Some various thoughts and Questions

[Zigrat]

here rises an important question. why should a plane be penalized for the fuel it historically used. that is like saying it should be penalized for having historically worse pilots, or historically worse maintenance.

if you penalize for fuel etcera, then there is an obvious disadvantage to axis aircraft in teh late war. while this is historically cofrrect and important for scenarios, it doesnt reflect the main arena. imo in the main arena all planes should be given the same octane gasoline.

an interesting thing to do would be to hurt the octane rating (and therefore maximum MAP achievable) of enemy aircraft by strategic bombing (ie their oilfields/refineries)

[StSanta]

Zigrat, well, why should the Germans be penalized for not having enough raw material to produce reliable jet engines?

Or why should they be punished for making bad decisions that negatively affected production  and development of aircraft?

Well, because that was the way it was. We g with how it was, not (hopefully) a full fledged what-if scenario.

Better fuel is just as much a weapon as better cannons. The yanks got it right, the Japs were forced to use lower grade.

[Kweassa]

Wait a minute.. Now I'm getting confused here...  

 Ummm... Then, by what standards are the aircraft modelled currently in AH? For instance, if we were talking about Axis aircraft, is it modelled according to the test results and data aquired by the Allies by confistication or capture of enemy aircraft?? Or is it modelled according to the data the Axis originially had?

 If a certain airplane performs in a certain manner, what are the standards?

[AKSWulfe]

Pyro gets data from various sources and people on this message board.

He then averages all of the data together, unless he sees the same data match more than a few times.
-SW

[Hajo]

Main difference  between the G-10 and K4 models thus:

K4 had all wooden tailplane
wingspan g models 29ft. 8in.
wingspan k model  29ft. 4in. or (HA-1109-M1L) 29ft. 11 in.
 engines:
G Models DB 605A-1 with 1475hp or DB605D rated 1800hp with MW50 boost.

K Model "usually" DB 605ASCM/DCM 1550HP, 2000 hp with MW50 boost

Weights: empty: G: 5,880 lbs. to 6180 lbs.
         empty: K4: typically 6,000 lbs.

rate of climb: G: 2700 to 4,000 f/m
               K4: 4,823 f/m

speed: G models: 2 to 10 353 to 428 mph
       K4 model: 452 mph

K4 Models also incorporated the "Galland Hood"

Source: German, Italian, and Japanese Fighters of World War II. Major fighters and attack aircraft of the Axis Powers.

Author: Bill Gunston

[lazs1]

fuel is horsepower.   the japs also had some raw material problems that made for engines with poor clearance problems which is also horsepower.  saki said that he never seen a ki84 that wasn't 30 mph slower than claimed (if it would even run).  Why shouldn't a plane use the fuel and materials that are historic?   The brits had some 150 octane fuel.. should U.S. planes be penalized because they couldn't get any?  Bet a british test of a corsair or 51 with 150 octane fuel would show em to be 480mph planes.  Pratt engines could easily have the boost turned up to produce several hundred extra hp and planes were tested that way but durability and conservative thinking won out on factory settings..  what do you think the 19 year old hot rodder mechanics did to those Pratt's in the field?

as for low hour poor material 262's.... reverse it... why should the nazis be rewarded because they desperately pushed out every half finished deathtrap that they could get to fly?  why should the Americans be penalized because they spent 6 months (they had the luxury to) training pilots and checking every little detail on perfectly good F8 Bearcats that they could have put in the air 6-9 months before they did.. maybe sooner.... and heck... why not run them Bearcats on 150 octane British fuel for the game?
lazs

[Hamish]

Originally posted by lazs1:
why should the Americans be penalized because they spent 6 months (they had the luxury to) training pilots and checking every little detail on perfectly good F8 Bearcats that they could have put in the air 6-9 months before they did.. maybe sooner.... and heck... why not run them Bearcats on 150 octane British fuel for the game?
lazs

Blowin the lid off that can o' worms eh? As mcuh as i'd love to see the bearcat, i can't see it ever getting into the arena, except as a "non-available- only used in total 'What-If?' scenarios" (See BoB II) That's the only place i can see the F8F-1 in... the 4x.50 cal one anyway. Now, the F7F on the other hand, should be in as a perk plane for us Navy fans It was delivered before the end of the war, and had 2 squadrons on thier way to Japan.
Have you seen the Ordnance load on that thing? it's insane!  

<S!> Hamish

[Sombra]

Originally posted by StSanta:

Or why should they be punished for making bad decisions that negatively affected production  and development of aircraft?

I'm thinking now about the He-280...but an early end of the war does not favor the diversity of planes  

greetings

[Nashwan]

The brits had some 150 octane fuel.. should U.S. planes be penalized because they couldn't get any?

Does that mean we can expect Spitfires with 150 octane soon? Seems to me if the Germans and Japanese are getting punished for having poor fuel, the British should get rewarded for having better fuel than the Americans.

[Steven]

>>>That's the only place i can see the F8F-1 in... the 4x.50 cal one anyway. Now, the F7F on the other hand, should be in as a perk plane for us Navy fans It was delivered before the end of the war, and had 2 squadrons on thier way to Japan.<<<

I'm no encyclopedia of knowledge, but it was my understanding the Bearcats had two squadrons on carriers on their way to Japan when the war ended.  Now you have me curious and I'm gonna have to actually look this up.  Thanks!  <g>

-Puke
332nd Flying Mongrels