 bomber formations, only 1 or 2 made it out alive, and my squaddie said on vox he was bugging because he was out of ammo.

Not so much an issue of my handling the 152, it could not have turned any tighter and could not have got a shot on the b17s.

Show me the operational logs of B17s flying at 35k please.

I've seen the figures. A SMALL amount barely made it to 30k. B24s couldn't even get as high as the 17s. Most were in the 25k range, some down as low as the 15k range.

Folks like to toss around the 30k+ for b17s but out of the .. what?... 20,000 built and used, how many sorties actually flew that high? One in 20? Out of a 1000 plane raid, what was the average alt? more like 25k than the 35k you see in the film.

Krusty, give me two days to dig through my books, but I'm sure I have some logs.

[moot]

Krusty the 152 isn't a spitfire.  The C47 and B17 have always been very good turners with those huge wings and rudders.

[SectorNine50]

Saxman, under what sort of conditions were these tests run?  What you're saying makes me wonder why the F4U had cowl flaps.

Out of aircraft performance and in-aircraft performance are completely different.  I'm sure an engine without a propeller hooked to a dyno and properly ventilated could run on WEP until the world ran out of gas, but when in an armored engine bay there isn't going to be nearly the same airflow over the engine block.  The added stress from hauling an aircraft around via a huge 4 blade propeller doesn't help the heat issue either.  Those cowl flaps give the pilot to choose between maximizing airflow or maximizing aerodynamics, but I still doubt that the airflow is anything near what is possible outside of the aircraft.  Remember, WEP is different between aircraft, even with the same engine.

(This isn't directed at you Anaxogoras, just the last post I saw referencing the idea. )

[Boozeman]

That's a BS, artificial gameplay limitation and the first thing I shut off in offline sims that give me that option. Plenty of tests out there with engines being run for hundreds of hours literally non-stop at WEP ratings, and logs of pilots exceeding the manufacturer's safety limitations and running max power beyond regs with no harm to the engine.

Sorry, but you just can't compare engine runs on a static testbed with normal operating in an airframe. Those two situation a so utterly different that they shouldn't be even mentioned in the same sentence.

As for the extended run of high power settings beyond the manufacturers recommendations without breaking the engine... sure this can work under some conditions, but it may not work if these conditions were different. It depends on a lot of variables.

But thinking that you can run a high performance engine in a plane under any conditions at full power or beyond, no matter what, is naive at best.

   

[Hap]

The crux is fighters cannot catch bombers.  Of course, that's false.  Buffs fly in the 280 mph tas range.  Give or take some.  There's an issue of  buffs being at point X at a certain airspeed and alt, and me, in a fighter, being at point Y at a certain airspeed and alt.

I can run them down.  Period.  I also can get above them.  Just takes patience.  The problem is the "NOW" factor in AH.  I want to be higher and faster than him/them NOW.

It doesn't work that way.

[colmbo]

Saxman, under what sort of conditions were these tests run?  What you're saying makes me wonder why the F4U had cowl flaps.

If you're an idiot you can overheat an engine...that's why the cowl flaps are there. <G>

The problem with running high power settings in real life is not overheating, assuming you're not doing slow flight or something to limit cooling air flow.  The problem is the pressures developed in the cylinders, rotational stress from high RPM, etc.  You're putting a strain on the engine that takes a toll over time.  It might break this flight....it might not break for several hours...not a given thing like the BS temp limits used in sims.   However given the limitations of sims a "temp" limit is one way of limiting engine abuse.

[colmbo]

Folks like to toss around the 30k+ for b17s but out of the .. what?... 20,000 built and used, how many sorties actually flew that high? One in 20? Out of a 1000 plane raid, what was the average alt? more like 25k than the 35k you see in the film.

A friend of mine flew 32 missions in B-17s.  They flew one mission at 32K...the results were so bad they never did that again.  Most missions were 22-28K for the B-17s with the Libs a bit lower.  (FYI there were only 12,700 B-17s built <G>)

[colmbo]

Out of aircraft performance and in-aircraft performance are completely different.  I'm sure an engine without a propeller hooked to a dyno and properly ventilated could run on WEP until the world ran out of gas, but when in an armored engine bay there isn't going to be nearly the same airflow over the engine block.  The added stress from hauling an aircraft around via a huge 4 blade propeller doesn't help the heat issue either.  Those cowl flaps give the pilot to choose between maximizing airflow or maximizing aerodynamics, but I still doubt that the airflow is anything near what is possible outside of the aircraft.  Remember, WEP is different between aircraft, even with the same engine.

