MjTalon's Bomber Speed Idea

[Stoney]

Started a new thread since I figured it would need one.

Well here is what i suggest:


MPH Cap on the bombers.  No faster than 180-230MPH

So, is that 180-230mph TAS or IAS?  180 TAS at 22,000 feet is close to stall speed for a fully loaded B-17. 

they only flew at full power only on take off and even when climbing out they used a lower power setting.

I can show you how they flew at full power on other occasions.  You think fighters flew at full throttle all the way to Berlin and back?

Closure rates were much higher i assume than what they appear to be in Aces High

Like what?  What exactly was the typical closure rate?  Throw a number out there that you got from a source and quote the source.

bombers flew at max cruise settings to conserve fuel.

What exactly is the best "max cruise setting" for a B-17 carrying 6,000lbs of bombs at 25,000 feet for 8 to 10 hours?

So why don't we set a MPH cap for the bombers to a reasonable MPH that won't make the buffs sitting bath tubs but won't allow the closure rate of the escorts to be a snail and tortoise race.

Strangely enough, well over one half of all Allied bombers were shot down.  Seems to me they were "sitting bath tubs" even with only 100-150 mph speed differentials between they and the German interceptors.

[Hajo]

I hereby appoint Stoney as Fireman of the week!

Great fire prevention!   

[Krusty]

From this thread:

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,259955.0.html

(locked due to insults)

Apparently Stoney doesn't have the right numbers.

He came up with an example where a plane blew an engine so it ran the other 3 at full power to catch up. Big whoop. Emergency power used in... well an emergency!

Also he was corrected on what power settings were considered full. Apparently AH uses full-time "WEP" settings.

Further, the old arguments of "fighters run at full throttle all the time too, so it's even!" are false comparisons. Fighters engaged in combat at full power or WEP almost always. They had this capability, and cruised to combat, but engaged at high power. Bombers stayed at cruise EVEN DURING COMBAT. They weren't going to melt their engines off in 1 sortie. Plus, running away from the bomber stream, their friends, from the box formation they had to stay in, would have been a death sentence.


Not quite the fireman, it seems.

As for MPH limitations, they cannot be enforced. What could be enforced is to force all bombers to take 100% fuel, as this was the case even for short missions in real life. That would slow them down a little (drag), slow down their climb rate, and remove the 30K bombers problem (try getting to 30K on full internal fuel in a B17).

[BnZs]

And a buff alt cap is easiest of all to enforce.

There is nothing a-historical about buffs being at 22K.

[PFactorDave]

And a buff alt cap is easiest of all to enforce.

There is nothing a-historical about buffs being at 22K.

Someone somewhere (maybe this thread, maybe another) suggested the bombers take 100% fuel.  Would this alone be enough to control bomber altitudes?

[Stoney]

No, merely slow down the rate of climb, and to a smaller extent, top speed.

[MjTalon]

Started a new thread since I figured it would need one.

So, is that 180-230mph TAS or IAS?  180 TAS at 22,000 feet is close to stall speed for a fully loaded B-17. 

From my personal experiences flying the B-17 before i went all luft I would proceed to level the bombers for max cruise or normal power at 200-220mph TAS,  200-220mph IAS and you're already stalling and the engines aren't generating enough power to provide lift to maintain level flight.

I can show you how they flew at full power on other occasions.  You think fighters flew at full throttle all the way to Berlin and back?

By all means feel free. I'm not arguing that they didn't fly at full power on other occasions. I'm just making a statement that the bombers didn't fly full power throughout their entire mission flight from England to Berlin.  Escort fighters? I'm pretty positive they didn't fly at full throttle as they were escorting the bombers from a redez point, to the target, and back.

Like what?  What exactly was the typical closure rate?  Throw a number out there that you got from a source and quote the source.

The source that I'm drawing my statements from our based on my personal reading of several sources:

*B17 Flight Video ( unreliable since it's not combat fitted but gives a base number to speculate.
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/B17.html
*Typical style of attack from luftwaffe interceptors from the front quarters. If you do the math you can basically find out a closure rate nearing 200-300 MPH difference! B17 Leveled at 22,000ft cruising 200-230PMH TAS vs a Fw190 making a Head On pass on the bomber stream- 400+ MPH TAS = 200+ mph closure rate differential.

