Flight model abuse / grievance

[RTHolmes]

checking the B-17 manual, our Mil Pwr settings are for "Take off and maximum emergency power." Even climbout to alt used Normal Pwr at most, the manual talks about cruise climb, which is presumably lower settings than Normal Pwr. Normal Pwr is defined as "Maximum continuous power." Its almost like the Mil Pwr setting for buffs is the same as WEP for fighters, so perhaps it should be remodelled that way. It would certainly result in more realistic speeds.

[Stoney]

which suggests your RL example is closer to AH Normal Power settings than the firewalled Military Power settings which we encounter in AH.

Ok, we've already discussed that the throttle setting works both ways--i.e. a fighter gets to run Military all the time just like the bombers do--so that's a wash.  But, even if it wasn't, you're still looking at a 100+ (closer to 150 in a TA-152) mph rate of closure in a tail chase, which means that the fighter gains almost 1.5-2.5 miles a minute on the bombers.  In five minutes of flying, you could get an half-sector ahead of the bombers.  Widewing said it before, its all about patience.

Its almost like the Mil Pwr setting for buffs is the same as WEP for fighters, so perhaps it should be remodelled that way. It would certainly result in more realistic speeds.

No, its exactly like the Mil Pwr setting for buffs is the exact same as Mil Pwr for fighters in-game, so it is balanced.  If you look at an American fighter POH, it will tell you that Military was limited to 5 minutes as well.  I have no idea how much manifold they ran during climb, but I do know that they were typically still climbing by the time they hit the Danish coast.  Perhaps a good in-game test would be to load up with bombs and full fuel, and take off from a sea-level base.  Takeoff and climb with 5 minutes of military, then reduce power to normal, and see how long it takes you to get to 25,000 feet.  I had sent a request for information to the 398th BG Website a few years ago, to see if they could help me understand some of the more detailed operational facets like power settings, fuel loads, and airspeeds at which they flew.  Unfortunately I never got an answer even though they did reply.       

[RTHolmes]

comparing with the Spit IX pilots' notes, the settings for "Max takeoff to 1000' and Combat 5min limit" correspond to our WEP setting for fighters, "Max climbing 1 hour limit" is Mil Pwr and "Maximum continuous" is Normal Power.

So according to the operators' manuals, takeoff and emergency is WEP in the Spit but Mil Pwr in the B-17, sustained climb is Mil Pwr in Spit and Normal Pwr (at most) in the B-17.

Put simply, during a 1 hour sortie a Spit should be able to use Mil Pwr for the entire flight, the B-17 should not, according to RL usage.

B-17:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RtNtnWt8O7AC&pg=PA58
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RtNtnWt8O7AC&pg=PA60
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RtNtnWt8O7AC&pg=PA87

Spit:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/spit/SPIT9MANUAL.pdf p.30

[TUXC]

That was my thought too.  If someone wants to waste that much of their time climbing that high to drop bombs, have fun.  I'll be about 30K below that looking for a fight.

That aside, can someone show me any documentation of Ta152s attacking B17s?  With so few 152s operational I'm wondering if they ever did?

I'm not implying it didn't btw, I just don't remember seeing anything about it.

I have never seen anything indicating that Ta 152Hs ever got the chance to attack B-17s or B-24s.

[CAP1]

I have never seen anything indicating that Ta 152Hs ever got the chance to attack B-17s or B-24s.

i thought the sole reason for the ta152 was t intercept our bombers?

[Bodhi]

I give the original poster a 6.7 on the whine-o-meter. 

Final score of 7.9 based on the thread running 7 pages.

[Bronk]

I give the original poster a 6.7 on the whine-o-meter. 

Final score of 7.9 based on the thread running 7 pages.

Only one page.

[Lusche]

i thought the sole reason for the ta152 was t intercept our bombers?

It wasn't designed to intercept bombers exclusively. It's just been a further progression of the 190 series designed to fill many roles, including recon.
And situation had much changed when the Ta finally saw service in limited numbers in the last weeks of the war.

[RTHolmes]

I give the original poster a 6.7 on the whine-o-meter. 

Final score of 7.9 based on the thread running 7 pages.

and thats got to be an easy 9 on the trollometer (-1 point for mentioning the thread at all)

[SmokinLoon]

Regradless of Krusty's success or lack of success in attacking those bombers, he is very correct in stating that there are problems with the flight.  Between the flight model, the high speed bombing runs, %25 or %50 fuel loadouts, and the precision bombing from 25k+, there are lots of issues.  They all tie in together to create the fiasco of "simulation" bombing.  Bombers are far more capable in this sim/game than they were in the real deal. 

He isnt whining.  He made a good point.  Disagree with him all you want, but some of you need show yourself some dignity and stop acting like 5 year olds.  If you dont like what his point, then back up what you say and simply adding your opinion doesnt cut it. 

Bomber didnt drop ord at 280mph.  They didnt take a %25 or %50 fuel loadout.  Lancs and B17's didnt do dive bombing runs from 1200ft vs a single gv.  Shall I go on?

[RTHolmes]

Regradless of Krusty's success or lack of success in attacking those bombers, he is very correct in stating that there are problems with the flight.  Between the flight model, the high speed bombing runs, %25 or %50 fuel loadouts, and the precision bombing from 25k+, there are lots of issues.  They all tie in together to create the fiasco of "simulation" bombing.  Bombers are far more capable in this sim/game than they were in the real deal. 

He isnt whining.  He made a good point.  Disagree with him all you want, but some of you need show yourself some dignity and stop acting like 5 year olds.  If you dont like what his point, then back up what you say and simply adding your opinion doesnt cut it.

+1

[Anaxogoras]

And yet, when people ask for more detailed engine modeling everyone is against it if it would affect their ride.

[Chalenge]

...Bomber didnt drop ord at 280mph.  They didnt take a %25 or %50 fuel loadout.  Lancs and B17's didnt do dive bombing runs from 1200ft vs a single gv.  Shall I go on?

And single 190s and La7s didnt make suicide runs into a field to take down one dar and then auger. P38s didnt do the dance of the sugar plum fairies to force an overshoot and 262s didnt gang horde the HQ to strafe it down either.

News Flash: This isnt WWII.

[Oldman731]

And yet, when people ask for more detailed engine modeling everyone is against it if it would affect their ride.

And I note that AvA is the only arena which retains the more accurate, albeit more difficult, bomb sight that was introduced to and then withdrawn from the other arenas.

- oldman

[Shifty]

And yet, when people ask for more detailed engine modeling everyone is against it if it would affect their ride.

I think that matter was explained to you in detail by the man with real knowledge of the modeling of this sim in another thread.
Even more important he's also the man the final say so on the matter.