Wrong.  The cowlings (not armored btw) are designed to maximize airflow over/around the engine for cooling (in the case of an aircooled engine).  In fact without the cowling the engine is more likely to overheat.  The engines run on test-stands also have a propellor attached..there has to be a load on the engine.  On the B-17 and B-24 the aircraft are NEVER flown with the cowl flaps open, they are fully open only on the ground.  For takeoff they are set to "trail"...a position about 1/3 open and once in cruise the cowl flaps are closed.  If you fully open the  cowl flaps inflight on the inboard engines of the B-24 you get a buffet that feels just like a stall buffet...doesn't give you warm fuzzies. <G>

While you can overheat aircraft engines the whole over-temp thing in sims is generally way overdone.

[Anaxogoras]

The problem with running high power settings in real life is not overheating, assuming you're not doing slow flight or something to limit cooling air flow.

Right, but in AH, flying at extremely slow speeds, on the edge of a stall usually, is exactly when we run WEP.

[SmokinLoon]

Krusty, I'm beginning to think that you have lost your mind....

B-17s routinely flew combat missions between 25k and 30k (yes, they could fly that high). They weren't abusing the flight model, just using it better than you were.

I watched about half of the film and the problem wasn't the B-17s, but your inability to fly that Ta 152.

I prescribe a dose of reality as the cure.


My regards,

Widewing

You can be an *** when you want to be.    

Due to the size of the maps in the MA, a 2x burn ratio, and the ability for anyone to read the dar bars (and report sightings) I think there isnt anything that can be done about some of his arguments.  However, he does have a point about bombers being abused.  Bombers did NOT fly bombing missions at 280MPH.  The bombing runs were made much slower than that, far slower (180-210 mph, iirc).  Bombers also didnt lift with %25 or %50, or even only %75 fuel, they took max fuel.  They had to to.  Not only did SOP state so, but pilots didnt want to worry about fuel.  In the MA (and even scenarios), only the lightest of bombers (Bostons, etc) need to take anywhere near %100 of fuel to get to where they need to go so we have aircraft like the Lancs, B24, B17, Ju88's, B26, etc, that would otherwise need extra room to get to proper altitude able to get much higher that much quicker.  Heavy bombers should be no where near the front, they should have to take off from 4 sectors or more to the rear in order just to get alt, especially yhe big boys.

btw... in the PTO the B24's and B17's rarely went above 18k, at least pre-1945.  In the ETO, they still rarely went above 23k, and even more rare were missions above 27k.  Look up the stats.  I cant comment on the RAF, I dont have the stats on their bombing mission at hand like I do the USAAF.

A few things can be done easily to remedy some of the issues that Krusty pointed out, at least on the heaviest of level bombers.  First, remove the option to take anything less %100 fuel in all bombers.  Second, just like torps cant be used unless they are dropped under 200ft and under 200mph (for DE and Jap torps, anyways), regulate the speed of the bombers to a 210 or so mph before their bombs can be released, that is the way it was in the real deal so why not have it here.  The exceptions to that rule would be the Ju88, Ju87, Il-2, A20, B5N, D3A, and SBD  because those aircraft are documented to have been dive bombers and were designed with dive bombing in mind.  The speed regulator is an easy fix.  That is an easy one to code and it makes sense.

Will HTC address any of this???  Probably not.  They'll continue on as they always have, turning the blind eye(s).        

[Anaxogoras]

With due respect to Widewing, I challenge any of you to do much better than Krusty did at 32k ft.  Flying at that altitude at 180mph ias is very challenging in a plane with terrible lateral/longitudinal stability.