What exactly is the best "max cruise setting" for a B-17 carrying 6,000lbs of bombs at 25,000 feet for 8 to 10 hours?

I would not know the best max cruise setting. As I've stated above, i base my statements from my personal experience from flying both aircraft in game, I'm far from a real pilot. I can however say that at 25k with 6,000lbs of ords would make the aircraft very difficult to maintain level flight on power settings no less than normal power.

Strangely enough, well over one half of all Allied bombers were shot down.  Seems to me they were "sitting bath tubs" even with only 100-150 mph speed differentials between they and the German interceptors.

I am not arguing about the bombers Stoney, We had the perfect angel of approach for our Geschwader on the B26s. We flew overhead of the bombers we were engaged with and was presented with the best type of approach for minimal losses, a Head On Pass with the entire B26 stream so we were already in a position of advantage despite the large number of fighter escorts.

We did the best we could in our situation and we took advantage of the moment to knock down alot of enemy bombers before the escorts were able to strip majority of us away from them. I was just suggesting a alternative approach seeing as that the topic of closure rate of the bombers was too low that came up in the other thread but apparently I've become the target of my own opinion it seems.

[Stoney]

*Typical style of attack from luftwaffe interceptors from the front quarters. If you do the math you can basically find out a closure rate nearing 200-300 MPH difference! B17 Leveled at 22,000ft cruising 200-230PMH TAS vs a Fw190 making a Head On pass on the bomber stream- 400+ MPH TAS = 200+ mph closure rate differential...I was just suggesting a alternative approach seeing as that the topic of closure rate of the bombers was too low but apparently I've become the target of my own opinion it seems.

No, I appreciate the discussion.  When we describe the "problem" with closure rates, most folks are talking about the tail-chase, and not a HO attack.  I don't think there would ever be a problem with HO closure rates. 

[MjTalon]

Alright  . As for the tail chase style of attack, I personally wanted to limit it as much as possible but at the same time with 50+ planes actively engaging one another the bomber pilots i could have assumed were just in awe at the ensuing battle around them and allowed us to knock down alot from the rear quarters. We were only able to hit the front stream with a H.O once, the stragglers were engaged from the front quarters as well.

I can personally say that if all of the Luftwaffe bomber destroyer packages had the same fortunate advantage as JG11 had on Ho'ing the bombers with 400-500 MPH speed advantage, there could have easily been 150+ bombers knocked down in frame 1, We were just that fortunate to have friendlies call out the bombers heading and we went ahead and proceeded from there.

[Baumer]

Krusty,
I have attached the power charts for the B-17G and the PB4Y-1 (B-24D) to give you an idea of the maximum continuous power settings.

B-17G


PB4Y-1
please note section III "normal rated continuous operation"


I flew the B-24 in the last frame, and my entire squadron flew the B-24 within it's maximum continuous power settings for the entire frame. That gave us a cursing speed of 283 mph true at 23,000 feet which is exactly what would have happened historically. So to try and place some artificial limits on something that is modeled CORRECTLY is not needed. In my opinion this points out how extremely difficult it was for the Luftwaffe to intercept the bombers in real life. From most of my reading of various Luftwaffe books it seems that the German pilots would only get one or two passes on the bombers (most of the time) before they would have to either extend significantly away to regroup or RTB.

[TequilaChaser]

From my personal experiences flying the B-17 before i went all luft I would proceed to level the bombers for max cruise or normal power at 200-220mph TAS,  200-220mph IAS and you're already stalling and the engines aren't generating enough power to provide lift to maintain level flight.

snip>>>

apparently I've become the target of my own opinion it seems.

just wanted to point out that your  examples of TAS ( True air speed ) and  IAS ( Indicated air speed ) are misleading / backwards in the above quote..... assuming you are at a significant altitude, in which you did not list an altitude, only listed a max cruise speed...

simplified examples:
50ft alt--------> TAS = 220 mph / IAS = 220 mph
25,000ft alt----> TAS = 220 mph / IAS = 130 mph

your white Needle ( IAS indicator ) is what you should be looking at / referencing when trying to maintain speed for maneuvering, it will always be increasingly Lower than TAS as your altitude increases........ TAS is your speed referencing how fast the ground(earth) is moving below you.......rough explanation anyhows....

