Author Topic: V1 (Read 685 times)

senna · « **on:** August 09, 2002, 05:30:24 PM »

What are the chances of getting a V1 perked of course in AH. Since we already have the planes that intercepted them, why not give us a V1 rocket. Or maybe this goes with new revised strategy system for bombers? Perhaps this should be packaged with the Meteor jet. If we get a German bomber with guided missile, will that lead the way for an eventual V1 or V2?

BGBMAW · « **Reply #1 on:** August 09, 2002, 08:04:21 PM »

that would be sweet perk a bucnh of v1s' to hit a city or airfiled..lololo

Love BiGB
xoxoxo

Karnak · « **Reply #2 on:** August 09, 2002, 08:28:15 PM »

Which planes do we have that intercepted them?

None that I can see.

Maybe the Tempest I guess, but the Spitfire Mk IX, Spitfire Mk XIV and P-51D are not modeled with 150 octane fuel and the Meteor Mk I is not in the game.

senna · « **Reply #3 on:** August 09, 2002, 09:17:52 PM »

Im just saying that some people mite like sending V1s off to distant targets. It could be fun, well I know it would be fun. Push a button off it goes, wait 30 min, BOOM!

150 octane fuel, um ok (cas I fly allied planes too) but I also have to say stop hijacking my threads for your own agenda of boosting allied planes. The Lufftwaffe are undermodeled and you know it. As for the planes required to attempt interception, we have them all in the planset already.

Karnak · « **Reply #4 on:** August 09, 2002, 09:31:38 PM »

senna,

WTF are you on about? My own agenda of boosting Allied planes? WTF is you're problem? I have never advocated boosting anything.

I am not asking, nor have I ever asked, for Allied aircraft to be "boosted". When "Add the Spit XIV" threads were around I always advocated it being added with 18lbs boost, not 25lbs boost, eg 100 octane not 150 octane fuel. I stand by this.

Because I have the gall to mention that none of the aircraft in AH match the aircraft that were used for V1 busting, a statement which is factual, you conclude that I am asking for 150 octane fuel? Talk about revealing your bias.

I have always advocate only modeling things as accurately as possible. I don't give a damn who built the piece of crap to begin with.

Karnak · « **Reply #5 on:** August 09, 2002, 09:36:46 PM »

As to the LW aircraft being undermodeled, well, there is only one response to that:

senna · « **Reply #6 on:** August 09, 2002, 09:56:56 PM »

Geeze so quick Karnak, was just about to respond. I have no objections to overboosting anything and the use of higher octane fuels to achieve that. Give the Lufftwaffe their MW/GM1 options and true speeds (non MW50/GM-1) and ALSO model all this based on a chart or data showing the engine temps at these boost levels with high oct fuels. Just because you can boost up with high octain fuels doesnt mean you wont overheat sooner as well. High ocatin fuel doesnt produce anymore HP (not much) than lesser octain fuels. Its energy is released on the piston dome with a larger intake charge, the princapal factor being something known as BMEP. Mathmatcially you get more power but you also get more heat. Similar to MW50 really. Fuel is fuel and usually yields the same power output unless it is a designer fuel. Take 110 octain fuel run it in your car, you dont get much improvement except for better burn cas regular gasoline has alot of crap in it. So if we model fuel types then we need more realistic engine management to cover all of the planes within the plane set.

1 ounce of 96 oct fuel yields same energy (BTUs) as 110 oct fuel is what I'm saying. Under different mechanical conditions, 110 will yield more and along with that heat is also assocciated.

senna · « **Reply #7 on:** August 09, 2002, 10:29:50 PM »

I think that trying to model very realistic engine management would be a nightmare for HT since there is alot of data missiong for all of the airplanes in the AH planeset. What about future planes added? It gets really detailed oriented then and in terms of accuracy and all fairness is very difficult I think. IMHO.

Karnak · « **Reply #8 on:** August 09, 2002, 11:23:30 PM »

Spitfire Mk XIV with 100 octane has a deck speed of 357mph.

Spitfire Mk XIV with 150 octane has a deck speed of 385mph or so.

It changes stuff dramatically.

However, all that is beside the point. I don't want 150 octane modeled.

I also note that MW50 and GM1 are modeled on serveral German fighters, so I don't understand your complaint there.

V1s would be fine with me, I was just pointing out that the aircraft used to shoot them down are not really modeled.

As it happens the Fw190D-9, Bf109G-10 and Me262 would make fine anti-V1 interceptors, so from a gameplay stand point there isn't a problem with V1s.

whgates3 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 10, 2002, 02:53:59 AM »

Wing Commander Roland Beamont CBE, DSO, DFC of 150 Wing shot down over 30 doodlebugs w/ the Tempest (Mk. V) the wing got over 600 - see Aeroplane magazine (http://www.aeroplanemonthly.com)
May 2002

Karnak · « **Reply #10 on:** August 10, 2002, 03:26:54 AM »

But were the Tempest's using 100 octane fuel, or 150 octane fuel?

If they were using 150 octane they had totally different performance than the AH Tempest Mk V.

whgates3 · « **Reply #11 on:** August 10, 2002, 03:43:56 AM »

fuel data is not in the article, but certainly the Tempest was faster than the V1

senna · « **Reply #12 on:** August 10, 2002, 03:55:27 AM »

Well I think its based on intercepts then overboosting to get a shot. I cant imagine these guys runing on overboost for any length of time like we would in AH at 100 % throttle all the time. Fried engines, fried engines.

Karnak · « **Reply #13 on:** August 10, 2002, 04:03:18 AM »

senna,

All data I have says that the engines could take far, far more than AH allows us to give them.

Sure, it shortened the time between engine overhauls, but it had no affect in the time frame of one sortie.

A P-38 pilot said that once they were in combat they put the throttle all the way into WEP and left it there for the entire fight, sometimes more than 20 minutes. He said they were told not to, but the reason was not to avoid locking the engine it was to increase engine life spans. Engine life spans are of tertiary importance when you are locked in a life and death struggle 20,000ft over Germany.

A Pratt & Whittney R-2800-59 Double Wasp (P-47D engine) was run at WEP for 90 hours straight without any malfunction. At 90 hours they turned it off, it didn't stop due to malfunction.

Furious · « **Reply #14 on:** August 10, 2002, 03:34:16 PM »

I too would like to see V1's.

For say 50 bomber perks points you select a field within range and fire it off. It stays on course by it self and unless intercepted destroys 80% or more of the town.

Make the launch pads a destoyable object.

F.