Author Topic: best case aircraft modelling  (Read 812 times)

Offline Hooligan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
best case aircraft modelling
« on: August 07, 2001, 12:46:00 PM »
The talk lately about engine mods on aircraft, paddle props, fuel quality etc... has got me thinking about this issue a little bit.

I'm fairly certain that for the MA we don't want aircraft modelled exactly as they were flown.  For many axis aircraft (and especially Japanese) this could mean substandard quality fuel, ammunition, radios that don't work (no access to the country channel I suppose), poorly maintained aircraft, etc.. etc..   This kind of simulation probably has no place in the MA but it does have interesting possibilities for scenarios.

What we seem to have in the MA is something near "best case" aircraft modelling.  i.e. everybody gets brand new a/c with good quality fuel, flawless ammunition etc...  However it appears that some field mods are included and some are not.  

As far as I'm concerned, what we are getting so far is better than good enough.  HTC seems quite responsive to hard data (although clearly it takes time to implement an improvement once they have decided to do it).  From past observation, I think this means that the 47D-11 will eventually have waste gate mods and a paddle bladed prop if compelling data is produced showing that this "best case" configuration was indeed very common.

Maybe it makes sense to advocate "prevelant best case" modelling of aircraft across the board.  Dig up the hard numbers and dates on the field mods and publish them here along with sources.  

Maybe it makes sense to ask for "normal combat condition" options (i.e. crappy fuel) for aircraft used in non-MA environments.  Give people a chance to beat the snot out of those obnoxious N1K's in scenarios when they are running of 80 octane fuel  :).

Hooligan

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
best case aircraft modelling
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2001, 01:11:00 PM »
Actually, the poor Japanese fuel has been modeled in the FMs of the Japanese aircraft.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
best case aircraft modelling
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2001, 03:47:00 PM »
Ehh,

Karnak I believe the NIK2 is modeled with a 1,900HP engine. That would have to be with 100 octane fuel which the Japanese did not have.

However the lack of Japanese representation in the game is dissapointing.

Offline Tac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4085
best case aircraft modelling
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2001, 05:47:00 PM »
Then the Japanese fans should visit that link Hitech has on his sig...right HT?  :)

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
best case aircraft modelling
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2001, 08:31:00 PM »
Jesus stop the P47D11 whining, this is getting pretty damn pathetic and now prolly worse than 99% of the LW complaints. You got a 1943 P47, thats it not a 1944 P47. OK what part of that do you guys not understand? You have 2 other P47 with this enhanced prop that are 1944 P47 and thats what you have.

All those times you called the LW guys whiners, and now that you dont get 100% of your personal jack-off fantasy plane you squeak and whine worse than most of your beloved "luftwhiners".


Damn funny toejam, ALLIEDWHINER!

Offline eddiek

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
best case aircraft modelling
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2001, 08:56:00 PM »
Hooligan said: "As far as I'm concerned, what we are getting so far is better than good enough. "

GRUNHERZ, please point out the whine in that statement?

He merely pointed out the fact that the D-11 thread got him to thinking, nothing more, nothing less.  
Fact is, I would love to see an arena set aside for just such aircraft, of ALL countries.  Criteria?  Proof that a plane was set up that way for combat AND that the mods in question were commonly used.  Did say, 60% of the 109G6's use MW-50, and GM-1 in unison?  Great!  Model a G6 that way.  You say the Jug should have 68-72" MAP and paddle prop?  Uh huh........show me the proof.  Oh?  You have testimonies from P&W techs and Republics techs who say it was commonly done?  And, you have data supporting that from pilots from the "ABC" FG?  Okay, let's give it a whirl.

Same criteria for all planes.
And before ya say it, gonna call BS on the "a pilot's word is not any good", 'cause we been reading about what LW pilots said forever, how their plane was this, it did that, and because THEY said it, it has to be true.  But an American pilot's memoirs(???) of his combat experience is unreliable?  
Give the idea a chance, GRUN!    :D

Offline Daff

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 338
best case aircraft modelling
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2001, 07:23:00 AM »
All I have been able to find about the P-47D-11, has been anecdotal..there's plenty of it, but all anecdotal...and the only performance numbers are from Robert Johnson, stating that his D-5 (You know that *early* '43 plane), would do 300mph IAS @30k
The problem is partly that Republic Aviation trashed a lot of their old documents when they got taken over by (Fairchild??..escapes me right now), so all that's really left, is anecdotes from ground crew and pilots.
 There's one guy (former ground crew) on the P-47 Advocates board, that appears to be publishing a book in the not too distant future, which hopefully will reveal more information.
 The question is, which P-47 is the better representative of the ones that flew in WW2. The standard, no frills, factory model or the souped up, field modified one?.

Daff