B-17 and B-24 climb charts

[Lusche]

The web comparison as well as the in-game (hangar) climb charts show distinct different rates of climb for the B-17 and the B-24 up to about 25K



However, when testing them in every possible configuration, the rates of climb of both bombers have been almost identical, when by looking at the HTC charts one would expect ~25% faster climb to altitude for the B-17.

These are times to climb with MA fuel burn settings (2.0), rounded to the nearest full minute:



So I went on to do another test, this time measuring the ROC @5k (autoclimb), this time with a fuel burn of 0:



So... is there either a bug in the generated charts, or the autoclimb in game does mess up the climb of at least one of the bombers... or are the climb charts are generated with very different configurations for both planes?

[Krusty]

B-24s in real life could barely fly over 25k.. It was taking their lives into their own hands to try to hold formation at 28k+...

I always found it quite annoying that the B-24 seemed to be identical to the B-17 in all but speed in this game.

It's good to see I wasn't imagining it.

[chewie86]

We should know which was the bombers weight these charts were generated with, don't we?
IIRC the default autoclimb speed of the B-17 wasn't the max Vy set but is very close to the one in the chart. Then I would check the B24's one

[Dr_Death8]

We should know which was the bombers weight these charts were generated with, don't we?

You found a flaw in Lusche's analysis and charts?? My goodness, scrap it all and start again! 

Lusche obviously enjoys analysis and statistics. I get paid for it and I don't enjoy doing it that much to do it in my off hours. Then again he may be killing time at work and the data sets just make it look like he is hard at work to his boss..

[Lusche]

We should know which was the bombers weight these charts were generated with, don't we?
IIRC the default autoclimb speed of the B-17 wasn't the max Vy set but is very close to the one in the chart. Then I would check the B24's one

I even checked the B-24s ROC with a fuel load giving it exactly the same flight time, ie the B-17 at 50% and the B-24 at something like 60% (haven't the exact number in memory right now). Basically still the same. To get a chart like this, the configuration would have to be extremely different, which doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Then again he may be killing time at work and the data sets just make it look like he is hard at work to his boss..

What's "work"??? 

[guncrasher]

maybe the problem is you rounding to the nearest minute.

semp

[Lusche]

maybe the problem is you rounding to the nearest minute.

semp

No. Look at the second table where I recorded the actual ROC at 5k

And from the HTC climb table, one would expect at least 30% climb time advantage for the B-17. So when the 17 takes 37 minutes to get to 25k, we would expect the B-24 taking about 48 minutes, not 37 too. Clearly no rounding error.

It's only beyond 24k that the B-17 actually pulls away from the B-24.