MjTalon's Bomber Speed Idea

[Jaxxon]

Given the time restraints (60 minutes to target) the heavys should get an airstart at altitude or change the 60 minutes to target to suit the situation.

[Krusty]

Why? They have 2x as much time as they need to get to a target 6 sectors away. I'm not making this number up, I've done the math: It takes 5 minutes to cross one sector (side to side, 25 miles) at 300mph TAS.

Why give them a 30K alt advantage and on TOP of that let them fly around for an extra hour evading/avoiding all enemy contact? The point of FSO is to cater toward interaction, NOT avoid it. T+60 is a gameplay consideration, NOT a crutch for allied bombers.

[BnZs]

So...what kind of radar are this FSO's "speed cops" to track the speeds of all the buffs?

An alt cap for the buffs is the most practical and enforceable, followed by a 100% fuel requirement. A buff "speed limit" OTOH, not so much.

[PFactorDave]

While watching television this evening I ran a little test.  With 25% fuel, I launched a flight of B17s.  I climbed to 20k on auto climb, leveled off and ran until 60 minutes total time had elapsed.

At the end of 60 minutes, I had traveled almost exactly 10 sectors (250 miles).  That's a pretty respectable distance, in my opinion.  To climb to 30k before leveling would have taken about another 12-15 minutes, but would have cost somewhere in the neighborhood of about 75 miles in total range (3 sectors).

Looks like climbing that extra 10k makes a big difference in how much wiggle room the bombers have to approach the target.

[Stoney]

Well, we can enforce the 100% fuel, but we can't reliably enforce the altitude restriction nor a speed restriction.  The T+60 rule, in this case, also helps to limit the altitude, since at some point, the bombers have to stop climbing and start covering some ground.  Another factor of the fuel burn is that the bombers will not lighten up like they do in the MA.  If the bombers take off with 100%, they'll have 10 hours of endurance at the start, and 8.5 to 8 hours of endurance remaining at the end of the frame.  Furthermore, they'll climb about 1/2 as fast as they do with 50% fuel.  Frame 1, it was a struggle for the bombers to climb to 20,000 feet and make the target by T+60.  Given the same distances to fly, they'll maybe make 12-15,000 feet over the same distance, and then fly at lower ground speeds to get to the target as a result of the lower altitude.  They're taking off with almost 18,000lbs of fuel, and will land with around 12,000 lbs.  So, lets think about the ramifications of that when we start talking about mandating 100% fuel at takeoff.  

I'll stand by my previous statements regarding that the perception of typical bomber interceptions is wrong, and that the misperception is what's driving us to this, rather than either (a)historical operating procedures, (b)aerodynamic fundamentals, (c) any appreciation for the patience required for high-altitude bomber interception.

My $.02.

[Stoney]

At the end of 60 minutes, I had traveled almost exactly 10 sectors (250 miles).  That's a pretty respectable distance, in my opinion.  To climb to 30k before leveling would have taken about another 12-15 minutes, but would have cost somewhere in the neighborhood of about 75 miles in total range (3 sectors).

If you run 100% full throttle during climb and after you level off, there's no way you can keep a formation together.  I would suggest running these types of tests at about 85% of available manifold in order to compensate for maintaining a formation.

[Stoney]

the numbers Stoney gives are misleading.

Those percentage killed numbers in my original post were from Frame 1, not real life.

[Stoney]

With 25% fuel...climbed to 20k on auto climb...ran until 60 minutes...traveled almost exactly 10 sectors (250 miles).

I did the same test, albeit this time with 100% fuel.  I climbed out on full power, ran for 60 minutes.

It took 20 minutes to reach 10,000 feet, over a distance of 32 miles
It took 30 minutes to reach 15,000 feet, over a distance of 65 miles
It took 40+ minutes to reach 20,000 feet, over a distance of ~100 miles

I leveled out at 20,000 feet, accelerated to 240mph TAS, then pulled power back to the max continuous rating (38" and 2300 RPM) resulting in about 230 mph TAS, and 167 IAS.  At exactly the 60 minute mark, I had travelled 175 miles.

So, you can see that the increase in weight can have an extreme affect on the aircraft.  You can also see that it can really hamstring the planes when they need to get to farther targets.

[PFactorDave]

If you run 100% full throttle during climb and after you level off, there's no way you can keep a formation together.  I would suggest running these types of tests at about 85% of available manifold in order to compensate for maintaining a formation.