[morfiend]

Krusty,
I have attached the power charts for the B-17G and the PB4Y-1 (B-24D) to give you an idea of the maximum continuous power settings.

B-17G
(Image removed from quote.)

PB4Y-1
please note section III "normal rated continuous operation"
(Image removed from quote.)

I flew the B-24 in the last frame, and my entire squadron flew the B-24 within it's maximum continuous power settings for the entire frame. That gave us a cursing speed of 283 mph true at 23,000 feet which is exactly what would have happened historically. So to try and place some artificial limits on something that is modeled CORRECTLY is not needed. In my opinion this points out how extremely difficult it was for the Luftwaffe to intercept the bombers in real life. From most of my reading of various Luftwaffe books it seems that the German pilots would only get one or two passes on the bombers (most of the time) before they would have to either extend significantly away to regroup or RTB.

   Great post Baum

[Krusty]

PB4Y Privateer was NOT a B-24D. They had different configurations and the PB4Y had no turbochargers on the engines, being designed to cruise over sea at low alts looking for subs. The engine nacells had a round shape because of this omission.

Further, considering that the max speed for a B-24 with minimal fuel and at full throttle and no ord onboard is 300mph, I find it hard to believe that "max cruise" keeps you above 280 with ease. Please take a look at HTCs speed charts.

As for 100% fuel, it:
1) slows the plane down. The plane is heavier, so level flight will be a little slower, but specifically it slows the plane down by:
2) reduces climb rate. AH currently gives heavy bombers 2-4x their normal climb rate because nobody ever takes more than 50%, and rarely goes more than 25%. Reducing climb rate means the bombers take longer to get to alt, are slower while climbing (best climb speed vs top speed) and if they want to level out to get to target on time are at a lower altitude, helping counter-balance their high top speeds (lower alts = lower speeds, gives attacking fighters better chance to engage).

What we need is a separate fuel multiplier for the 4-engine bombers. Jack the fuel burn up to 8x or so, force them to take 100%, and CRUISE properly to the target and back, and then you'll get historical performance numbers. That or they run outta fuel and ditch before reaching the target!

Oh, and of the US bombers destroyed? By far the majority of ALL bomber losses in the war were from FLAK, so the numbers Stoney gives are misleading. The percentage lost were high, but keep in mind when you have 1000+ US bombers, and maybe 200 US fighters escorting (or much less) at any time, compared to less than 100 LW fighters sent up to attack them, not counting the LW fighters sent up to dogfight with escorts, and taking into account that many LW planes made a single pass and were gone before the US bombers could shoot them down, most LW planes didn't get any kills on their attack runs. So saying 50% of US bombers were killed is misleading because a small small fraction of that was from LW attackers.

[68falcon]

I am so glad that this is a civil conversation 

Gentlemen keep it going we may come to some type of setting or adjustment that helps the event.

[Hamltnblue]

To adjust the bombers down would just mean more slaughter of them and the possibility of losing people.  Most bomber pilots in FSO are normally fighter pilots who drew the small straw and got stuck with flying buffs.  They aren't used to them and need some extra slack to make up for it.  If anything is going to be adjusted I suggest we only use 109's or 190's for  a few months at a time like we do with the 51D's and 47's.  Those are 2 of the most successful rides of WWII and see just about the least amount of time.  Being a medium size squad we often get picked for bomber duty when our rides are available. (Yup the 353rd was a 47 and 51 squad).  Discussing the setups is a good thing but when the winners of a frame don't like having to fight for it, they should at least appreciate that they get to see the same cockpit for a majority of the time.
Sorry for the rant but after finding out that the CiC that we emailed asking to have a chance to run in our ride, bowed out, I'm a little frustrated.