october fso - t-60 issue

[gyrene81]

i should probably wait for the scores to be posted but, regarding the t-60 rule on this setup. considering the travel distances just to get to the closest possible location, and very large area where the carriers could be (300? square miles)...is the t-60 rule going to be extended or is there going to be some other adjustment to compensate?

[Dantoo]

Flying flat out, with a reasonably direct route to the CV which was scouted early - we still didn't make it.  Re-think might be in order when laying out next week's directives.

[CptA]

I agree.

With the distances involved, and the planeset available (especially the Japanese) the time and distances need to be watched very carefully.
We were assigned D3As and had to choose a fine line between having enough fuel to return to base (any base), and striking the target within the 60 minute limit.

We started with 100 percent fuel and began a reduced power climb to a resonable attack altitude for a dive bomber. Ground speed was about 110 GS in the climb, and we reached altitude with about 35 minutes remaining to find and strike the target. Cruise speed was appx 175 GS. Range barely adequate for a return. With no scouting reports yet, we realized that this wasn't going to work, so we went to 100 percent power. Our speed climbed to a blistering 220 GS, and fuel range dropped to a one-way figure.

We reached the target area with so little time remaining, that we were not sure if we would get credit even if we did hit the target.
Lexington was on fire from a prior strike when we began our dives. One of my bombs sank the already weakened CV, others went for the CA & DDs. We got hits on several and sank a second ship. We began a fighting withdrawl to the North and destroyed several defenders in the process.

7 survivors made it back to base.

CptA

Nightmares VMF-101

[Wagger]

Let us check and see how close it was.  Flew to target.  Bombed it and took damage to LW fuel tank and lost right landing gear.  Headed strait home.  Ran out of fuel on approach to 26 because my carrier went snorkeling.  Landed successfully.  Time remaining.  Under 1 min.  Closer than I like.  Might want to reconsider T+60 rule for this one.

[Mace2004]

Well for VF15's TBMs it wasn't even close.  We had full fuel and used a high-low profile to target and maximum range engine settings to conserve.  I used only about three or four minutes of wep in the target area but I could only make it halfway back to home plate even when puttering along at max range.  There's no way we had the fuel to fly to target and return even without any combat time.  My squad CO eventually got permission for me to refuel at a nonactive friendly field but my tanks went dry just 100ft from the rearm pad.

[AKP]

Its not just a factor on the T+60 rule I dont think from what i saw, and what I am hearing.  Lets look at it:

1) T+60:  The speed of the attack aircraft in this scenario, and the amount of distance they have to cover is a factor.  The B5N probably averaged about 225, while the TBM averaged about 250.  The dive bombers a little faster.  So any way you look at it, timing is very very close on this one.

2) Fuel Burn: The Japanese aircraft fared much better on this one.  at a 1.5 multiplier, the B5N has a range of 129 minutes (full power, sea level).  The D3A has 108 minutes... and the A6M 105 with a full bag and a drop.  The US never had much of a chance to make it home in regards to fuel.  TBM has 62 minutes, SBD 80 minutes, and the F4F has 41 minutes.  

So... in order to make it to target by T+60 (keeping mind its a target with an unknown position) it was almost impossible to conserve fuel on the way there.  Meaning that almost every attack squadron knew this was probably a one way mission.

It doesnt get much better for the defending squadrons either.  Hovering over target for the amount of time it took the attackers to get to target meant that they were flying on vapors unless they risked a refuel before they got hit.  Not to mention... if the CV was lost... it was almost certain that you were going to have to ditch... as the closest ALLOWED land base was too far away.

It has been a standing rule in FSO that you cannot intentionally plan a "one way" mission.  However, with the 1.5 fuel burn, and distance to targets... there is almost no way around it for this set up... and it is very unrealistic.  

If given orders for a one way mission... the CiC and Squadron CO's should never accept them. 

[Zoney]

My flight:

Took off as soon as flight was enabled in SBD's almost flying directly to CV target.  We maybe wasted 3 to 5 minutes that a closer course could have had but we were not positive exactly where the enemy CV's were.  We were on max fuel conserve as much as possible.  Our timing was pretty good as I dropped at T+60 plus 12 seconds, I was not the first to drop though so the T+60 rule was not broken.  I took some damage as I dropped so I immediately egressed with maximum fule conserve again.  I landed with less than 4 minutes to spare and with 2 gallons on the CV11.