[Golfer]

Bombers are such devastating killing tools in this game that only the newest of the newbies dies in them by NOE missions or suicide diving on targets. Even with medium alt ranges (10k is sufficient) they can survive the thickest of furballs and get out the other side and STILL do the damage they wanted to. These are not jet fighters, and yet lancasters have repeatedly flown higher and faster than Me262s can climb. The lancasters can break 32k and fly at full speed, whereas even a high speed 262 cannot climb up to 30k, and if anywhere near this, it cannot make a single 180-degree turn inside a sector's lines without lossing massive amounts of altitude.

-Krusty

I'm testing your theory as we speak and I'm going to say that you're not even close.  My first question would be at what weight are you trying to do that?  At 13,200lbs presently I'm climbing at 1000'/min through 31,000 indicating 225 truing 378.  Seems to be performing pretty good.

Attempted a maximum performance turn and actually gained altitude in the process which I used to descend back to the 32,000' entry altitude and reaccelerate to best speed.  The turn didn't take even half a keypad square.  Slats were extended and pull to the buffet with no flaps used.  I'm going to now attempt the same turn using 1-2 stages of flaps as required in the turn the same way I would use in MA fighting situations.  Using only 1 stage of flaps resulted in a much more controllable turn with a tighter radius not requiring a pull to the buffet to make the turn much faster.  Mind you these are complete 360º turns starting and ending on an East heading.

If you're having issues in the 262 up high you're either:

a.) Too Heavy
b.) Not doing it right
c.) Both

Presently 12,700lbs setting an autoclimb at 225 Indicated.  I'm going to leave it alone and see where it ends up.  I'm going to say it tops out at about 38 with the wing and engines it has at that speed.  At that altitude the range will be exceptional in this airplane and finding your way to a friendly base should present no challenge as you'll be above anything that will engage you and faster than anything that can catch you.  Through 35,000 I'm still going up at 600'/min.

[Lusche]

btw... in the PTO the B24's and B17's rarely went above 18k, at least pre-1945.  In the ETO, they still rarely went above 23k, and even more rare were missions above 27k.  Look up the stats.  I cant comment on the RAF, I dont have the stats on their bombing mission at hand like I do the USAAF.
(...)
Will HTC address any of this???  Probably not.  They'll continue on as they always have, turning the blind eye(s).        

And how often do you find bombers >23k in Aces High? Like in real life: Rarely.

[Wingnutt]

The crux is fighters cannot catch bombers.  Of course, that's false.  Buffs fly in the 280 mph tas range.  Give or take some.  There's an issue of  buffs being at point X at a certain airspeed and alt, and me, in a fighter, being at point Y at a certain airspeed and alt.

I can run them down.  Period.  I also can get above them.  Just takes patience.  The problem is the "NOW" factor in AH.  I want to be higher and faster than him/them NOW.

It doesn't work that way.

I think what Krusty was referring to in regard to this was that in real life.. bomber formations were spotted WAY WAY before they could ever reach their targets.  I think that is his issue, in AH bombers can "sneak up" on a target and you get an unrealistically short warning of their approach.   I agree with this assessment, the dar ring setup makes decent sense for fighters, but for bombers there should be more advanced warning.. 3 big planes instead of 1 small one..

[Lusche]

I think what Krusty was referring to in regard to this was that in real life.. bomber formations were spotted WAY WAY before they could ever reach their targets.  I think that is his issue, in AH bombers can "sneak up" on a target and you get an unrealistically short warning of their approach.   I agree with this assessment, the dar ring setup makes decent sense for fighters, but for bombers there should be more advanced warning.. 3 big planes instead of 1 small one..

See darbar forming up at high alt bases behind enemy front lines. Almost always buffs. If you read the map properly it's quite easy to find 'em.
It's more or less my AH profession

BTW, many times things happen as follows: Sizeable darbar forms up in enemy territory, high-alt base. I call it out several times on country. I give updates while I hurry towards them. When I reach them, I shadow them, continually broadcasting heading, alt, force composition.
After 30 mins, raid reaches a base and flattens it. Suddenly on country & local vox "WTF?! Wwhere do all these bombers come from?" "Why are they so high, we can't intercept them!" "HTC should fix that bomber crap / radar"

(But I have also been called out for using spies because I was able to "find" 20k buff raids  )