Actually, I did my test at 100% power with the intent to see the maximum possible range.  Which, admittedly, is more useful from an Axis buff hunter point of view.  Which just happens to be my frame of reference for this months FSO.   

But I do understand what you're saying.

[BnZs]

I feel like the honor of the player base would be enough to enforce the 22K rule. Just hit X when you reach 22K, easy enough. Whereas if I were a buff pilot, watching my speed would require alot closer attention to my piloting while I'm trying to watch television and B.S. with squaddies during the interminable ride to target.

Well, we can enforce the 100% fuel, but we can't reliably enforce the altitude restriction nor a speed restriction.  The T+60 rule, in this case, also helps to limit the altitude, since at some point, the bombers have to stop climbing and start covering some ground.  Another factor of the fuel burn is that the bombers will not lighten up like they do in the MA.  If the bombers take off with 100%, they'll have 10 hours of endurance at the start, and 8.5 to 8 hours of endurance remaining at the end of the frame.  Furthermore, they'll climb about 1/2 as fast as they do with 50% fuel.  Frame 1, it was a struggle for the bombers to climb to 20,000 feet and make the target by T+60.  Given the same distances to fly, they'll maybe make 12-15,000 feet over the same distance, and then fly at lower ground speeds to get to the target as a result of the lower altitude.  They're taking off with almost 18,000lbs of fuel, and will land with around 12,000 lbs.  So, lets think about the ramifications of that when we start talking about mandating 100% fuel at takeoff.  

I'll stand by my previous statements regarding that the perception of typical bomber interceptions is wrong, and that the misperception is what's driving us to this, rather than either (a)historical operating procedures, (b)aerodynamic fundamentals, (c) any appreciation for the patience required for high-altitude bomber interception.

My $.02.

[bongaroo]

I could always call my Grandpa and ask about his missions.  He's shown me his log a few times.  I'd love to be able to scan a copy of it.

He was in B-17s out of North Africa and Italy with the 97th Bomb Group.

[Stoney]

Whereas if I were a buff pilot, watching my speed would require alot closer attention to my piloting while I'm trying to watch television and B.S. with squaddies during the interminable ride to target.

Some folks actually enjoy bomber missions--try to keep the banter constructive.

[Kermit de frog]

I could always call my Grandpa and ask about his missions.  He's shown me his log a few times.  I'd love to be able to scan a copy of it.

He was in B-17s out of North Africa and Italy with the 97th Bomb Group.

 

The 97th BG was represented in the last scenario!

[Jappa52]

I like the idea of giving the bombers an air start because it gives them more time to get a good formation established and their heading set. Tactically, I think it would be beneficial for both the bomber formation and the interceptors as well as provide a bit more realism to the engagement. My squad was assigned CAP at 66 last frame in an A8 and we cut through the bombers pretty easy because they were strung out several k in length and altitude.

[AKKaz]

Though I have read through all the posts as well as the other posts about this same subject from the past few years.  Pardon me for sounding quite stupid, but I just don't get it......

Have flown many buffs in FSO's and other scenerios, flew axis and allies, during one FSO was in buffs when we had to go 9 sectors with no formations at 18k (due to distance/time requirements to target, 1 out of 25 made it there) while the spit escort could only come halfway because of fuel.  Was in 109's during the mighty 8th scenerio and have flown about every ride thats been put into all the scenerios.

Though sometimes difficult, I can't remember a single time where it was ever a problem getting to the buffs and taking them down.  Now bostons on the deck running full speed are hard to catch in early model 109's. Not starting anything up here, but to be honest I just dont get the argument (sorry).  Most of the problems I have seen are usually due to a few common themes.

The defense is out of position and doesnt even know where they are coming from
They spend alot of alt, E, or just get rerouted and mix up with the escorts
Get duped by radar, or a smaller diversion force
Get caught lower and slower due to a forward fighter sweep
Or attack in singles with not much coordination between each other for joint attacks

Now it is a great discussion, and not making light of either side... but all these scenerios and the only time I can remember having a hard time reaching and downing buff was with flyingspit 1's against JU88's.  and that was mainly because of the armament.

I'm sry, I admit, I just dont get it when the target is known, timing is known and not only do you get one shot at it.. they also have a return trip.  Even the biggest buff scenerio of them all, the mighty 8th with pony/38/jug escorts against 109 and 190's, it was challenging and fun but no where near the problem that it seems to be talked about here.

Sry again, I just don't get the problem........