The setup therefore obviously left enough time to do the mission but no time to fight.

I actually had alot of fun making the effort to complete the mission and land on the CV in time, and I was in no position to fight because of my damage.

[gyrene81]

you got lucky zoney, try a d3a1 with the 3 bomb package. on max cruise, if the yorktown had been in grid 14,1 - 15,1 or 16,1 none of the strike force would have made the t-60 limit nor would there been enough fuel to make it to the nearest land base at a26.

it's somewhat obvious there were no timing tests from the furthest points apart.

[Vulcan]

One of our pilots was so depressed about the length of the flight he committed Seppuku in flight oHuskero  moved onto that big ALT-F4 in the sky 

[AKKuya]

Maybe have Frames 2 and 3 be switched to 1.25 fuel burn?

[Viper61]

I flew ALLIED this time and I thought the same thing also about the flight distances, H+60 rule, fuel burn rate of 1.5 and the tiny TBM fuel tank.  The 325th had defensive duty this round so my comments are from that stand point in a F4 defending.

I liked the larger grid areas for the CV to work in myself.  And although harder for the AXIS to find us it was also harder to position the limited amount of AC I could for scouting duty.  And at the Hornet location we only found 1/3 of the incoming Strike Package before they attacked.  So I think the larger grid area works against both sides.

I say shift the H+60 rule to H+80 (extra 20 min)for this scenario only to let the scouts do their mission and the Strike Packages to fly a route other than straight at the center of the grid square and hope for the best.  Also this wont effect the end frame time either.

I say adjust the fuel burn rate back to 1.0.  This would allow the TBM's and SBD's a better chance of getting there and back without having to stop for fuel at a base.  Adjusting the fuel burn rate is the better solution than moving the CV's closer to each other in my opinion.  I like the longer distance set up.

I like the limited fighters and more bombers and the point values as they are.  Its a pretty neat set up and the CIC's have to plan accordingly.  <S> to the planning guys on this one.  I think we have all gotten use to having 2/3 to 1/3 fighters to bombers in general planning.  So this is a nice change in my opinion.  The reality is that D3A's and SBD's will have to be tasked to Fighter Escort duties.  Again a fun change.

The effects of limited fighters is that the escorts have to pick and choose when they engage.  And the defenders have so many bombers to chase you will run out of ammo.  And no matter what some of the bombers will get through and theres no way to stop that.

I think this is a really good scenario and set up, its different and again kudo's to the planners on this.   

Looking forward to Frame 2 and 3

[FiLtH]

One of our pilots was so depressed about the length of the flight he committed Seppuku in flight oHuskero  moved onto that big ALT-F4 in the sky 

  You stinker!

[Reschke]

Fuel burn rate should always be 1.0 in the scenarios and events. There should not be any discussion about that. As for the strike against the Lex...We VF-17 downed 24 planes but lost nearly our entire squadron in the fight. Usually if you knock down that many planes you should have a great frame but we still lost our carrier and our cruiser.

Not sure what the time frame looked like for the first couple of planes that were inbound but we nearly missed the entire B5N strike that was inbound because we were playing tag with the Vals up high. Still cleaned them up and then thought we were home free and then we all saw a third strike group that had Zeroes in it coming into what was left of the task force. I know they were way after the first two which had to have been a recon flight to lead the way to the target.

[Dantoo]

I didn't mention fuel earlier.  Astonishingly, 4 of our 8 planes ran out of fuel as they reached the field and all of those dead-sticked it in safely.
Thrilling but needs a bit of a re-think.

[bortas1]

  dux squad we had a good time, flight was long into the unknown as to where the soho cv was. we had sent a scout plane to find it. he was shot down but gave us the local of cv. we where in a big group of other dont know squad names( sorry guys), dux was the tail end charlie of the squads. but i was glad there where there to show us the way. 
after cv was sighted we all bombed and torped that cv. not sure who actuly sunk it,(wasnt me i missed the dame thing) we had the sbd5s. we dove we bombed we left as fast as that dive bomber could take us out of there.
i had a zero on mt tail at the dive part got a few hits but he pilled off for some reason.
the rest of the squad had zeros all over them, but none shot down.2 had pilot wounds and blew up from that. the rest made it back to a landing strip to land.
but most of the confersation home was how much damage the sbd took and still limped home.  sbd